Tom Petri

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, in September the House considered and passed the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007, and that legislation reauthorizes the FAA for the next 4 years. The following week, the House also passed a 3-month extension of the FAA programs. Unfortunately, the other body has taken no action on that extension bill, H.R. 3540; and, therefore, the authority for the FAA's essential programs and taxes were extended through November 16 as part of a continuing resolution. Regrettably, those FAA programs and authorities are not extended in the continuing resolution expired on September 30. As it is unlikely that Congress will be able to send an FAA reauthorization bill to the President for consideration before this November 16, we have before us today S. 2265, as amended. The bill would extend eligibility for Essential Air Service subsidies, and in addition, as amended, would extend the funding and expenditure authority of the FAA through December 31, 2007. The bill provides AIP contract authority at the budget year 2007 level through the end of this year; authorizes such sums as are necessary for the FAA facilities and equipment, research and development, and operations through December 31; and extends the authority to limit the third-party liability of air carriers arising out of acts of terrorism through December 31. I regret that S. 2265 does not include a provision that would change the mandatory retirement age for pilots to age 65. However, this bill will ensure that our national aviation system continues to operate until a full reauthorization can be enacted. There's much work yet to be done on the FAA reauthorization bill. We must work in a bipartisan and bicameral fashion to craft legislation that the President can sign. I support this extension in order to allow us time to accomplish this important goal. Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, today, I am introducing the Student Loan Auction Market, SLAM, Act to continue the process of comprehensive, structural reform of the guaranteed student loan program. I believe this legislation would mark a critical step towards full market-based reform of the program and build on the reforms incorporated in the bipartisan College Cost Reduction and Access Act, which was recently signed into law by President Bush. Specifically, the SLAM Act would further efforts to study and pilot several market-based reforms, including auction and asset-backed securities models. The politically-set subsidy rate to lenders is a fundamental flaw in the archaic structure of the guaranteed loan program. I believe we can all agree that some type of comprehensive, market-based reform will be necessary to ensure the long-term viability of the guaranteed loan program and ensure taxpayers' interests are better served. My proposal would require the Secretaries of Education and the Treasury, in conjunction with the Government Accountability Office, GAO, the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, and the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, to conduct a joint planning study to determine which market-mechanism model for determining lender returns on guaranteed loans would best serve borrowers and taxpayers. This study would allow the experts to weigh the pros and cons of each proposal and determine which option would be most favorable for trial in the pilot program. The pilot model will be selected by the Secretaries based on key criteria, such as ensuring sufficient loan availability to all participating institutions, minimizing administrative complexity to borrowers and lenders, and reducing the Federal cost if used on a program-wide basis. Within 6 months of enactment of this legislation, the study group would report its findings to Congress and begin implementation of a voluntary pilot program. The voluntary, 2-year pilot program will begin in July 2008 and incorporate up to 10 percent of the guaranteed loan portfolio, increasing up to 20 percent in 2009. To encourage meaningful college participation in the pilot, any savings from the increased efficiency in the market model will be returned to the institution in the form of supplemental, need-based grant aid. Finally, GAO would conduct an independent evaluation of the pilot program and report its findings to Congress and the Secretaries within 120 days after termination of the pilot. I believe that both the study and the pilot will provide critical and necessary information to Congress on how market-based reforms will impact the guaranteed loan program, before such reforms are implemented on a program-wide basis. This is a measured and responsible proposal that is based on voluntary participation by both colleges and lenders. It is something that both supporters and skeptics of the guaranteed loan program should embrace. Although a much narrower and prescriptive auction pilot was included in the College Cost Reduction and Access Act, it has raised significant concerns among reform advocates, the Administration, and lenders about its feasibility and efficacy. My bill would not alter the Senate pilot that was agreed to in conference, but would require a second pilot by which to compare outcomes between the two models. It is a responsible and pragmatic addition to the current auction pilot. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation to further our understanding of market-based reform options. Congress should always encourage innovation in the administration of our student loan programs and continually strive to better serve students and taxpayers.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, as Congress considers the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act this year, have an obligation to listen closely to the students, parents, and educators that we represent to ensure that our efforts result in responsible and pragmatic improvements. While we have made great strides in the areas of assessment and accountability over the last five years, this reauthorization provides a critical opportunity to learn from our experiences and fine-tune the law. One example of a lesson my constituents have learned, and have adamantly shared with me, is that we should be encouraging States to move toward better assessment models. As I have met with educators over the past year, one of the primary concerns that I have heard is that the State assessment fails to provide information of value to educators and administrators. Even more disturbing, it often takes 4 to 6 months before scores are returned to schools, which leaves little or no time for teachers to use the information to address student performance before they advance to the next grade. However, I believe there is a sensible solution that Congress can adopt to address these concerns and give States more options in assessment design. Today, Representative David Wu and I are introducing the bipartisan Assessment Accuracy and Improvement Act of 2007 to give States the option to use adaptive testing as their statewide assessment measuring reading, math, and science to fulfill No Child Left Behind requirements. I believe that this legislation will give States the ability to truly track the academic growth of every child and provide more accurate information to teachers, parents and school administrators through the use of an adaptive test. For those who may be unfamiliar with adaptive testing, it is a test that changes in response to previously asked questions. For example, if a student answers a question correctly, the test presents a question of increased difficulty. If a student answers incorrectly, the test presents a question of decreased difficulty. As you can see, an adaptive test customizes itself to a student's actual level of performance with a great degree of accuracy. Giving States the flexibility to use an adaptive test and to ask questions outside of grade level will improve the accuracy of student assessment and enable educators to target appropriate instruction for each child based on performance at, above, or below grade level. In addition, using an adaptive test over time will allow accurate measurement of the performance growth of each individual student. In my district, nearly a third of school districts currently use their own funds to participate in adaptive testing in addition to the State assessment required by NCLB. Educators and administrators appreciate the diagnostic information it yields and the efficiency that it provides. I believe that school districts nationally are already ``speaking with their wallets'' by spending scarce resources to voluntarily participate in this testing because it provides valuable information that the State assessment does not. And, although our bill does not require States to adopt adaptive testing, it gives them the freedom to do so should they decide it is a better model for their students and educators. Madam Speaker, adaptive testing and growth models are the key to putting the ``child'' back into No Child Left Behind. I hope that our colleagues will join us in this pragmatic and responsible improvement to the law as we work towards a bipartisan reauthorization this year.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Missouri. Last week, Members of this body considered and passed the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007, H.R. 2881, which reauthorized the FAA for the next 4 years. Unfortunately, the authority of the FAA's programs and taxes expires this Sunday, September 30. As it is unlikely Congress will be able to send a FAA reauthorization bill to the President for signature before the September 30 deadline, we have before us H.R. 3540, the Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2007, to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the FAA for the next 90 days through the end of this year. H.R. 3540 provides 3 months of AIP contract authority at the budget 2007 level, authorizes such sums as are necessary for FAA facilities and equipment, research and development, and operations for 3 months and extends the authority to limit the third-party liability of air carriers arising out of acts of terrorism for 3 months. Most importantly, the bill will ensure that our national aviation system continues to operate until a full FAA reauthorization can be enacted. There is much work yet to be done on the reauthorization bill. We must work in a bipartisan and bicameral fashion to craft legislation that our President can sign. That's our task. That is what the communities involved and our constituents expect of us. I support this clean 3-month extension, and I appreciate the efforts of my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee for drafting and introducing H.R. 3540, and look forward to working with them as we continue consideration of the FAA reauthorization bill.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Modification to Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Oberstar

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment because it is both unnecessary and redundant. From June 2004 to June 2006, the FAA established an aviation rulemaking advisory committee consisting of government, industry and labor unions in order to update the current training requirements. The proposed rewrite of Federal regulations will address, among other things, the area of alcohol awareness training for flight and gate attendants. The FAA plans to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in The Federal Register before the end of calendar year 2007. The FAA's current training requirements address the very issue of handling unruly and intoxicated passengers, both in the air and on the ground. This rulemaking will further strengthen FAA's already adequate training programs to a level that I am sure will meet the gentleman's expectations. So the Udall amendment is premature. We should let the agency with the most expertise take the lead to do the best job of dealing with the problem which we all agree needs to be even better dealt with. Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``no'' vote on the Udall amendment. Mr. Chairman, having no other requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this provision would gut much of the ongoing high- priority work of the Department of Transportation Aviation Enforcement Office by requiring most of its resources to be dedicated to consumers' complaints. While I certainly agree that consumer complaint oversight is important, the dedication of so many resources to only one issue is just not right. This provision would force the Aviation Enforcement Office to stop other important aviation enforcement, compliance, and consumer information and education activities that have for years been a priority for that office. This provision would do so by requiring the investigation of each consumer complaint regarding flight cancellations, overbooking, baggage, refunds, fares and related conditions, frequent flier programs and deceptive or misleading advertising. Currently, the only investigations that have been required by Congress are disability-related complaints. Sadly, to comply with this provision, the Aviation Enforcement Office would have to discontinue enforcement and compliance work involving racial, ethnic and sex-based discrimination, compliance with the Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Act, public charter flight violations, and code sharing disclosure violations. Compliance with this provision would also necessitate that the office end its enforcement of unrealistic scheduling, contract of carriage violations, other unfair and deceptive practices, air carrier fitness and unlicensed and unauthorized operations, insurance violations, and reporting violations. In the opinion of the experts at the Department of Transportation, these areas of consumer protection are of great importance because they safeguard the whole pool of consumers by protecting against bad business practice trends, rather than prosecuting case by case. In the area of consumer information and education, some of the most important matters that would have to be eliminated are preparation of the monthly air travel consumer report, updating of aviation consumer guidance material, conducting industry and public forums on disability issues, and participating and providing information of government, industry and consumer conferences. In addition, the Aviation Enforcement Office would have to cease all its rulemaking activities. Everyone knows that with tight government budgets, you really cannot investigate every single case at the Federal level. Instead, you provide a forum to file and maintain complaints that are reviewed for patterns of abuse. You then pursue those cases that will do the most good for the largest number of consumers. Again, this amendment, contrary to the intent of the author, would have disastrous effects on aviation consumer protection and enforcement of the aviation economic regulations that are currently on the books, and, therefore, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI. I thank my colleague from Florida. All of us who are frequent travelers as we go back and forth to our districts know the strain that is on our air traffic system. We all hear from outraged constituents who have had enough of delays and of cancellations. The American Society of Civil Engineers periodically issues an infrastructure report card. In 2005, aviation received only a D-plus. We're in a bad situation and it is only going to get worse. Traffic is predicted to grow over 4 percent per year until we reach 1 billion passengers by 2015. Air cargo is growing at a rate of more than 5 percent per year. We have a general aviation community that is unique and more active than any other country in the world. The bill before us increases Federal investment in aviation infrastructure with funding for the Airport Improvement Program which provides grants from the aviation trust fund for airport improvements, increased to a total of $15.8 billion over 4 years. The Facilities and Equipment program is increased to $13 billion. We also increase the cap on the level of passenger facility charges that an airport can impose for capacity and safety projects. This cap was last raised 7 years ago and the $4.50 then is now only worth $2.86 due to the incredibly 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 move away from an antique 50-year-old ground-based technology to a modern satellite-based system in order to increase capacity, lower costs and increase safety. The bill 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 this $15 to $20 billion multi-year program to keep it moving forward. Madam Chairman, there are a variety of other provisions too numerous to enumerate which improve on safety, provide for noise mitigation and enhance other environmental initiatives. The mandatory retirement age for pilots would be increased from age 60 to 65. Passenger rights would be enhanced by ensuring that airlines plan for the care of passengers who are held hostage on tarmacs and will seek to avoid such occurrences by establishing a process to avoid clear overscheduling that inevitably leads to delay. However, I am placed in the rather odd position of voting ``no'' on final passage for my subcommittee's bill. Though the base bill was put together on a bipartisan basis, two amendments were adopted by the committee which cause me grave concern for the long-term prospects of this bill. We have it on good authority that the bill will be vetoed if section 601 regarding contract impasse procedures is not revised. The current provision provides for changes in future impasse procedures, which I don't object to; but then it also reopens the currently imposed contract and includes back pay under terms of the 1998 contract. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the cost of this provision in 2008 is $179 million, and $477 million over the life of the bill. The FAA estimates a total cost as high as $1.9 billion over 5 years and $7.5 billion over 10 years. Second, an amendment was adopted that would move express carriers from being covered by the Railway Labor Act to the National Labor Relations Act. This provision is really targeted at one company, FedEx. FedEx Express was organized as and still is an air carrier, in particular an express carrier. As such, it has been covered by the Railway Labor Act since its creation in 1971. Yes, it has trucks, but it is a fully integrated system which was reaffirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Some draw comparisons to UPS, another great and innovative company for which we all have the greatest respect and, yes, even affection. But UPS organized a hundred years ago as a truck company and as such is rightly covered by the National Labor Relations Act. I would note that other companies within the FedEx family such as FedEx Freight are also covered by the NLRA. These are two different companies with two different corporate structures, and I regret that this change is included in the bill before us. I would like to thank Chairman Oberstar, Chairman Costello, and Ranking Member Mica for working together as best we could, sometimes working through basic philosophical differences. I thank the staff for the many hours they have put into helping to produce this bill. Finally, I appreciate the cooperation of the Science Committee for its contribution of the research provisions and the Ways and Means Committee for extending the aviation taxes that fund much of this program. Madam Chairman, today we are considering H.R. 2881, which will reauthorize our aviation programs for the next 4 years. Most of us here are experienced air travelers, as we fly back and forth to our districts each week. We all know the capacity crunch our air system is experiencing--both on the ground and in the air. All of us are dealing with outraged constituents who are tired of delays, cancelled flights, or being held hostage for hours at a time while a plane sits on the tarmac. We need to invest and make improvements to our air transportation system: Air passenger demand is predicted to grow 4.3 percent each year through 2015--resulting in 1 billion passengers annually by 2015. The number of aircraft to be handled by air traffic control is expected to grow from 45.1 million in 2004 to 48.5 million in 2015. Air cargo is growing at a rate of more than 5 percent a year. According to the FAA and other experts, $9 billion to $15 billion in capital investment is needed per year. Aviation is critical to our economic vitality. The commercial aviation industry is responsible for 8 percent of our GDP. It creates and sustains more than 10 million jobs. For a sector that is so critical to our future, you would think a safe and efficient air transportation system would be one of our top national priorities. And yet, the American Society of Civil Engineers' 2005 infrastructure report card gives aviation a grade of only a D+. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007 will take important steps to address these problems. It increases investment in aviation infrastructure, authorizing $15.8 billion over 4 years for the Airport Improvement Program (AlP) which provides grants to airports for needed airport expansion and development. The Facilities and Equipment program provides needed air navigation systems and funding is increased in this bill to $13 billion over 4 years. While we need to expand capacity on the ground, we also need to do so in the air. The air traffic control modernization program, known as NextGen, will move us from a ground-based radar system to a satellite- based system. Rather than verbally direct every movement of every plane, air traffic controllers will manage traffic and become involved with specific aircraft only as needed. We will be able to handle the increasing air traffic that we know is coming without a huge increase in controllers. H.R. 2881 also addresses the issue of passenger rights, as has been demanded by angry passengers who feel they have been abused. The issue of delays, flight schedules and flight diversions is a complicated one. The bill includes a variety of consumer provisions, including requiring airlines to have contingency plans on how they will respond when planes are excessively delayed, including ensuring that trapped passengers are properly cared for. The FAA must approve the plans and can impose civil penalties. The FAA administrator also is directed to work with airlines when there is clear evidence that the number of flights scheduled exceeds the maximum capacity of the airport--a situation that almost guarantees excessive delays. In addition, H.R. 2881 will improve safety and enhance environmental protection. The number of aviation safety inspectors will be increased, funds for runway incursion reduction programs are increased and other safety programs are strengthened. We are addressing environmental issues by requiring the phase-out in 5 years of noisy Stage II jet aircraft so those who live around airports can enjoy at least a little more peace and less noise overhead. In an effort to increase fuel efficiency and decrease emissions, several innovative programs and pilots are established. For example, the Aircraft Departure Queue Management Pilot Program authorizes 5 airports to employ new traffic flow management technologies to better manage the movement of aircraft on the ground. The goal is to reduce ground holds and idling times--leading to reduced emissions and increased fuel savings. The CLEEN Partnership is a 10-year cooperative agreement for the development and certification of lower energy, emissions and noise, engine and airframe technology. One of the more popular provisions would raise the age at which commercial pilots must retire from the current age 60 to age 65. This will put the United States in line with international standards. In this day and age, age 60 retirement is really an anachronism, and we need to update and modernize this requirement. While I support the vast majority of the provisions in this bill, and we did work together on a bipartisan basis to develop the base bill, I find myself in the odd position of having to vote ``no'' on final passage of our reauthorization bill. This is primarily because of two provisions. First, section 601 of H.R. 2881 amends contract impasse procedures and also effectively overturns a contract implemented last year. I agree that the current contract impasse procedures that were instituted in the 1996 personnel reforms needs to be revised. I will not oppose revising the impasse procedure. In fact, a binding arbitration resolution solution may be the right solution. The problem is that the provision also reopens the currently imposed contract and includes back pay from 2005 until negotiations are completed. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the cost of this provision in fiscal year 2008 is $179 million and $477 million over the life of the bill. FAA estimates a total cost as high as $1.9 billion over 5 years and $7.5 billion over 10 years. If we want a reauthorization enacted--and I do--this provision jeopardizes that goal. It has been made pretty clear to us that including the retroactive provisions will invite a presidential veto. And we may even have a problem getting to conference, based on the comments of some Senators. So when this bill passes today--as I expect it will--we need to realize that more negotiation and compromise will be needed to actually get a bill that can be signed into law. Second, section 806 would amend the labor law that covers the employees of FedEx Express. This has been an issue that has arisen on occasion here in the Congress. The simple fact is that FedEx Express, since its inception in 1971, has been and remains an air carrier--in particular an express carrier. FedEx trucks are fully integrated into the air express activities--and even the Ninth Circuit Court has found this to be the case. The press enjoys characterizing this as a FedEx versus UPS fight. It is not. No member wants to pick sides between two innovative and successful companies. But UPS is a motor carrier subject to the National Labor Relations Act. It has been for the last 100 years. The two companies have a very different corporate structure. Some continue to make reference to 1996 law that ``changed'' coverage of FedEx Express to the Railway Labor Act. This is misleading. In fact, a conforming amendment in the ICC Termination Act of 1995 had the inadvertent effect of potentially changing the labor law that would apply to FedEx Express from the Railway Labor Act to the National Labor Relations Act. No discussion on this issue was ever held during consideration of the bill, and there was no conscious decision made to effect that change in the ICC Termination Act. The 1996 legislation-- which was championed by former Democratic Senator Fritz Hollings of South Carolina--simply corrected that inadvertent error. FedEx has been covered by the Railway Labor Act since 1971. It is unfortunate this bill would ignore all that has gone on before. In closing, let me commend my Committee leadership for working together under what has frequently been some difficult times. There are some issues that we simply disagree on, but we have tried to continue to work toward the goal of getting a reauthorization in place. I also want to express thanks to the Science Committee for its contribution of the research title and to the Ways and Means Committee for the tax title. I am pleased that Ways and Means rejected moving to a user fee-based financing scheme in favor of the current more efficient fuel tax program. Taxes are raised for general aviation and corporate jets, and we should note that these groups are accepting and supportive of the increase, knowing that the system requires it. Again, I am pleased that we are moving forward. We need to invest in aviation infrastructure. We need to modernize our air traffic control system to increase capacity and improve safety. We need to address the environmental challenge facing the industry today. We need to ensure that our aviation system remains safe. The United States has always been the leader around the world in aviation innovation--but I fear that position may be threatened. We must continue to lead and set the standard for the rest of the world.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I want to support the gentleman's amendment and say that as we look to the future of wind energy, we need to make certain that the process for siting turbines is appropriate for all stakeholders. Specifically, we need policies in place to ensure that wind turbines do not interfere with important aviation sites, while giving the wind industry appropriate planning tools. I wish to thank Congressman Neugebauer for working with the wind industry and others to refine this amendment.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. PETRI. Reserving the right to object, my understanding is that you have to do this in the full House.

Mr. PETRI. I congratulate you on working to get this amendment in a way that it can be supported. It is supported by both sides.

Mr. PETRI. Unfortunately, I can't support this amendment. While we have reached bipartisan agreements on many of the provisions, there are several that impose new burdens, new regulations and potentially high and crippling costs. For example, notifying a passenger when buying a ticket whether an insecticide has been used on the plane in the last 60 days before the flight is a procedural nightmare for airlines. Is it really a national problem that requires such onerous regulation? How many flights would that plane have taken and in what countries? It's just incredible. Again, many provisions are worthy, but I cannot support this amendment. I yield such time as he may consume to our ranking member, Mr. Mica.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for giving me an opportunity to again express my appreciation not only to him but to the staff and to the chairman of our committee, Mr. Oberstar; the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Costello; all the members as well as members in the leadership of what is called powerful Ways and Means Committee around here and the Science Committee for their contribution to this bill. The fact of the matter is that we have approached the bulk of our work in a strong bipartisan way. We worked on the underlying bill in that spirit. Unfortunately, there are several provisions that are controversial and would impede our ability to actually get work through the whole process and signed by the President that were added in the full committee. But let there be no doubt that our country needs to get this legislation passed to accommodate new investment in our aviation system. We are at the brink of rolling out a new generation of technology to accommodate the growth, to increase efficiency and safety in that system, be it a 15-, 20-, maybe 25-year multimillion dollar system. Doing that will increase the capacity of the system. We will maintain America's lead in aviation on a global basis and having that framework in place so that the administrators and the industries involved can plan with reduced uncertainty, which is very, very important. We are already late with this legislation. The current program is scheduled to expire at the end of this month. We will probably be doing a short-term extension. But we do need a reauthorization to proceed in a way that can be brought to a successful conclusion and signed by our President. And we look forward to working through the process with our colleagues on the other side of this building and on the other side of this aisle. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the Oberstar-Costello manager's amendment.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. I support this rule to provide for consideration of H.R. 2881, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007. Aviation program authorizations expire at the end of this month, and it is essential that a new authorization is in place in the near future. Fortunately, aviation has bounced back from the troubles experienced in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. While this is good news, it also is placing a strain on our air transportation system. And it is only estimated to get worse. For example, 1 billion passengers are estimated by 2015, a 52 percent increase over the 2005 levels. It is estimated that the number of aircraft handled by air traffic control will increase from 45 million in 2004 to over 58 million by 2015. Aviation is vital to our economy. U.S. airlines employed nearly 600,000 people in the United States in 2003. The industry helps to create and sustain more than 10 million jobs across our country and supports 8 percent of our gross national domestic product. It's estimated that we need capital investments of $9 to $15 billion each year in order to accommodate this ever-growing demand. The FAA Reauthorization Act increases infrastructure investment, provides for continued progress in the modernization of the air traffic control system, increases safety, and enhances environmental protection. It is essential that we get a good reauthorization program in place. While there are some provisions in this bill that I believe still need further discussion and negotiation, we need to move the process forward, and, therefore, I support adoption of this rule today.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, it was a close call on September 1 in the town of Menasha, Wisconsin. Merlin Harn and his wife Teresa were in their car when they noticed two boys, one apparently age 5 and the other under 2, walking on some railroad tracks. Mrs. Harn said it ``didn't look right'' to have two small children so far away from any homes, so she called 911. As she was talking to the 911 operator, she realized a train was coming. Mr. Harn immediately jumped out of the car. The older child got off the tracks, but Mr. Harn saved the life of the younger child by pulling him to safety. Mr. Speaker, a lot of people would have seen those two boys and would have said, ``That doesn't look right, but it's none of my business.'' But, no. The Harns acted like concerned neighbors, like responsible members of a community rather than self-obsessed individuals. And they saved a young life. Their concern, and their heroic actions, deserve our recognition and thanks.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to highlight and express my support for a provision included in H.R. 3221 that would establish a solar demonstration project. U.S. industry has begun to commercialize a number of devices such as solar light tubes, which use solar concentrators, reflectors and lenses, light fibers, and other technologies to direct natural light into buildings, tunnels and other enclosures to augment or replace light from traditional fixtures. Sec. 4306 of this bill would establish a research and development program to provide assistance in the demonstration and commercial application of direct solar renewable energy sources to provide alternatives to traditional power generation for lighting and illumination, including light pipe technology, and to promote greater energy conservation and improved efficiency. This type of technology presents an economically feasible and affordable solution for the private and public sector to reduce its reliance on the electrical grid. This in turn will have positive effects on both the environment and our overall demand on traditional power sources. I have visited a company in my district which is engaged in very innovative and cost efficient light technology, and there are many other such efforts around the country that are developing exciting new products. As we look to diversify our energy sources, we need to enact policies that make it easier to harness the power of the market and spur the entrepreneurial and innovative sector of this country. If we get this right, the United States will gain an even greater competitive advantage around the world while becoming less reliant on other countries--all in an environmentally responsible manner. When we go to conference, I urge that this important demonstration project be included in the final conference report.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) that provides needed health care coverage to millions of children across this nation. It is vital to our nation's children and is in need of expansion in order to cover all eligible uninsured children. In fact, this February I joined many of my colleagues in sending a letter to the Budget Committee requesting that the fiscal year 2008 budget include sufficient funding to maintain existing SCHIP caseloads, as well as make reauthorization of the program a high priority. Unfortunately, I believe that H.R. 3162 takes the wrong approach and goes beyond what is necessary to cover uninsured children in America. Furthermore, the legislation puts seniors in my district at risk by making cuts to the Medicare Program. By trying to do too much in this bill, we have shifted our focus from helping our nation's children and now have a bill that has become mired in controversy. I believe the Senate's stand-alone reauthorization legislation is a more reasonable approach. It focuses solely on strengthening SCHIP by implementing measures to expand the enrollment of low-income children as well as to improve the quality of health care that children in the program receive. House passage today is not the final step in the legislative process, of course. While I cannot support the bill before us today, I hope that when a conference report is brought before us, it will be a reasonable compromise that provides needed expansion of SCHIP without the troublesome provisions of this bill. We need to reauthorize and strengthen this important and necessary program.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. I thank my colleague for yielding. First of all, let me say that there is no one in this body who pays more attention and is more hardworking in defending the interests of his constituents than Mr. Frelinghuysen, the author of this amendment. But the fact of the matter is that it's not in the national interest to stop this study in its track. They're not doing it just because they want to. They're doing it because the Nation has grown. The system is at capacity. It needs to be redesigned to accommodate the movement of people by air through this New York region. If we don't do it, they will have to go by train, and that's almost at capacity. And the roads are congested. It will slow down our economy. It will impact and affect the growth of the whole region if this can't go forward. So, I would urge people to defeat the amendment. We will work with the Member from New Jersey and others to make sure they're sensitive to local noise concerns, but this is not the way to do it. I urge rejection of the amendment.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I join with my colleagues on the committee who have studied this matter in opposing the amendment before us. Just this morning the Aviation Subcommittee conducted a hearing on our aging air traffic control facilities, some of which are in very, very bad condition, and this amendment would move us in the wrong direction rather than the right direction. The impact of the amendment would be, according to the FAA, that it would lose some $110 million in funds that have been programmed to modernize the facilities that it needs to maintain to keep our system moving. And this will expire if the amendment is adopted. The average age of FAA towers is some 27 years and in route centers are 43 years. They need to spend some $30 billion over the next few years to modernize the facilities and maintain them. And I realize that it's a well-meaning amendment, but it would set us back and delay the efficiency and mobility of our population, and could even result in some increase in risk in the system. For those reasons, I would urge rejection of the amendment.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, and I'd like to share an alternative Republican viewpoint on the bill before us this afternoon. Traditionally, Republicans have stood for budgetary responsibility and competition to ensure a good return on taxpayer investment in Federal programs. I believe that this bill, while not perfect, is something that any Republican who stands for these principles should support. For many years, I have spoken out against the excess subsidies that taxpayers pay to lenders in the guaranteed loan program. Government and private economists, including those in the Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability Office and the Treasury Department, have all confirmed the significant inefficiencies in the program due to the arbitrary and capricious nature in which lender subsidies have been set over the last 40 years. In fact, these scorekeepers have found that taxpayers spend $3 to $5 billion each year on unnecessary subsidies that could be better applied as direct aid to students. The status quo on lender subsidies is inefficient, wasteful and unacceptable, and I applaud the effort made in this bill to redirect these resources primarily as Pell Grants and interest rate reductions. This bill also contains two other critically important provisions that largely have been overlooked in this debate. First, it includes an amendment that I offered and which was unanimously adopted in committee to study and implement a pilot program using market-based reforms, such as auctions, to bring down the cost to taxpayers in the guaranteed loan program. The reason we find ourselves needing to redirect these subsidies in the first place is due to the fact that Congress set subsidy rates blindly and irresponsibly, not based on any market considerations. As a free-market Republican, I believe Congress has no business setting lender returns. Other mechanisms, such as auctions, will actually capture market demands to obtain the optimal rate for taxpayers and for lenders. Given the tremendous waste, fraud and unethical relationships that have been uncovered in this program over the last 6 months, it's clear that the guaranteed loan program is fundamentally and structurally flawed. This study and pilot are key to comprehensively reforming this program to ensure it serves students and taxpayers. And I'd like to thank the chairman and the committee for their strong support for this important effort. Further, this bill applies a small portion of the savings towards improving income-contingent student loan repayment. Earlier this year, I introduced the IDEA Act, H.R. 2465, to make key changes to our current, limited income-contingent loan repayment program. The bill would make this repayment model accessible to all borrowers and better address the growing debt burdens which our students are graduating with. Some of my colleagues may be surprised to learn that this repayment model was actually developed by free-market economist Milton Friedman as the optimal way for all students, no matter their income, to repay their student loans. The College Cost Reduction Act includes several provisions included in my legislation to improve this program, such as a 15 percent cap on adjusted income payments and moving the floor from 100 to 150 percent of the poverty level. These are positive first steps towards implementing a viable income-contingent repayment program, and I hope my colleagues will consider cosponsoring the IDEA Act to develop a loan repayment system for the 21st century. I thank my colleague for yielding me this time.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, I want to pay tribute to Kimberly High School, located in Wisconsin's Sixth Congressional District, for accomplishing a feat unprecedented in the history of the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association (WIAA). The Kimberly High School Papermakers were victorious in the WIAA Division 1 championship in both girls' softball and boys' baseball, marking the first time in Wisconsin history that this title has been won in the same year by two sports teams from one high school. For these high school students to have achieved this is nothing short of remarkable. During the season, the softball team celebrated a 23-4 record, capturing the state title and earning the Fox Valley Association Conference title. Equally as impressive, the baseball team posted a 20- 6 record, winning the WIAA Division 1 Boys' Baseball State Tournament. The hard work, dedication and teamwork of these young men and women is commendable and enabled them to become the best softball and baseball teams in the State of Wisconsin this year. These students are a source of pride and inspiration for the Village of Kimberly and the entire Kimberly Area School District. Madam Speaker, it is because of this unique accomplishment that I extend congratulations and celebrate the championship wins of the Kimberly Papermakers.