Tom Petri

Mr. PETRI

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

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6233) to amend the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users to make technical corrections, and for other purposes.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us amends the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficiency Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, or SAFETEA-LU, to make technical corrections. The bill was introduced by Chairman Don Young of Alaska, Mr. Jim Oberstar of Minnesota, Peter DeFazio of Oregon and me, who worked together on the development and passage of the SAFETEA-LU authorization bill last year. In June, the House passed the technical corrections bill to SAFETEA- LU, H.R. 5689. Since then, we have been working with our Senate colleagues to identify and correct any other outstanding issue from the original bill. This bill, H.R. 6233, is the product of those negotiations and will make the necessary changes to SAFETEA-LU. The technical corrections included in the bill have been identified by the Department of Transportation and are mostly of a conforming nature or correct drafting errors. The most important correction we are making is to strengthen the Federal highway research program by ensuring the continuation of the legacy research programs carried out by the Department of Transportation. The bill has been scored by the Congressional Budget Office and has no budgetary impact. I support this legislation and encourage my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 6233.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, throughout the country, Native American languages are experiencing a rapid decline. Of the nearly 300 native languages of the United States, only 210 are still spoken, and all too often these languages are spoken only among the elderly. This is a particularly troubling development, given the importance of Native American languages to tribal identity and culture. As such, I was pleased that Congresswoman Heather Wilson introduced H.R. 4766, the Native American Languages Preservation Act, which would provide federal support for programs that provide language training for young children and their families. I would also like to recognize Chairman Buck McKeon for the expedited manner in which he has moved this legislation. On August 31st, I had the opportunity to travel to Albuquerque, New Mexico, to participate in a hearing held by the Education and the Workforce Committee on the ``Recovery and Preservation of Native American Languages''. We heard from representatives of several tribes regarding their experiences with this problem and ways in which they have attempted to preserve their native languages. Fortunately, efforts are underway to save these languages and to encourage a new generation of Native Americans to keep their languages alive as an integral part of Native American culture and identity. I was particularly pleased that a representative from the Oneida Nation of my home state of Wisconsin was able to testify at this hearing. The Oneida have made language preservation a priority by pairing Elder native speakers with younger English-speakers to train a new generation to appreciate and preserve the traditional language. Since 1996, the Oneida have developed a Language Revitalization Program to connect their fluent Elders with trainees in a semi-immersion process that would produce speakers, and most importantly, teachers of the Oneida language. Although tribes like the Oneida have already begun to develop programs to preserve their own languages, Congress can help other tribes create programs of their own. H.R. 4766 will provide more options for revitalization programs and take advantage of existing grants within the Administration for Native Americans Office. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this bill and for the revitalization of native languages.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the Income-Dependent Education Assistance (IDEA) Act of 2006. 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. Of course, that is critically important, and I was pleased to support the Deficit Reduction Act earlier this year which raised loan limits and increased loan options for graduate students. 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 ICLR repayment program 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 4.5 percent of federal student loans each year. Mr. Speaker, the IDEA Act of 2006 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 yield myself such time as I may consume. Since 1956, the international cycling community and the League of American Bicyclists have celebrated May as National Bike Month. This resolution expresses the sense of Congress that U.S. citizens should observe a National Bike Month. Over 100 million American citizens of all ages cycle each year. In addition, 5 million people commute by bike to work. But these people are the exception, not the rule. Over 57 million people in the United States are overweight. 78 percent of Americans do not meet the recommended basic levels of activity. During this time when childhood obesity and type II diabetes are rising at alarming rates, it is important that we encourage people to a more active lifestyle. Cycling is a safe, low impact, aerobic activity for all ages. As more people participate in activities such as cycling, the recent trends in obesity and type II diabetes can be reversed. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Bike Caucus and cosponsor of this bill, I support efforts to publicize the benefits of cycling and of bicycle safety. My home State of Wisconsin is a leader among the States in the number of trails our residents can enjoy and more than half a million people in Wisconsin ride a bike at least once a month. On the business side, we are the proud home of manufacturers of bikes and bike products. Even the President of the United States rides a Trek, headquartered in Wisconsin, as does seven-time Tour-de-France winner Lance Armstrong. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 145. By establishing a National Bike Month we are providing the opportunity to educate people about the importance of bicycle safety and the health benefits of cycling. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 145.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 145) expressing the sense of Congress in support of a national bike month and in appreciation of cyclists and others for promoting bicycle safety and the benefits of cycling.

Mr. PETRI

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

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to our distinguished colleague from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. House Concurrent Resolution 235 expresses the sense of Congress that States should require candidates for driver's licenses to demonstrate an ability to exercise greatly increased caution when driving in the proximity of a potentially visually impaired individual. Each year too many visually impaired individuals have their white canes and guide dogs run over by motor vehicles or are struck by the side-view mirrors of motor vehicles. Others suffer serious personal injury and death as a result of being hit by cars. Unfortunately, many States do not require candidates for driver's licenses to demonstrate the ability to associate the use of the white cane or guide dog with potentially visually impaired individuals. With a little education by the States and some extra attention paid by drivers, we can greatly improve the safety along our surface streets for those individuals who are visually impaired. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the sponsor of this resolution, our colleague Lane Evans, who will be leaving the Congress at the end of the year. Representative Evans has always been a champion of our Nation's veterans, and this resolution has the strong support of veterans groups and other organizations. Representative Evans has long had a record of distinguished public service, and our thoughts are with him at this difficult time. Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of House Concurrent Resolution 235. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 House Concurrent Resolution 235.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 235) expressing the sense of the Congress that States should require candidates for driver's licenses to demonstrate an ability to exercise greatly increased caution when driving in the proximity of a potentially visually impaired individual.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, today I am voting for the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act; however, I do so with reservations. I agree that we need to end our dependence on foreign oil, and I believe that this legislation will benefit our economy by increasing domestic energy supply and creating American jobs. However, I am concerned with a number of provisions in the bill. In particular, I am concerned about the overly generous revenue sharing provisions that direct money away from the federal treasury to coastal states. I know improvements have been made in the manager's amendment adopted today, but I hope we continue to discuss the proper balance between the state and federal share of revenues generated from a federal asset. I also have reservations about the potential for this legislation to weaken federal environmental laws. Finally, I have concerns with the power we are giving states over waters as far as 200 miles off their coasts. What coordination is there with the federal government in terms of jurisdiction over these waters, such as impacts on shipping lanes and other national or international priorities? I believe that in order to truly end our dependence on foreign oil we need to pass legislation that promotes conservation and alternative energy sources, and increases domestic production in a manner that limits the potential for damage to our invaluable coastlines, national parks, forests, and other natural resources. My vote today is a vote to move this process along, but I hope any conference report or final bill brought before us will address these concerns and my vote on a bill going to the President will be based on how these issues are resolved.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Speaker and my good friend and colleague from Wisconsin, Paul Ryan, for their willingness to work with the Transportation Committee to ensure that transportation trust fund budget protections will be preserved and that trust fund dollars are not used for deficit reduction or diverted to the general fund. It is my understanding that we have a commitment that this bill, when and if it comes out of conference, will be in a form that also honors funding guarantees and that spending will not be below guaranteed levels. I further appreciate the clarification by Congressman Ryan that it was not his intention to negatively impact the guarantees and that he supports continuing to spend the revenues coming into the trust funds. This is so important because in 1998 and in subsequent votes, this Congress has reaffirmed the principle that user fees collected from aviation and highway users should be used only for their intended purpose--transportation improvements. For too long, aviation and highway trust fund spending had been suppressed in order to increase spending in other areas or to mask the size of the federal deficit, to the point that we had ballooning balances in the trust funds. The goal of the line item veto bill here today is to achieve savings--and it had originally provided that any vetoed item be used for deficit reduction. For direct spending, this would have applied not only to ``earmarks,'' but to programs that are increased and supported by the trust funds! This would be in direct conflict with the spending guarantees we have had in our two previous aviation and highway bills and undermined the principle that trust fund spending should be linked to trust fund revenues--it is spending that is paid for. Using gas taxes for deficit reduction (as far as the Highway Trust Fund is concerned) was vigorously opposed by Republicans when President Clinton proposed it in 1993. It was the right position then and it is the right position today. Again, this is not spending that contributes to the deficit--it is spending that is paid for and we should not break our promise that revenues collected will be spent on transportation. Much as some may dispute it, programs that are supported by user fees are different--and they merit the different budget treatment that they currently have. It would be a terrible mistake to turn back the clock now, and I am glad that we are taking steps to ensure that it is not the case. I look forward to continuing to work to fine-tune the provisions regarding the transportation trust funds in this bill.

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 House Concurrent Resolution 372.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Thursday, June 29, will mark the 50th anniversary of the Federal law that brought America its unparalleled interstate highway system. This 46,508-mile web of superhighways has transformed our Nation and our Nation's economy. It is a symbol of freedom and it is a tribute to human ingenuity. As America entered the 20th century, good roads, even paved roads, were not common. In addition, it was rare for roads in one State to link up with roads in adjacent States. Roads might lead outward from cities, even to State lines, but there was no guarantee they would meet other roads in neighboring States. The concept of an interstate system as we know it today can be traced back to a 1939 report to Congress called ``Toll Roads and Free Roads.'' In 1944, the National Highway Committee, appointed by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and headed by Commissioner of Public Roads Thomas MacDonald, produced plans for a national system of approximately 34,000 miles of expressways. However, it was the efforts of President Dwight David Eisenhower that gave us the interstate highway system we have today. Eisenhower personally witnessed the need for a national highway system in 1919, when as a young lieutenant colonel in the Army he helped staff a convoy of 81 military vehicles from Washington, D.C. to San Francisco. It is kind of a modern day Lewis and Clark Expedition. The journey took 62 days, and the convoy averaged 6 miles per hour. On today's interstate system, such a trip could be easily completed in less than a week. During the journey, Lieutenant Colonel Eisenhower formed the opinion that the United States desperately needed a better highway system. Eisenhower made the creation of an interstate system a keystone of his domestic agenda when he came into office in the early 1950s. Eisenhower's original effort to pass legislation to create an interstate system went down in defeat in July of 1955. He was unwilling to accept defeat, however, and he resumed his campaign in 1956. Eisenhower's plan required the Federal Government to bear the majority of the construction cost, recognizing this massive public works project was vital to interstate commerce, national defense, and economic growth. His plan also established a user fee-based financing plan through a gas tax and this funding source is still the bedrock of the current Federal Aid Highway Program. Congress passed the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 in June of 1956, and on June 29, 1956, President Eisenhower signed the bill into law and set in motion the interstate system as we know it today. I am honored to be here this afternoon to recognize the 50th anniversary of the interstate system, and I look forward to taking part in the other events that are planned throughout this month to honor this historic anniversary. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just to conclude and build on the remarks of the dean of our committee, Mr. Oberstar, we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of a remarkable thing, a generation of Americans, some have said the Greatest Generation, that thought not just of itself, but of its country and its future and invested in the future. They were not borrowing against existing assets, against existing assets for current expenses. Instead, they were taxing themselves or paying fees themselves to build for the future to create a greater, productive enterprise here in the United States, one symbol of that, of what we are celebrating today, the 50th anniversary of the interstate highway system, the envy of the world, the backbone of the strongest economy in the world. I had the opportunity, as a much younger person, to meet Dwight Eisenhower on several occasions. I got out of school when I was in fourth grade to go down to the railway station in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, one of the last whistle-stop campaign trips, and again once while in high school. These groups come from all over the country to visit their legislators and so on. I was with a group about to meet President Eisenhower in the Rose Garden in the White House. But in those days Presidents would often, not only Eisenhower, address the country. Not because there was some great crisis, but because they were always trying to rally people to a constructive cause. I remember him often speaking and saying as a former general who had known war that the true strength of a country was not embodied just in its army, though military, though that was a part of it; the true strength of a country was the moral fiber of its people and the productive capacity of its economy. If those were tended to, you could always build military strength out of that. But if you relied solely on military strength, you would have a hollow strength and would not have the sustainability that the strong economy and character of the people could provide to face any threat. Part of that strength is our interstate highway system. He led us to build it. It is our job to sustain and to renew it in future generations and, as a part of that, to commemorate its great contribution and success through this resolution. I urge all Members to join us in supporting it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).