Tom Petri

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 1131, expressing support for the designation of the week of April 18 through 23 of this year as National Assistant Principals Week. The successful operation of an educational institution requires competent administrators. An assistant principal, sometimes called a ``vice principal'' or a ``deputy principal,'' assists the principal in the general governance and leadership of a school. Assistant principals are often responsible for student discipline, for classroom observations, for teacher evaluation and supervision, for facilitating parent meetings, for maintaining schedules, and for handling logistical matters. Additionally, the assistant principals frequently serve as testing coordinators; they assist in training staff on procedures related to standardized assessment as well as to account for testing materials. In addition to these duties, assistant principals are instructional leaders. Assistant principals are members of the school's administrative team who interact with virtually every sector of the school community including support staff, instructional staff, students and parents. As a result of being the center of activity, they are able to foster positive relationships and resolve conflicts among all stakeholders throughout the school community. These administrators play a key role in the leadership of the school by mentoring teachers, encouraging collaboration, and monitoring student achievement while ensuring that all students thrive in a safe, inviting, and orderly environment that is conducive to learning. Today we recognize assistant principals in elementary, middle, and high school throughout the Nation for their dedication to the educational advancement of our children. We honor them for the contribution that they have made in ensuring that every child has access to a high-quality education. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution before us, H. Res. 1293, expressing support for the goals and ideals of National Child Abuse Prevention Month. Child abuse is an unfortunate reality for many of the Nation's children. No child should have to experience abuse or neglect, but cases of such are reported every day. Recent data from 2008 indicate that 772,000 children were victims of child abuse and neglect and that 1,740 children died as a result of child abuse and neglect. Eighty percent of those children were under the age of 4. Besides the immediate physical and emotional pain that abuse and neglect can inflict on a child, these experiences can have long-term effects on the victims as well. Data show abused and neglected children are at a higher risk of developing health problems, such as alcoholism, depression, drug abuse, and obesity in adulthood. A National Institute of Justice study indicates that children who are abused or who are neglected are 11 times more likely to be arrested for delinquent behavior as juveniles and are 2.7 times more likely to be arrested for violent and criminal behavior as adults. National Child Abuse Prevention Month aims to raise awareness about child abuse and neglect and to encourage individuals and communities to support children and families, as community awareness and involvement is paramount to the prevention of child abuse and neglect, and the goals of National Child Abuse Prevention Month encourage members of every community to support the children in that community. I would like to thank my colleague, Congresswoman Judy Biggert of Illinois, for introducing this important legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to support House Resolution 1293, supporting the goals and ideals of National Child Abuse Prevention Month.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today we are considering an amendment to H.R. 1586, the Senate-passed FAA reauthorization bill which will substitute two previously considered and passed House bills: H.R. 915, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009 and H.R. 3371, the Airline Safety and Pilot Training Improvement Act of 2009. This is a procedural process deemed necessary in order for the House and Senate to enter into negotiations to reconcile the differences in each Chamber's FAA reauthorization bill. While I support the process moving forward, I cannot support the House amendment to H.R. 1586 due to the inclusion of several controversial provisions in the House FAA reauthorization bill being inserted by the amendment. Certainly we all agree that we need a final bipartisan and bicameral FAA reauthorization bill, and we need it sooner rather than later. With the latest of 13 extensions having passed the House just yesterday, the FAA is still working under the 2003 FAA reauthorization. This is a very untenable situation, so the urgency of this legislation remains. The American Society of Civil Engineers periodically issues an infrastructure report card, and its 2009 report card gives aviation a grade of only a D. This was actually a lower grade than the D-plus earned in its 2005 report card. So the condition of our aviation infrastructure in the United States is getting worse, not better. The amendment includes a provision from H.R. 915 that increases Federal investment in aviation infrastructure with funding for the Airport Improvement Program increased to a total of $12.3 billion over 3 years. The facilities and equipment program is increased to $10.1 billion. The amendment, through a H.R. 915 provision, also increases the cap on the level of passenger facility charges that an airport can impose for capacity and safety improvements. The cap was last raised 10 years ago, and the $4.50 maximum charge is now worth far less due to the passage of time, as well as high construction cost inflation. One of the most important initiatives under way at the FAA is the modernization of our air traffic control system known as NextGen. We must transition from the 50-year-old ground-based technology to a modern satellite-based system in order to increase capacity, lower costs and increase safety and efficiency in our system. The legislation before us seeks to move this process along while instilling accountability. Congress will need to provide effective oversight to be sure the program stays on track and that we have the financial resources for the $15 billion-$20 billion in government costs for this multi-year program to keep moving forward. Our chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Costello, has been very active in providing oversight. The amendment, with the inclusion of H.R. 915 provisions, also improves safety, provides noise mitigation and enhances environmental initiatives. Passenger rights would be addressed by ensuring that airlines and airports plan for the care of passengers who are trapped in long delays on tarmacs. It also mandates the establishment of a process to avoid airline overscheduling that inevitably leads to delay. The House amendment also includes H.R. 3371, the Airline Safety and Pilot Training Improvement Act of 2009, a comprehensive, bipartisan bill that passed the House last year. H.R. 3371 improves access and review of pilots' records, requires more extensive pilot training, improves pilot professionalism, addresses pilot fatigue, and increases the minimum certification standards for commercial airline pilots. I look forward to working on finalizing these provisions with the Senate during a conference committee to improve airline safety. Unfortunately, despite the inclusion of important safety provisions, the amendment also includes a number of controversial provisions in H.R. 915, the same provisions that delayed consideration of the FAA reauthorization in the Senate. Therefore, it's impossible for me to support the amendment in its current form. One provision regarding air traffic controllers provides for changes in future impasse procedures, which I don't object to, but it also includes costly rollback and backpay requirements under terms of the 1998 contract. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the cost of this provision in budget year 2009 was $83 million, and about $1 billion over the life of the bill. With the arbitrated controller contract agreed to last year, I would have thought this provision would no longer be necessary. However, since it remains as it did in H.R. 915 in the amendment, the provision remains problematic. H.R. 915 also includes a provision that would move express carriers from being covered by the Railway Labor Act to the National Labor Relations Act. This is really targeted at one company, FedEx Express. FedEx Express was organized as, and still is, an air carrier, in particular, an express carrier. As such, it's been covered by the Railway Labor Act since its creation in 1971. It has trucks, but it is a fully integrated system, and the trucks would not operate without the planes, which was reaffirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals several years ago. I'd note that other companies within the FedEx family, such as FedEx Freight, are rightly covered by the National Labor Relations Act. Other provisions included in the amendment from H.R. 915 raise concerns, such as the foreign repair station language, which may have the unintended consequences of leading to retaliation by the European Union. This will result in the loss of jobs here in the U.S., as European customers may no longer send planes to the U.S. and the Europeans may impose costly certification and inspection processes on U.S. repair stations. Also, H.R. 915 included a provision that would automatically sunset airline alliance antitrust immunity agreements 3 years after enactment. We are told this could threaten approximately 15,000 airline jobs in the United States. Considering U.S.-based airlines have already been forced to cut a staggering 41,000 jobs, nearly 10 percent of their work force in the last 2 years, further job loss resulting from this provision raises obvious concerns. I'd like to thank Chairman Oberstar, Chairman Costello, and Ranking Member John Mica and other members of the committee for their continued dedication in working to pass an FAA bill. Many thanks also to our hardworking staff for the effort they've put in over the last 3 years. And in conclusion, I support the general goals and the majority of this bill in terms of increasing infrastructure investment, advancing NextGen, improving safety and the environment, and increasing passenger protections. There are a few specific provisions that will preclude me from voting for the House amendment to H.R. 1586. Nevertheless, I'm pleased we're considering this bill today and, after it passes, I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in a conference committee with the Senate so that we can get a bipartisan, bicameral FAA reauthorization in place.

Mr. PETRI. That was my observation, and I'm happy with that assurance. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI. Yes.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to our colleague from the State of Texas, Kevin Brady.

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

Mr. PETRI. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I would just observe that we are talking past each other a little bit. I think the bill overall, I certainly would not dispute the estimate of the Department of Transportation or the FAA that increasing the funding available for construction of new airports and for operating the system and for putting in the NextGen and so on will create jobs within the airline system. But I think the ranking member, Mr. Mica, was speaking about some other provisions of the bill and the impact it might have under certain interpretations, on, for example, repair stations or on airline jobs in this country. So there would be gains in one area, but there are potential losses in another area. That was the concern.

Mr. PETRI. I have only one request and continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI. I thank the chairman. I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague, John Mica, from Florida.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I have only one request for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to our colleague from Texas, Lamar Smith.

Mr. PETRI. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, in May of last year, the House passed H.R. 915, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009. Earlier this week, the Senate passed its own FAA reauthorization bill, and, therefore, the two Chambers will soon begin negotiations to reconcile the bills. However, that process will take some time. Given that the current FAA extension expires at the end of this month, we need to again extend the FAA's taxes and authorities to allow time to get a final conferenced FAA bill. While the House considered and passed an FAA extension bill just last week, we are again considering an FAA extension in order to address a minor technical matter in the earlier bill that would have impacted the FAA's ability to fund airport projects during the next 3 months. Therefore, this bill, H.R. 4915, makes the technical correction and also extends the taxes, programs, and funding of the FAA to July 3 of this year. This bill will ensure that our National Airspace System continues to operate and that the FAA continues funding important airport projects while the Congress reconciles the two reauthorization bills. Like the bill considered last week, the bill before us also includes a provision that will change the way funding is distributed for the Projects of National and Regional Significance program and the National Corridor Infrastructure Program in the surface transportation extension that was signed into law last week. Currently, 56 percent of the funds for those two programs are directed to just four States, and 22 States will receive no funding at all. This fix ensures that the funding for those two programs is distributed to all States through the existing Federal-Aid Highway formula. With that, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4915. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI. I want our colleague from Massachusetts to know that he is valued on both sides of the aisle. With that, I yield such time as he may consume to the esteemed ranking member of our committee, Mr. Mica, from Florida.

Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve.

Mr. PETRI. I yield 1 minute to the Representative from Nevada, a member of the subcommittee, Ms. Titus.

Mr. PETRI. I join my colleagues in urging a speedy passage of the measure before us. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3590 and H.R. 4872. I certainly agree that it is time to fix the health care system in the United States so that all Americans have access to quality, affordable health care. However, the path we are considering takes us in the entirely wrong direction. And this reconciliation bill only makes worse the Senate amendment considered by the House today. Overall, it will break the bank because it is filled with budget gimmicks to hide its true cost. It imposes over $500 billion in new taxes as our fragile economy struggles towards recovery. It makes significant cuts to Medicare, including to Medicare Advantage Plans which will surely eliminate or reduce benefits to the 216,000 beneficiaries in Wisconsin. It gives the government unprecedented authority over the regulation of health insurance, which will lead to increased costs for those who currently have health insurance. We need the right reforms to eliminate waste throughout the system and reward high quality low-cost care. We should be choosing approaches which give consumers incentives to use their health care dollars wisely. Instead, we are going in the opposite direction by turning decisions over to government bureaucrats. Instead of getting everybody into the old, dysfunctional system and then figuring out how to pay for it, we should emphasize advances in efficiency so that more people will be able to afford their health care, and the government will be better able to take care of the rest. Unfortunately, the majority in Congress has committed us to a path which will make the right reforms much harder to achieve. Despite the fact that I will vote against both bills, I do want to express my support for provisions in H.R. 4872 that make changes to the federal student loan program. This bill eliminates the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program and moves the origination of all federal student loans to the Direct Loan Program. For over two decades I have championed the Direct Loan Program as the most efficient, stable, and cost effective federal student loan program. The change to 100 percent direct lending marks an important step forward for students, parents, and taxpayers. Currently we have two federal student loan programs that provide the exact same student loans to borrowers, and schools choose to participate in either one or the other. The FFEL Program uses private capital to fund student loans but receives a federal subsidy to ensure a guaranteed rate of return. The federal government also provides a guarantee on these loans. Thus, if a student defaults, taxpayers are on the hook, not the private lender. The Direct Loan Program uses the proceeds from the wholesale auction of Treasury securities to the private sector to fund loans to students, and all servicing and bill collection is handled by private companies operating through performance-based contracts. The loans are delivered to students through the same system that universities use to disburse Pell Grants. I first became interested in student loan reform in the early 1980s when the head of the Wisconsin higher education agency convinced me that the FFEL program was wildly costly to the government. I introduced the first direct loan proposal in 1983 and almost ten years later won approval of a pilot program to test the direct loan program at hundreds of schools nationwide, including Marquette University in my state of Wisconsin. A year later, I successfully worked with President Clinton to authorize the Direct Loan Program. Over the years, there has been unanimous agreement about the excessive costs of the FFEL program compared to the Direct Loan Program when studied by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Treasury Department under both Presidents Clinton and Bush. Most recently, the Congressional Budget Office reported that a switch to all direct lending would save taxpayers $61 billion over ten years. Besides being more expensive for the taxpayers, the FFEL program has also been plagued by fraud and abuse which further illustrates the drawbacks of this program for students and taxpayers. For instance, last Congress it was found that from 2001 to 2006 nonprofit lenders illegally claimed, according to one estimate, over $1 billion in improper taxpayers subsidies by knowingly manipulating a loophole in the law. And then there was the ``pay for play'' scandal in which it was revealed that colleges and administrators received special favors, benefits and kickbacks from lenders in exchange for steering students to their loans. The FFEL program has also been proven to be unreliable. In 2008, because of the turmoil in the credit markets, Congress passed emergency legislation to temporarily allow lenders access to Treasury funds so they could continue to make loans. Between the Direct Loan Program and an emergency program, the federal government now funds $8.80 of every $10 in federal student lending activity. Over the past year, hundreds of schools have switched to the Direct Loan Program. They report smooth and easy transitions to the program and satisfaction with the service. In fact, according to Student Lending Analytics, only two percent of schools surveyed indicated they had not taken the steps necessary to originate direct loans. By moving to 100 percent direct lending we are not favoring government over the private markets, there is no ``takeover'' here. Eliminating guaranteed loans in favor of direct loans means replacing a wasteful program with one that is more cost effective and in the interests of students and taxpayers. So, while I must vote against this bill due to the ill-conceived health care provisions, I strongly support the switch to 100 percent direct lending.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this flawed health care bill.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, in the 110th Congress, the House passed the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007, H.R. 2881. That bill reauthorized the FAA for 4 years. In May of last year, the House voted again to pass a comprehensive reauthorization bill, H.R. 915, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2009. In just the last week, the Senate has begun consideration of their FAA reauthorization bill, and it looks quite possible that the two Chambers will soon begin negotiations to reconcile each of their bills. However, this reconciliation process will take time. Given that the current FAA extension expires at the end of this month, we need to again extend the FAA's taxes and authorities to allow time to get a final, conferenced FAA bill. H.R. 4853 would extend the taxes, programs, and funding of the FAA through July 3 of this year. This bill extends FAA funding and contract authority for just over 3 months, provides $3 billion in Airport Improvement Program funding, extends the War Risk Insurance program, and extends other authorities related to Small Community Air Service, airport, and safety programs. H.R. 4853 will ensure that our National Airspace System continues to operate until a full FAA reauthorization can be enacted. So as I have indicated many times since the passage of the House FAA reauthorization bill back in 2007, we need to pass a long-term bill so that we can meet the growing demands placed on our Nation's aviation infrastructure. Modernizing our antiquated air traffic control system and repairing our crumbling infrastructure need to be at the top of our priorities. While I'm disappointed that the FAA has gone so long without a comprehensive reauthorization, I support this extension as the best alternative to keep the FAA and the National Airspace System running safely and efficiently until we can take up and pass a bipartisan and bicameral bill. It seems that we are closer to this goal than ever before, at least in recent Congresses. H.R. 4853 also includes a provision that will change the way funding is distributed for the Projects of National and Regional Significance program and the National Corridor Infrastructure program in the surface transportation extension that the Senate passed this morning. In its current form, this surface extension bill would prevent 22 States from receiving any funding and would direct 56 percent of the funding to just four States: California, Louisiana, Illinois, and Washington. This fix ensures that the funding for those two programs is distributed to all States through the existing Federal-aid highway formula. And I commend the people who are responsible for that fix. With that, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, H.R. 4853. I reserve the balance of my time.