Tom Petri

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, today, I am introducing of the Income- Dependent Education Assistance (IDEA) Act of 2007. This legislation would provide a new consolidation option for federal Stafford student loan borrowers with an improved repayment schedule through direct IRS collection of payments, along with other new protections for borrowers and taxpayers. I believe that the IDEA Act will address the oft-overlooked side of federal student loan assistance: repayment. For over four decades, most of the discussion regarding federal student loans has primarily focused on making ever-increasing amounts of money available to students to keep up with the rising costs of college tuition. However, providing students with larger loans to attend college leads to another, more complex challenge after graduation. How should students be expected to repay these taxpayerfunded loans? This is an area that has received relatively little attention until recently. With students graduating with ever-increasing debt loads, averaging over $18,000 this year and projected to continue to rise, students are finding it increasingly difficult to make loan payments on time and in full. Unfortunately, little has been done by way of providing more flexible repayment options for borrowers after graduation. Traditionally it has been expected that the borrower will pay the amortized loan over a standard period, usually 10 years, with the same repayment amount on day one as on the last day. However, this model of repayment fails to take into account that students often face periods of significant unemployment or underemployment during the first years after leaving college. As of now, for the most part, the only options available to borrowers are to request a period of forbearance or slip into default, which is bad for both borrower and taxpayers. We simply cannot keep providing more and more money for education if graduates then enter the workforce saddled with payments they can't afford. While there have been some attempts to provide more diverse repayment options, such as the income-contingent loan repayment program available through Direct Lending that has been in existence for over a decade, borrowers have failed to adopt them, usually due to a lack of information or current program limitations. The bottom line is that Congress needs to develop better repayment alternatives for federal student loan borrowers, especially as students continue to take out larger and larger loans in coming years. I believe the IDEA Act does just that. This legislation would allow any Stafford loan borrower the ability to consolidate into a direct IDEA loan with a repayment schedule that corresponds to the borrower's income once in repayment. This new schedule requires regular payments; however, it ensures that such payments reflect the borrowers' capacity to repay under their current income status. This feature would be particularly useful for those pursuing lower-income, public-service careers. It also would help relieve some of the stress that borrowers face during periods of unemployment or underemployment following graduation. Another critical component of this legislation is the direct collection of payments from the borrower through IRS withholdings. By incorporating the IRS directly as the collection entity, the borrower's income is automatically calculated into the repayment system and reduces the odds of fraud or abuse on the part of the borrower or the collection agency. Furthermore, direct IRS collection would simplify the process for borrowers and reduce their paperwork burden as the agency would already have the necessary information on file and in place for processing the payment amounts and schedules. Finally, the IDEA Act stipulates that borrowers that go into default and have exhausted all relief from the loan holder would automatically be consolidated into IDEA loans in order to help them get their payments back on track and avoid costly defaults. Thus the taxpayers' investment will be protected from the damaging effects of borrower default, which currently affects 5.1 percent of federal student loans each year. Madam Speaker, the IDEA Act is an innovative solution to the growing problem of unmanageable debt loads for students. Students would be able to borrow what they need, up to the current Stafford limits, and later consolidate into IDEA loans knowing that their repayment amounts will be within their income levels and ability to pay. On the other hand, taxpayers can count on those loans being repaid as they are collected through the IRS. This is a responsible approach to a serious and growing problem for student loan borrowers.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 890, the bipartisan Student Loan Sunshine Act, as a first step towards comprehensive student loan reform. The series of scandals that have surfaced over the last month have underscored the need for clear and explicit guidance on student lending ethics. These revelations of kickbacks, financial aid officer compensation, lavish travel, and aid office staffing are just a few of the egregious practices lenders have employed to buy access on preferred lender lists and manipulate the trust of both students and taxpayers. In supporting H.R. 890, however, we must remember that these abuses are merely symptoms of a very broken system: the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program. The excessive subsidies made to student lenders through this archaic loan-delivery system cost taxpayers approximately $5 billion more each year than the comparable Direct Loan program. Indeed, the Office of Management and Budget, Congressional Budget Office, Treasury Department, Government Accountability Office, and other economists are all in agreement that the FFEL structure is hemorrhaging taxpayer subsidies. While this wasteful spending is inexcusable, it is even more appalling that none of these excess subsidies filter back down to students in the form of borrower benefits, but rather have been used to underwrite these unethical practices. Let me be very clear, while the Sunshine Act is a positive first step towards reform, we must only consider it a stop-gap measure to limit further abuse of the FFEL program while we develop a comprehensive, structural loan reform. In the coming months, Congress will have another opportunity to consider changes to this nation's higher education laws. The real test of our resolve will be whether we settle for yet another Band-Aid on a broken system or if we work to redesign this system to ensure that critical tax dollars in federal student loans provide the best return on our taxpaying constituents' investment. Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me not only in supporting this bill, but also working towards comprehensive student loan reform. Students and taxpayers deserve better, and Congress has the responsibility to deliver these critical reforms this year.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, today I am reintroducing the Higher Education for Freedom Act. This legislation establishes a competitive grant program making available funds to institutions of higher education, centers within such institutions, and associated nonprofit foundations. These grants would promote programs focused on the teaching and study of traditional American history, free institutions, and the history and achievements of Western Civilization at both the graduate and undergraduate level, including those that serve students enrolled in K-12 teacher education programs. Several years ago I was involved in a congressional effort to highlight the decline in historical and civic literacy among American college students. This effort led to the unanimous, bicameral passage of S. Con. Res. 129 which stated, in part, that ``the historical illiteracy of America's college and university graduates is a serious problem that should be addressed by the Nation's higher education community.'' Given the increased threat to American ideals in the trying times in which we live, it is easy to see how the lack of historical and civic literacy among today's college students has become a more pressing issue. Nevertheless, most of the Nation's colleges and universities no longer require United States history or systematic study of Western civilization and free institutions as a general prerequisite to graduation, or for completing a teacher education program. I believe it is time for Congress to take a more active role in addressing this matter. Our country's higher education system must do a better job of providing the basic knowledge that is essential to full and informed participation in civic life and to the larger vibrancy of the American experiment in self-government, binding together a diverse people into a single nation with common purposes.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. I thank my colleague for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Blumenauer amendment, the bill before us, which would require the Army Corps of Engineers to revise the principles and guidelines under which the Secretary formulates and evaluates water resource projects. It has been almost 25 years since any type of revision has been made to the Corps' decision-making process for formulating, evaluating, and implementing a project. The National Academy of Sciences has twice recommended that these guidelines be updated. We want to be sure that we have a fair and impartial analysis of projects and that we don't set in place a procedure that inevitably leads to the largest projects getting built, not the most cost- effective ones. The amendment is supported by many organizations, including the American Rivers, Taxpayers for Common Sense, and Republicans for Environmental Protection. Up-to-date scientific engineering and environmental tools should be taken into account when looking at projects. As Representative Blumenauer has said, it is time to bring the Corps into the 20th and 21st centuries.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, today, I am introducing the Charitable Driving Tax Relief Act of 2007 to remove a serious disincentive that limits the participation of many in charitable activities. Charitable organizations play an important role in our society, and it is important that Congress not stand in the way by penalizing those who wish to offer their services to these groups. Under current law, individuals that volunteer their time and energy by driving their personal vehicles on behalf of a charitable group can end up with an unpleasant surprise in the form of an unanticipated tax bill. Specifically, volunteer drivers receiving reimbursement for the use of their vehicle are taxed on these payments to the extent that they exceed 14 cents per mile, This treatment stands in stark contract to the 48\1/2\ cent allowance for reimbursement for the business use of that same vehicle. The Charitable Driving Tax Relief Act will equalize the tax treatment of charitable reimbursements with those received for business driving because the point of the payment is essentially the same, that is, to cover the cost of operating a personal vehicle while performing an important service in the pursuit of a greater good. To achieve this end, my legislation would exclude from gross income any reimbursement received for the use of a volunteer's car while assisting a charitable group, limited only by the cap the Internal Revenue Service sets each year regarding business driving. This treatment would be available only for services provided without compensation and drivers would be required to maintain sufficient records to substantiate the charitable use of their vehicles. Finally, this bill drops the requirement that charitable groups report these reimbursements to the IRS, removing an administrative and paperwork burden that detracts resources from their larger purpose. Each day, thousands of Americans lend a hand in providing transportation services to a multitude of organizations engaged in good works. These activities include assisting individuals with their routine grocery shopping, providing the use of a four-wheel drive vehicle to transport home-visit nurses during inclement weather, delivering meals as part of a holiday food drive, helping individuals to keep their medical appointments, and many more similar activities. These volunteer drivers are donating their time and their talents, not their vehicles, and accepting reimbursement for the use of that car, incidental to their time and talent donation, is a reasonable act, which should not result in an additional tax liability. Today, when it comes to driving a personal vehicle, our tax code makes a distinction between business and charitable uses. This distinction is a mistake; it serves as a serious disincentive to charitable activities, and it should be corrected. I encourage my colleagues to support the continued efforts of our charity-minded constituents by cosponsoring the Charitable Driving Tax Relief Act of 2007.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, today Representative Paul Kanjorski and I are introducing bipartisan legislation to establish a program of limited tax credits and tax deductions to get average Americans more involved in the political process. This bill, the Citizens Involvement in Campaigns (CIVIC) Act, will broaden the base of political contributors and limit the influence of big money donors in federal elections. We need to take a fresh look at innovative approaches to campaign finance reform, with special attention paid to ideas that encourage, and not restrict, greater participation in our campaigns. Toward this end, I have been advocating tax credits and deductions for small political contributions for many years. An updated tax credit system would be a simple and effective means of balancing the influence of big money donors and bringing individual contributors back to our campaigns. The impact of this counterweight will reduce the burden of raising money, as well as the appearance of impropriety that accompanies the money chase. Most would agree that the ideal way to finance political campaigns is through a broad base of donors. But, as we are all painfully aware, the economic realities of modern-day campaigning lead many candidates to focus most of their efforts on collecting funds from a few large donors. This reality alienates many Americans from the political process. The concept of empowering small donors is not a new idea. For example, from 1972 to 1986, the federal government offered a tax credit for small political contributions. This provided an incentive for average Americans to contribute to campaigns in small amounts while simultaneously encouraging politicians to solicit donations from a larger pool of contributors. Currently, 6 geographically and politically diverse States (Oregon, Minnesota, Ohio, Virginia, Arkansas, and Arizona) offer their own tax credits for political contributions. These state-level credits vary in many respects, but all share the same goal of encouraging average Americans to become more involved. The CIVIC Act can begin the process of building this counterweight for federal elections. This bill is designed to encourage Americans who ordinarily do not get involved in politics beyond casting a vote every 2 or 4 years (that is, if they bother to vote at all) to become more active participants in our political process. The CIVIC Act will reestablish and update the discontinued federal tax credit. Taxpayers can choose between a 100 percent tax credit for political contributions to Federal candidates or national political parties (limited to $200 per taxable year), or a 100 percent tax deduction (limited to $600 per taxable year). Both limits, of course, are doubled for joint returns. As long as political parties and candidates promote the existence of these credits, the program can have a real impact and aid in making elections more grassroots affairs than they are today. A limited tax credit for political contributions can be a bipartisan, cost-efficient method for helping balance the influence of large money donors in the American electoral process. Instead of driving away most Americans from participation in political life, we can offer an invitation for citizens to play a larger role in political campaigns. It seems to me that this will be a fruitful way to clean up our system, while at the same time convincing Americans that they actually have a meaningful stake in elections.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, today, along with six of my colleagues, I am introducing legislation to increase the disclosure requirements for telephone ``push polls.'' As many candidates for Federal office have learned through personal experience, these push polls are not legitimate telephone surveys, but ``smear polls,'' campaign devices designed to smear a candidate under the guise of a standard opinion poll. Legitimate polls are designed to gather information helping candidates to focus their campaigns and refine their messages. Smear polls, on the other hand, are intended to spread information damaging the reputation of one's opponent without public debate or discussion. Imagine a voter, who has been identified as a supporter of candidate X, being asked in a survey if such support would continue if it was learned that candidate X was guilty of a terrible indiscretion or an outright crime. It doesn't matter whether the allegations are true because the idea that candidate X is somehow unfit for office has been planted successfully. This is a telephone ``smear'' poll. My legislation, the Push Poll Disclosure Act of 2007, combats this practice by exposing it to the light of day. Specifically, the bill requires that each participant in a Federal election poll be told the identity of the survey's sponsor whenever at least 1,200 households are included. It also requires further disclosures when a survey's results are not to be released to the public. In this case, the cost of the poll and the sources of its funding must be reported to the Federal Election Commission, along with a count of the households contacted and a transcript of the questions asked. The Push Poll Disclosure Act of 2007 is a simple bill. It will not hinder legitimate polling, nor will it burden polling firms with excessive regulations. What this bill does do, however, is regulate smear polls for what they are--campaign activities, and questionable ones at that. This legislation is noncontroversial and should be bipartisan, and its passage will make campaigns for Federal office a little bit cleaner. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, introduced by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) on January 16, 2007, conveys the final interest retained by the United States in St. Joseph Memorial Hall in St. Joseph, Michigan. St. Joseph, Michigan, is in the process of redeveloping an area of town that will link downtown with the beautiful lakefront district. Removing the deed restriction will allow St. Joseph to create a recreational, educational, and cultural district that benefits the entire community. This redevelopment will make the city a more attractive place to work, live and play while improving the local economy. H.R. 494 will allow St. Joseph Memorial Hall to be incorporated into these redevelopment plans. Under the current restriction, redevelopment of the area may be impeded by a deed restriction placed on the property by the Federal Government more than 70 years ago. The deed restriction on Memorial Hall has remained despite the fact that similar deed restrictions in the city have been lifted. If not lifted, limitations on this tiny parcel of land located in the center of the redevelopment will significantly jeopardize the city's plan. The bill before us is a commonsense solution that will allow the city of St. Joseph to proceed with redevelopment. In the 109th Congress, the House recognized this as a sensible, simple solution and passed the same language in H.R. 4700. I support this measure, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of our committee, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, H.R. 1129, introduced by Representative Russ Carnahan of Missouri, provides for the construction, operation and maintenance of an arterial road in St. Louis County, Missouri, over deed-restricted property and requires that county to restrict a nearby parcel of land for open space, recreation or wetland management. The bill allows construction of a surface road across property purchased with Federal funds. Following the 1993 Midwest floods, this property was purchased for the purpose of clearing the floodplain of homes to prevent future flood losses. The bill requires St. Louis County to ensure that this project will not cause future flood damage. If there is flood damage caused by this project, the bill assigns liability to St. Louis County. This property will remain permanently ineligible for Federal disaster assistance. The Federal interest in reducing Federal disaster costs remains protected. This project is not setting precedent. In the past, exceptions have been made to allow for road and public works development on deed restricted properties. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I plan to vote for this resolution, but to surge or not to surge, that is the wrong question. Just saying ``no'' is simple obstructionism. What we need is a new way forward to replace the old way that is not getting us anywhere. It has become clear that trying to establish a multiethnic Iraqi democracy, while laudable, simply cannot be accomplished by non-Iraqis. The fact is, Iraq has never been a unified country with enough common interest to foster the give and take of democracy. During the First World War, Britain seized the Mesopotamian region from the collapsing Ottoman Empire. Iraq was created out of three separate provinces to keep the Turks out while allowing the British access to the local oil. Captain Arnold Wilson, the British civil commissioner in Baghdad, argued that the creation of the new state was a recipe for disaster. He warned that the deep differences among the three main communities, the Sunni, Shia and Kurds, ensured the new country could only be run by what he called the antithesis of democratic government. After a rebellion in 1920, which resulted in the deaths of some 2,000 British soldiers and 8,000 Iraqis, the British, through the leadership of Secretary of War Winston Churchill, largely extricated themselves by choosing a Sunni to be king and strongman. In light of this history, we should seriously consider that we have two basic options: First, choose a faction to stabilize and rule the country through force, much as all of Iraq's previous regimes did, and that is hardly an attractive option. Or, second, bring about a partition of the country, to form a loose confederation where the Shias, the Sunnis and the Kurds can each govern themselves while leaving the others alone. Our enterprise in Iraq has been carried out with the best of intentions, and our men and women in the Armed Forces have performed with great heroism, skill, and honor. But we have to accept reality. We have a responsibility to help stabilize the situation, and doing so is in our national interest. But I don't think it is fair to ask our sons and daughters to be policemen in a civil war. Sadly, it seems that most Iraqis do not embrace democratic government unless it is dominated exclusively by their own individual groups. The Sunnis, the Shia and the Kurds are willing and able to establish law and order within their own ethnically homogenous areas. The efforts to push out other areas currently underway in Iraq are deplorable, but it is surely not unexpected given Iraq's history and desperate situation. The sectarian militias have popular support because they have easily understood plans to establish security within their spheres for their own people. Instead of fighting the militias, we need to co-opt them. We need to help acceptable local tribal leaders, government leaders and religious authorities establish authority over their areas. We also need to seek the positive involvement of Iraq's neighbors. Some of them may be meddling, or may be tempted to meddle, but at the end of the day, instability in Iraq means instability for everybody in the region. Let's set about the task of helping Iraq's three main groups to regroup and stabilize their own territories so that we can withdraw to our bases and ultimately get out all together.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, today I am again joining with my colleague, Chairman George Miller, to reintroduce our Student Aid Reward (STAR) Act, which would provide billions of dollars in additional aid to students at no additional cost to taxpayers. Now, more than ever, millions of low and middle-income families are struggling to help their children attend college in the face of rising tuition costs and limited financial assistance. The STAR Act is a fiscally-responsible plan that could help make college more affordable and accessible for these students. The STAR Act is rooted in my longstanding belief that we have a fundamental obligation to our constituents to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in government spending wherever it exists. Our legislation would encourage colleges and universities to utilize the less expensive of the federal government's two main student loan programs. In doing so, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the STAR Act would save taxpayers $13.4 billion in wasteful subsidies--which would instead be devoted to increase student aid to low and middle-income students who need it most. The real opportunity in this legislation is that it would allow for an increased investment in education while not costing taxpayers a single penny more. In fact, under the STAR program, there would be enough savings not only to return half to schools that switch to the more cost-effective program, but also to provide an additional 25 percent of those savings to schools that were previously enrolled in the cost-effective program and thus already saving taxpayers money. The final 25 percent would be devoted towards deficit reduction. All these savings are to be made possible due to the startling difference in the cost between the two federal student loan programs. For the current fiscal year, the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program costs more than the exact same loan administered under the Direct Loan (DL) program. According to President Bush's 2008 education budget, student loans made through the more expensive program in 2007 cost $3 more for every $100 lent than the same loans made with U.S. Treasury funds. Beyond the Office of Management and Budget, other budget experts continue to confirm this cost difference. Earlier this week, the Congressional Budget Office released a score that projected savings from this amendment in the amount of $13.4 billion over the next 10 years--and that's if only 15 percent of colleges choose to participate in the Student Aid Reward program by switching from the FFEL to the DL program. Those savings would be even more substantial with increased participation. It is important to note that the STAR Act would not mandate that schools select the most cost-effective program, although we hope that they would. Under this bill, each college retains their ability to choose their student loan program. Those who choose to be more responsible with taxpayers money would be rewarded with a portion of the savings. Those that decide to continue with the more expensive program face no penalties, other than a missed opportunity to use taxpayer savings to boost their students' Pell Grants. Furthermore, each school would have the choice to leave the STAR program at the end of their 5-year contract if they are not satisfied with the results for their students. A critical component of this program is that it is budget neutral. Any reward payments to schools are contingent upon actual taxpayer savings that year. We are confident that these savings not only exist, but amount to several billion dollars annually. Both the CBO and OMB continue to confirm this year after year. The overarching reason that the FFEL program is so much more expensive than the DL program is the excessive subsidies paid to lenders each year to issue loans. As all lenders are guaranteed the exact same subsidies, regardless of their costs and efficiency, lenders do not compete for the benefit of taxpayers, only among themselves for market share. This practice is not only unnecessary but it is irresponsible--especially when the DL program has no similar costs. The taxpayers not only pay interest subsidies to private lenders, they also subsidize the 13 guaranty agencies that purchase loans from the lenders after a certain period of time has passed. This is also a wasteful practice--especially when the DL program has no similar cost. I would like to reiterate that this legislation would in no way mandate that schools choose the DL program over the FFEL program, or even that the DL program will always necessarily be the most cost- effective program. Instead, the legislation stipulates that the Secretary of Education shall determine each year which program is most cost-effective to taxpayers and that schools who participate in that program receive some of the savings. The Secretary would do this by making use of the best data available each year. Madam Speaker, I believe that as stewards of taxpayers' money, Congress should always seek to make government more efficient and more accountable. Our legislation is smart policy: voluntary for schools, fiscally-responsible, and would provide over $10 billion in additional aid over the next 10 years. I encourage my colleagues to join Rep. Miller and me in cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, I am reintroducing legislation to honor a true American hero by awarding him the Medal of Honor. Sixty-two years ago this past Sunday, on January 28, 1945, during the Battle of the Bulge, then Lt. James Megellas led his platoon of the 82nd Airborne Division on a surprise and devastating attack on a much larger advancing German force, killing and capturing a large number of the enemy and causing others to flee. In an act of fearless courage, Lt. Megellas single-handedly destroyed an attacking German Mark V tank with two hand-held grenades. He then led the charge of his men and seized Herresbach, Belgium, during this fierce action of the Battle of the Bulge. Due to his aggressive, fearless and superior leadership, Lt. James Megellas inspired his men to excel. After serving four years as a rifle platoon leader during World War II, including many combat jumps into Italy and Holland, James Megellas left the active Army and served for 16 years in the Army Reserve. He retired after 20 years of service as a lieutenant colonel. His awards and decorations include the Distinguished Service Cross, two Silver Star Medals, two Bronze Star Medals, two Purple Hearts, and he is credited with being the 82nd Airborne Division's most decorated officer. During World War II, General James Gavin selected one 82nd officer--Lt. James Megellas--to receive the Military Order of Willhelm Orange Lanyard from the Dutch Minister of War on behalf of his division. To this day, James Megellas continues to inspire. In February 2006, 61 years after that momentous battle, James ``Maggie'' Megellas set foot on a battlefield with fellow 82nd Airborne Division soldiers, this time in a current theater of war--Afghanistan. James Megellas was impressed with what he saw of the paratroopers and their work. He listened to their stories of the past year of deployment and shared with them his own experiences during World War II. ``Maggie'' continues to inspire by speaking to groups across the country about his experiences and is planning to observe his 90th birthday in Iraq this March with the 82nd Airborne troops. I urge my colleagues to recognize James ``Maggie'' Megellas by supporting this bill to authorize and request the President to award him the Medal of Honor for his acts of valor on January 28, 1945, during the Battle of the Bulge. As time goes by, true heroes should not be forgotten, so please join me in honoring this outstanding American hero.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, today, I am reintroducing the Troops to Teachers Improvement Act to improve opportunities for veterans to transition into second careers in teaching. I am pleased to once again be joined in this effort by Congresswoman Doris Matsui. I have been a supporter of the Troops to Teachers program since its authorization, and I am proud of its success over the last decade. Since 1994, this program has placed nearly 10,000 veterans in our nation's classrooms. Troops to Teachers is a unique program that provides retiring military with a $5,000 stipend to help cover the costs of teaching certification in exchange for three years service in a high-need school, which until recently was defined as receiving grants under part A of Title I. To further encourage participants to teach in schools with the greatest need, a $10,000 bonus is offered to those who agree to teach for three years in a school with 50% of students below the poverty level. This structure has proven very effective in transitioning qualified retiring military personnel into second careers in teaching. Indeed, Troops participants fill several critical needs among educators: eighty-two percent are male, over one-third ethnic minorities, and a majority bring an expertise in science and math to the classroom. In an increasingly globalized economy, these valuable characteristics provide a vital resource for schools across the country. However, this success is now in jeopardy due to a drafting error in the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act which has inadvertently restricted the number of schools at which participants may fulfill their service. The applicable definition for ``high-need local education agencies'' for Troops to Teachers was inadvertently changed as it was included in the section of the legislation regarding other alternative programs that had a different definition. This stricter definition requires a higher threshold for ``high-need,'' requiring the school to have either 10,000 students or 20% of students from families below the poverty level. However, the original Title I definition of high-need was also retained in the law in the section specifically detailing the Troops program. Essentially, Congress inadvertently created two conflicting definitions of ``high-need'' with regard to this program. Early on, the Department of Education and the Troops to Teachers program recognized this unintended change in law and worked together to address it. From 2003-2005, while discussions were being held on how to reconcile this discrepancy, the program continued to operate under the original and intended definition. However, after the completion of a negotiated rulemaking process in September 2005, the Department issued a regulation stating that the new, stricter definition was not an error but congressional intent. As one of the leading supporters of this program during the drafting of No Child Left Behind, I can assure my colleagues that this was clearly not the intent of the supporters of the program. Madam Speaker, the unfortunate result of this, aside from limiting the number of schools at which veterans may teach and honor their obligation of three-years service, is that it has disproportionately impacted western and rural states. In my home state of Wisconsin, the number of eligible school districts has been reduced from approximately 400 to 11. Not surprisingly, participation in the program has fallen significantly since the implementation of the new definition last year. This decision, although understandable given the conflicting definitions contained in the law, is a disservice both to veterans wishing to continue their service to our nation as educators as well as children who stand to benefit from their unique expertise. The bottom line is that we are losing out on great teachers because they cannot accept the certification stipend due to a lack of schools meeting the higher needs threshold in their community. The more we restrict opportunities for participation, the fewer teachers we will be able to bring into public education, and the fewer teachers we will eventually be able to attract to the schools with the greatest need. Further, given the President's recent focus on the need for more math and science teachers, as well as his support for adjunct and alternative routes to teaching programs, we should be removing, not creating, restrictions that prevent qualified teachers in these areas from teaching in our Nation's classrooms. Madam Speaker, with Troops to Teachers, the Department already has an established program that is well-funded and successful. Rather than restricting it, we should be maximizing this program's potential. This bill would still require participants to teach in high-need schools, as defined by the Department, but if no such school exists within a 50- mile radius of the participant, that participant will be eligible to fulfill the obligation in a school that serves low-income students under the original definition. This ensures that Troops participants teach in high-need schools first and foremost, but are not locked out of the program based on the demographic make-up of their communities. This is a pragmatic solution that is perfectly consistent with the spirit of No Child Left Behind while also supporting our veterans and students by maximizing opportunities for participation. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this successful program and restoring the opportunity to ``serve again'' to our Nation's veterans.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, 4 years ago this Congress passed the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002. That piece of legislation expired September 30. The bill before us, H.R. 5782, reauthorizes the Federal pipeline safety programs through 2010 and amends existing pipeline safety law to enhance the safety and reliability of transporting the Nation's energy products by pipelines. By all accounts, the 2002 safety bill was an overwhelming success and, therefore, this bill does not deviate from the directions set forth in that legislation. This bill provides the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration with new civil penalty authority to enforce One-Call laws in States that do not adequately enforce those laws. This enforcement authority is balanced in the sense that it could be used on an operator who fails to respond to a pipeline location request or fails to accurately mark the location of a pipeline, as well as an excavator who fails to use the One-Call system or disregards location information or markings. The bill also provides incentives to States to adopt and implement a comprehensive State damage prevention program and provides guidance to States on elements for an effective underground damage program. The bill requires the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to establish a distribution and integrity management program which pipeline operators must implement and requires that the administration develop regulations for the operation of low stress hazardous liquid pipelines. This bill also directs the administration to develop standards to reduce risks in pipeline control rooms associated with human factors, including operator fatigue. I am happy to say that this bill has received broad support from the administration, the States, the pipeline safety advocates, and others in the pipeline community. It is also important to point out that this bill was developed in conjunction with the House Energy and Commerce Committee. In addition, the Senate Commerce Committee supports this bill and is scheduled to take it up before the end of the week. Mr. Speaker, I support this important legislation. Before I yield back the balance of my time, and as this may be the final bill from the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines to be considered here on the floor of our House this Congress, I would just like to take a moment to pay tribute to my chairman, Don Young from Alaska, to salute his 6 years of leadership on our committee. I have enjoyed serving as part of his team on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I would also like to say to my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle, Mr. Oberstar and Mr. Peter DeFazio, that I believe we have done some good work during this Congress, and I look forward to continuing to work together to accomplish good things for the country in the 110th Congress. Finally, I would like to say a word of thank you for a job well done to the staff of the subcommittee, who have labored diligently on our subcommittee matters. On the Republican side, Graham Hill, Jim Tymon, Joyce Rose, Suzanne Newhouse, Bailey Edwards and Tim Lindquist. On the Democratic side, Ken House, Art Chan, Stephanie Manning and Jackie Schmitz. Thank you for a job well done.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the Troops to Teachers Improvement Act of 2006, along with Congresswoman Doris Matsui, to improve opportunities for veterans to transition into second careers in teaching. I have been a supporter of the Troops to Teachers program since its authorization and I am proud of its success over the last decade. Since 1994, this program has placed nearly 10,000 veterans in our nation's classrooms. Troops to Teachers is a unique program that provides veterans with a $5,000 stipend to help cover the costs of teaching certification in exchange for three years service in a high-need school, which until recently was defined as receiving grants under part A of Title I. To further encourage participants to teach in schools with the greatest need, a $10,000 bonus is offered to those who agree to teach for three years in a school with 50 percent of students below the poverty level. This structure has proven very effective in transitioning qualified retiring military personnel into second careers in teaching. Indeed, Troops participants fill several critical needs among educators: eighty-two percent are male, over one-third ethnic minorities, and a majority bring an expertise in science and math to the classroom. In an increasingly globalized economy, these valuable characteristics provide a vital resource for schools across the country. However, this success is now in jeopardy due to a drafting error in the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act which has inadvertently restricted the number of schools in which participants may fulfill their service. The applicable definition for ``high-need local education agencies'' for Troops to Teachers was inadvertently changed as it was included in the section of the legislation regarding other alternative programs that had a different definition. This stricter definition requires a higher threshold for ``high-need'' requiring the school to have either 10,000 students or 20 percent of students from families below the poverty level. However, the original Title I definition of high-need was also retained in the law in the section specifically detailing the Troops program. Essentially, Congress accidentally created two conflicting definitions of ``high-need'' with regard to this program. Early on, the Department and the Troops to Teachers program recognized this unintended, change in law and worked together to address it. From 2003-2005, while discussions were being held on how to reconcile this discrepancy, the program continued to operate under the original and intended definition. However, after the completion of a negotiated rulemaking process in September 2005, the Department issued a regulation stating that the new, stricter definition was not an error but congressional intent. As one of the leading supporters of this program during the drafting of No Child Left Behind, I can assure my colleagues that this was clearly not the intent of the supporters of the program. Mr. Speaker, the unfortunate result of this, aside from limiting the number of schools in which veterans may teach and honor their obligation of three-years service in this program, is that it has disproportionately impacted western and rural states. In my home state of Wisconsin, the number of eligible school districts has been reduced from approximately 400 to 11. Not surprisingly, participation in the programs has fallen significantly since the implementation of the new definition last year. This decision, although understandable given the conflicting definitions contained in the law, is a disservice both to veterans wishing to continue their service to our nation as educators as well as children who stand to benefit from their unique expertise. The bottom line is that we are losing out on great teachers because they cannot accept the certification stipend due to a lack of schools meeting the higher needs threshold in their community. The more we restrict opportunities for participation, the fewer teachers we will be able to bring into public education, and the fewer teachers we will eventually be able to attract to the schools with the greatest need. Further, given the President's recent focus on the need for more math and science teachers, as well as their support for adjunct and alternative routes to teaching programs, we should be removing, not creating, restrictions that prevent qualified teachers in these areas from teaching in our nations classrooms. Mr. Speaker, with Troops to Teachers, the Department already has an established program that is well-funded and successful. Rather than restricting it, we should be maximizing this program's potential. The bill we introduce today simply clears the confusion surrounding the conflicting definitions of ``high-need'' and represents a compromise between the two. Specifically, it allows for participants to teach in high-need schools, as defined by having received grants under part A of Title I, if no other school, for which the member is qualified to teach, under the new definition exists within a 50 mile radius of the participant's residence. This is a pragmatic solution that is perfectly in-line with the spirit of No Child Left Behind while also supporting our veterans and students by maximizing opportunities for participation. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this successful program and restoring the opportunity to ``serve again'' to our nation's veterans.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill now under consideration.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This bill will designate the State Route 1 bridge in the State of Delaware as the Senator William V. Roth, Jr. Bridge. Senator Roth began his public service when he was elected to the House in 1966. He served two terms in the House before being elected to the Senate in 1970, where he served for 30 years. During that time, Bill Roth rose to the chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and the Senate Finance Committee. Senator Roth was a well-known fiscal conservative who is probably best known outside his home State of Delaware as the creator of the individual retirement account that bears his name, the Roth IRA. I would note that the Senate passed this bill by unanimous consent last year, and our colleague, Representative Mike Castle, has introduced an identical bill here in the House. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support S. 1140. Naming this bridge after Senator Roth is a fitting tribute to his many years of public service. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1140) to designate the State Route 1 Bridge in the State of Delaware as the ``Senator William V. Roth, Jr. Bridge''.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6121) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize a program relating to the Lake Pontchartrain Basin, and for other purposes.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 6121, to reauthorize the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program. The Lake Pontchartrain Basin is a 5,000 square mile watershed encompassing 16 parishes in Louisiana and four Mississippi counties. The area comprises the largest estuary in the gulf coast region and one of the largest estuaries in these United States. In 2000, Congress added section 121 to the Clean Water Act to establish a Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program within EPA. The program authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to help people in Louisiana and Mississippi address pollution problems affecting Lake Pontchartrain. Now it is time to reauthorize the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Program. H.R. 6121, introduced by Mr. Baker, would reauthorize the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program for an additional 5 years. I would like to commend Representative Baker for his efforts to restore the ecological health of Lake Pontchartrain, and I urge all Members to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my support for the bill before us, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, which is the Senate version of legislation I introduced earlier this Congress. The bipartisan legislation that passed the Senate by unanimous consent amends the existing animal enterprise terrorism statute which has been law since 1992. It extends existing protections for animal enterprises to individuals, businesses and agencies including farmers, scientists, biomedical and biotechnical industries, research universities, teaching hospitals, financial institutions and others who have associations with animal enterprise. This legislation is in response to rising incidents of violence and threats against these entities as a way to adversely impact animal enterprises without directly violating the existing Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. The bill before us clarifies that it is a crime to damage or interfere with animal enterprise and expands parameters in existing law to cover threats, harassment and other illegal activities against those who are connected with such enterprises, not just the enterprises themselves. The law increases criminal penalties based on the level of violence or property loss, while specifically exempting from its coverage all first amendment protected activities. Between January of 1990 and June of 2004, extremist movements such as the Animal Liberation Front, Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty, and the Environmental Liberation Front committed more than 1,100 acts of terrorism, causing more than $120 million in damage. Animal rights extremists advance their cause through direct action, which includes death threats, vandalism, animal releases and bombings. Their actions are calculated to aggressively intimidate and harass those identified as targets. The FBI considers these extremist groups among its most serious domestic threats. Current Federal law including the Animal Enterprise Protection act is inadequate to address the threats and violence committed by animal rights extremists. In my own State of Wisconsin, mink farmers and biomedical researchers have experienced their own share of intimidation, harassment and vandalism at the hands of animal rights extremists. Farmers have had their properties raided, causing thousands of dollars of damage. Scientists around the State have received, in the mail or at their home, razor blades with letters stating that they were laced with the AIDS virus. Personal information such as home addresses, phone numbers, and photographs of researchers have been posted on extremist Web sites. Many of these same scientists report death threats and home visits by animal rights extremists who, through their terrorism, have a goal of driving the scientists out of their research, research which has and will continue to improve human health and quality of life. The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security held a hearing on the act in May of this year. At the hearing, a primate researcher from the University of Wisconsin, Madison, testified about the harassment and intimidation which she has experienced. She has even considered leaving the Parkinson's research field and fears others may do so in the current environment. This statement has proven to be true. Just this past August, a researcher at UCLA halted his primate research because of the repeated harassments by animal rights extremists. The bill will provide Federal authorities with the necessary tools to help prevent and better investigate and prosecute ecoterror cases. This legislation is widely supported by those in agriculture, biomedical and biotechnology industries, as well as many research universities, teaching hospitals and other research institutes. Enactment of this legislation will enhance the ability of law enforcement and the Justice Department to protect law-abiding American citizens from violence and the threat of violence posed by animal rights extremists. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleague, Chairman Sensenbrenner, Subcommittee Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Conyers, Subcommittee Ranking Member Robert Scott, Senator Inhofe and Senator Feinstein for their support in moving this bill forward. Mr. Speaker, I also have a letter from Advance Publications that details some of the violent and threatening acts made against editors of their magazines, such as Vogue, because of the fashion industry's use of fur or animal products that would be covered under this legislation. Advance Publications, Inc., Staten Island, NY, November 13, 2006. Re Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act S. 3880 Hon. Thomas E. Petri, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Petri: I write to support the passage of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, S. 3880. Advance Publications is engaged throughout the United States in the publication of newspapers, business journals, and consumer magazines and websites on a variety of topics. Advance Publications is also affiliated with Bright House Networks, an operator of cable television systems in numerous states. For your information, a representative listing of Advance's publications and of the locations of Bright House Networks' cable systems is attached. Our interest in this bill arises from the unfortunate fact that at least one of our publications, Vogue magazine, and its editor, Anna Wintour, have been repeatedly targeted by animal activists who disagree with Vogue magazine's decision to publish editorial content about, and carry advertising for, fur and other animal products, and its support for fashion designers who may use fur. These opponents are, of course, entitled to express their views, but their opposition often takes the form of physical attacks on Ms. Wintour and her home, threats and efforts to harm her, stalking her on the streets and at industry events, and even at a memorial service for her deceased father, and at least one actual physical invasion of Vogue's offices (which put numerous persons in fear, behind locked doors), as well as other attempts to do so. While fortunately Ms. Wintour has not yet sustained any serious lasting injuries, she has suffered physical pain from those attacks (for example, from a ``flour bomb'' thrown in her eyes, the effects of which hurt and hampered her for days) and has often with good cause been concerned for her safety and the safety of her family. Indeed, when Ms. Wintour is appearing in public as part of her job (for example, at fashion shows or fashion industry events), we now feel we must provide guards, sometimes armed, to protect her. On a number of occasions we are convinced, had it not been for the presence of these unusual safeguards, Ms. Wintour could have been injured by the efforts to make physical attacks on her. We are of course concerned that these extreme activists will step up the severity of their attacks because their efforts have so far been unsuccessful at silencing Vogue. We understand that among the arguments made in opposition to the AETA are alleged concerns that it may infringe on First Amendment rights. Our business is wholly dependent upon respect for First Amendment rights, and we are second to none in our defense of such rights. We have closely examined the AETA with this in mind, and we do not agree that the AETA, especially with the ``rules of construction'' that were added to it, in any way would inhibit or punish free speech or other First Amendment rights. If anything, the opposite is the case. The real chilling effect on First Amendment rights comes about when editors and others are put in fear of physical, violent attack because of what they publish or say. It is the violent animal activists who diminish free speech and free press by threatening and attacking editors, publications, and telecasters. We strongly believe that enactment of S. 3880 will serve to deter many persons from engaging in these and worse violent and threatening acts in the future. In addition, the new law will give prosecutors a powerful new tool to go after those who continue to commit these acts. Please let me know if we can provide any further information that would be helpful to you. Very truly yours, S.I. Newhouse, Jr., Chairman.