Tom Petri

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3480, the Upper Mississippi River Basin Protection Act. For quite some time there have been several federal, state, and local programs designed to address the problem of sediment and nutrient loss in the Upper Mississippi River Basin, but there has been little coordination between them. This bill will provide this much needed coordination and enable a more comprehensive approach to addressing this problem. In Wisconsin, and particularly in my district, agriculture is a vital industry. The soil erosion suffered by farmers in the area reduces and threatens the long-term sustainability and income of my state's family farms. Furthermore, the cost of dredging the sediment fills in the river's main shipping channel costs over $100 million each year. These fills also threaten the region's $1.2 billion recreation and $6.6 billion tourism industries. While the Upper Mississippi River Basin contributes 22 percent of the water flowing into the Lower Mississippi, it contributes 31 percent of the nitrogen, threatening the water quality of that part of the river. By designating the U.S. Geological Survey as the lead agency, this bill will provide the much needed coordination, monitoring, and scientific data collection to implement informed and effective conservation decisions for the river basin. I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to, somewhat belatedly, congratulate the Girl Scouts of the USA on reaching its 90th anniversary as an organization. The organization had its origins in 1912 with an 18-girl group in Savannah, Georgia. From those rather humble origins it has grown to its current strength of 3.8 million members, in cluding 900,000 adult members. The Girl Scouts also boast 50 million alumnae. This is the largest organization for girls in the world. Since the organization's inception, the Girl Scout experience has helped girls acquire self-confidence and expertise, learn to think creatively and develop habits of honor and integrity that are essential in good citizens and great leaders. Many of our educators, doctors, lawyers, elected officials and other community leaders were once Girl Scouts. The benefits of Girl Scouting are delivered by a dedicated group of people--adult volunteers. Ninety-nine percent of all the adults involved in Girl Scouting are volunteers who give their time to advance the noble goals and purposes of Scouting, teaching their charges about community service, science, money management, health, fitness, and other useful skills and talents. In a time when we are trying to encourage more community involvement, we need to take the time to recognize an organization that has been leading the way for decades. Again, I am pleased to congratulate this group, which has been such an integral part of the American social fabric, as it reaches an important milestone.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 326) commending the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for their efforts to remind parents and care givers to use child safety seats and seat belts when transporting children in vehicles and for sponsoring National Child Passenger Safety Week.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support for this timely resolution. This noncontroversial resolution praises the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for its efforts to remind parents and care givers to use child safety seats and seat belts. It is fitting that the House consider this resolution this week. February 10 through 16 is National Child Passenger Safety Week. In fact, our action today is what National Child Passenger Safety Week is all about, raising public awareness for this important issue. On June 27, 2001, nearly 8 months ago, the House passed the extension of the Child Passenger Protection Education Grant program, H.R. 691, offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). While this legislation is yet to be considered by the other body, the program was fully funded this budget year. This valuable program actually prevents deaths and injuries to children. It educates parents as to the proper installation of child restraints, and it trains child passenger safety personnel concerning child restraint use. The gentleman from Minnesota has crafted good legislation, and it would be fitting for its consideration and passage by the other body this week during National Child Passenger Safety Week. As necessary as the resources H.R. 691 will provide to the States, the job of raising public awareness is important. With motor vehicle crashes being the leading cause of death for children between the ages of 4 to 14, more must be done. Private involvement must be an active component in a successful campaign. With that in mind, I would like to highlight a relatively new program, that by the Chrysler Motor Corporation, called Fit for a Kid. In this program, a parent can bring their car, regardless of its make, to a participating dealer to learn how to properly fit their child seat. This program, and others like it, are critical elements aimed to raise awareness and increase child protection knowledge. Federal funds coupled with awareness campaigns, both complemented by fitting stations, will be vital as we work toward reducing child fatalities. I would like to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) for his well-timed resolution and ask that my colleagues support the passage of House Concurrent Resolution 326. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the author of the legislation before us, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), to conclude debate on our side on this measure.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 326.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, while we all want to support our military, our fight against terrorism, and efforts to rebuild areas affected by the terrorist attacks of September 11, I find I must once again express my strong objection to the continued disregard for existing law and the House Rules shown by the Appropriations Committee. While the conference report has only been available for a few hours, there clearly are several objectionable provisions. While too numerous to specify all of them, I will highlight just a few. When the House considered H.R. 3338 on November 28, several points of order were made striking provisions that funded certain aviation and highway spending from the Aviation and Highway Trust Funds. The points of order were upheld because language directing that the funding be from the trust funds was determined to be a violation of the House Rules because this funding from the Trust Funds was not authorized. The $40 billion emergency response supplemental passed after September 11 did not provide for funding from the Trust Funds. This spending should come from the general fund. Perhaps it is no surprise to find that this conference report inserts the Trust Fund provisions again, in violation of the House Rules. It is shocking that just a few days after the FY2002 Department of Transportation Appropriations Act was signed into law, the Appropriators have seen a need to make ``technical corrections'' to the Act and continue their practice of Revenue Aligned Budget Authority diversion which negatively impacts state formula funds. The Transportation Appropriations Act diverted roughly $1 billion of RABA (which under TEA 21 is to be distributed proportionately to states and among allocated programs) into a few programs to increase their earmarking opportunities. One of the programs which had its share of RABA funds zeroed out was the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, which under TEA 21 should have received $29.9 million in RABA funds this year. Now, I am no fan of the vast amounts of federal highway funds going toward this project, but that is the project's fair share under TEA 21. H.R. 3338 restores $29.9 million to the Wilson Bridge. But the Bridge's good fortune is more bad news for the States. In order to make room for the additional funding for the Bridge, all the States will receive another cut from their TEA 21 formula funds to pay for the $29.5 million. This is on top of the $423 million cut in formula funds as a result of the first raid on the States included in the DOT Appropriations Act. Inexplicably, the Appropriators cut RABA funds for the National Scenic Byway Program, a program that seeks to preserve some of the great driving roads across our nation and that should receive $3.4 million in RABA funds. The Appropriators found time to do a little more earmarking, though in a less objectionable fashion. Two more projects for Mississippi and Washington are included, but funded from general funds and added to the $144 million of projects funded in sec. 330 of the original DOT Act and then earmarked. While unauthorized, we should at least be thankful that, unlike the Senate bill, the conference report does not fund these two projects from the Trust Fund programs that were the beneficiaries of the raid on the RABA funds from the states and other programs. On December 11, less than 10 days ago, the House passed by voice vote H.R. 3441. This bill, requested by the Administration, creates the positions of Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy and Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. When the House considered this bill on the Floor, not one member of the Appropriations Committee expressed any concerns. In fact, not one word of opposition was uttered on the Floor. And again, it was passed by voice vote. Yet, section 1107 of this conference report prohibits the use of any funds for these two positions. Why? No explanation is given. Section 1102 provides that no appropriated funds or revenues generated by Amtrak may be used to implement section 204(c)(2) of Amtrak's current authorization law until Congress has enacted an Amtrak authorization law. Section 204(c)(2) requires Amtrak to prepare a liquidation plan within 90 days of the Amtrak Reform Council determining that Amtrak will not reach operational self-sufficiency by December, 2002. It also requires the Council to submit a plan to restructure Amtrak within 90 days of that finding. The Council made such a finding last month. This prohibition on developing such plans will impede Congress' consideration of the future of Amtrak. The liquidation and restructuring plans would help educate Members and provide vital information during reauthorization of Amtrak. It is sad that the Appropriators saw fit to eliminate this statutory requirement. And, since it prohibits use of appropriations and revenues generated by Amtrak, I would argue that this is legislating on an appropriations bill in violation of the House Rules. Chapter 11 of this conference report is replete with legislative provisions affecting programs under the jurisdiction of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. This practice of usurping the jurisdiction of authorizing committees must stop. And it is getting worse with each passing year. Thankfully, we have completed all action on appropriations bills for FY 2002, but next year we must not continue to proceed down this path. I urge all Members, particularly those on authorizing committees, to stand together against this continuing assault on the jurisdiction of the authorizing committees.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the H.R. 1 Conference Report, which is the result of months of relentless effort on the part of Members and particularly staff in both chambers in both parties. It is also a great achievement for President Bush, who made education the top priority of his domestic agenda from his first day in office. This conference report largely reflects his priorities and his active support and involvement in this process have been crucial in bringing us to this point. In the context of a bipartisan, bicameral compromise final product, there are many features of this bill that represent significant departures from the old, failed Federal education policy. In this bill, we have given states and school districts an unprecedented level of flexibility to use Federal funds as they see fit. We have included, as one of the many new options for children trapped in failing schools, an opportunity to use Title I money to purchase supplemental services such as tutoring, which is a reform that many in this House have advocated for years. We have also consolidated many of the current duplicative education programs to better focus money to the students who need help the most. Additionally, this conference report makes a strong statement that, where Darwinian evolutionary theory or other controversial scientific topics are taught, students should be exposed to multiple viewpoints. Too often, students are taught only one theory where evolution is concerned, and this language gives support to those at the local and state level who uphold the value of intellectual freedom in the teaching of science. This statement is especially important to make now because H.R. 1 requires all students eventually to be tested in science on a regular basis as a condition of aid. I am also pleased that the conference report reauthorizes and updates the Troops-to-Teachers program, which assists qualified former members of the military in finding employment in the teaching profession. Since this program's beginning in 1993, Troops-to-Teachers has a proven track record of supplying high-quality teachers, even though it has thus far received little funding. I am hopeful that, when the appropriators finish their work in the coming days, this program will receive the full $30 million dollars authorized in H.R. 1. To be sure, I have some misgivings about the new accountability provisions in this conference report. Many states, such as Wisconsin, have spent years developing successful accountability systems that do not necessarily involve testing all students on an annual basis. For the Federal Government to now demand that annual testing in reading and math take place every year in grades 3-8 amounts to a new mandate placed on states over and above what we already ask of them in other areas. On the other hand, given that the national government has poured upwards of $130 billion dollars into elementary and secondary education over the last 36 years with no discernible improvement in educational outcomes for our most disadvantaged students, I fully understand the urgent need to find some way to make sure that new federal resources are tied to results. In any case, I am pleased that the conference report makes a credible attempt to address my concerns about saddling states with this new responsibility. For example, the conferees increased the amount of money authorized to help states develop and administer the new tests. Both the House bill and Senate amendment provided $400 million, however the conference report increases this to $490 million. If this account is fully funded by the appropriators, states will be able to put in place high-quality accountability systems that provide the data that parents need about their child's school. Additionally, we included a Senate provision that makes state administration of the new testing contingent on adequate funds being provided. This bill is a significant improvement over current law that, when fully implemented, might actually achieve its intended effect of making sure that henceforth no child is left behind, and on that basis I am pleased to support it and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman for his leadership on this important issue. I rise in support of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1. This is a significant accomplishment of this Congress and a great achievement for President Bush, who made education the top priority of his domestic agenda. The conference report largely reflects his priorities and his active support and involvement in this process, which has been crucial in bringing us to this point. There are many features of this bill that represent significant departures in Federal education policy. In this bill, we have given States and school districts more flexibility to use Federal funds as they see fit. We have included, as one of the many new options for children trapped in failing schools, an opportunity to use title I money to purchase supplemental services such as tutoring, which is a reform that many in this House have advocated for years. We have also consolidated many of the current duplicative education programs to better focus money to the students who need help the most, while continuing proven initiatives such as the Troops to Teachers program which has put several thousand high-quality teachers in our high-need schools since 1993. To be sure, I have some misgivings about the new accountability provisions in this conference report. Many States such as Wisconsin have spent years developing successful accountability systems that do not necessarily involve testing all students on an annual basis. For the Federal Government to now demand that annual testing in reading and math take place every year in grades 3 through 8 amounts to a new mandate placed on the States. On the other hand, given that the national government has poured upwards of some $130 billion in the elementary and secondary education over the last 36 years with no discernible improvement in educational outcomes for our most disadvantaged students, I fully understand the urgent need to find some ways to make sure that new Federal resources are tied to results. In any case, I am pleased that this conference report makes a credible attempt to address my concerns about saddling States with this new responsibility. This conference increases the amount of money authorized to help States develop and administer the tests.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, today, the leadership of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has introduced the Over-the-Road Bus Security and Safety Act of 2001. This bipartisan legislation puts in place a bus security program to better protect the bus riding public. The latest figures from the American Bus Association demonstrate that the over-the-road bus industry, comprised of private bus and tour and travel operators, transports 774 million passengers annually. The industry's 800 bus operators and almost 200 tour operators, using 40,000 motor coaches, transport more passengers than the airlines and Amtrak combined (650 million passengers). In addition, Greyhound Bus Lines and its interline partners take passengers to some 4,000 destinations, more than 7 times the number served by air or Amtrak. Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Committee has reemphasized its examination of all modes of transportation security. As an important element of multi-modal transportation, the over-the- road bus industry must increase its security measures. Unfortunately, recent terrorist acts on foreign buses and bus stations demonstrate the necessity for bus security. In fact, an analysis of worldwide terrorist activities from 1920-2000 shows that 49% of terrorist attacks involve a bus or a bus facility. While bus operators have made some security improvements, Congress must provide assistance to their ongoing efforts. Our legislation establishes a grant program that will be administered by the Secretary of Transportation. Eligible uses include expanding the passenger and baggage screening process, establishing electronic ticketing, hiring security officers and making physical security improvements to bus stations. This program is authorized at $200 million in the first fiscal year. After an appropriation is made, a twenty-five cent per ticket fee will be taken on tickets over five dollars. This fee will be used to fund the bus safety program in the following fiscal years. This is an affordable bill that brings the priceless bargain of security to the bus riding public. I hope that my colleagues support this bipartisan effort to better protect the bus riding public.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the language ``to be derived from the Highway Trust Fund and'' found on page 184, beginning on line 18 and continuing on line 19, if I may be heard on the point of order.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

Mr. PETRI. This language appropriates $75 million from the Highway Trust Fund for the Federal highway emergency relief program to respond to the attack on September 11. While I support the administration's request for emergency relief highway funding to repair and reconstruct eligible highways, roads, and bridges that were damaged in these attacks. This approach constitutes an unauthorized earmarking of funds. The language constitutes an unauthorized appropriation in violation of clause 2(a) of rule XXI, and I request a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, the Real Interstate Driver Equity Act of 2001 (H.R. 2546) was introduced by Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri. This legislation is needed to solve a problem that arises when a for-hire vehicle, usually a limousine or sedan, travels across a state line in interstate commerce. As the law is written today, state and local jurisdictions can require for-hire vehicles to be licensed in multiple states. In some instances, if they do not pay for additional licenses they can only drop their passenger in another state. They cannot make incidental stops. They cannot return the same passenger to the state of origin. An example that illustrates the problem with the current framework is that of a traveler who arranges to be picked up at an airport. On the way home to another state, they wish to stop and have dinner within the same state in which they arrived. This seems like a reasonable situation. What could go wrong with this arrangement? Unfortunately, that stopover could result in the car being ticketed, towed and impounded. The customer is stranded to look for a way to get home and the car service is left without a car and with hundreds or even thousands of dollars in fines and fees. This is not a fair practice and H.R. 2546 corrects the problem. For- hire vehicles providing prearranged ground transportation should be able to engage in interstate commerce. This legislation would not allow a carrier to operate in another jurisdiction with spontaneous new clients as though they were licensed within that jurisdiction. The legislation also protects the right of transportation terminal operators to provide preferential access and States and political subdivisions to require criminal background checks. The for-hire vehicle industry utilizes nearly 250,000 vehicles to move more than two billion passengers each year. With the economic downturn, they are an industry that has been hard hit and have requested financial support from the Congress. With the current budgetary climate, I am doubtful that the Congress will be able to provide direct fiscal relief. However, H.R. 2546 will reduce a burden that costs for-hire vehicle operators business and costs consumers efficient travel and convenience. Representative Blunt's bill is the next best thing to directing financial relief in these trying times. I am pleased to report that after more than two years of consideration, this legislation has reached the House Floor. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has been working with the sponsor and other interested parties to resolve the areas of controversy. As amended at Committee, H.R. 2546 has addressed all of the various concerns. I urge our colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the time. I really rise in support of the rule and also to praise the author of this bipartisan legislation, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson). He is right, this legislation is a modest step forward to provide needed flexibility with proper controls to enable our education system to take greater advantage of new technology. This is not going to be the final answer. This is going to be subject to reauthorization in a couple of years. But why we should wait and why we should not, with controls, allow the education institutions of America to adapt to incorporated distance learning to other greater extent is beyond me. The fact of the matter is that no institution would be enabled to go forward under this legislation if it were enacted unless it had a student default rate of less than 10 percent for the 3 most recent years. So really that door is closed. Furthermore, they could not automatically go ahead and get rid of some of the automated rules about in-class hours. They would have to submit their plan, and the Secretary could disapprove it if he felt it was inappropriate. This legislation will help people who are working parents who cannot otherwise upgrade their knowledge easily because they are working and they have got to take care of their family. They can do that through distance learning at home on their computers. It will help people in rural areas, economically disadvantaged people. It will help people who have disabilities who cannot get around as easily. They can use the computer instead of the 12-hour rule, under appropriate circumstances. I think the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) hit it exactly right. This is not radical. We are already behind the curve. New technology is enabling things to move forward in many, many areas; and this bipartisan legislation will simply enable the education institutions of the United States to adapt to the changing technology faster than they would otherwise.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, on October 26, 2001, Colonel James A. McMurry will retire as Commander of Volk Field Combat Readiness Training Center, Camp Douglas, Wisconsin. After a distinguished career in the U.S. Air Force as an instructor pilot, Colonel McMurry joined the Wisconsin Air National Guard where he served as an instructor pilot, flight examiner and squadron standardization officer with the 128th Tactical Fighter Wing. During that time, he participated in three overseas deployments. In 1989 he was assigned to lead the installation of a $31 million Air Combat Maneuvering Instrumentation system at Volk Field. He became Commander in November, 1993. In 1997, he was assigned the additional duty of Air National Guard liaison to the Air Force Command and Control Battle Lab. Colonel McMurry is a command pilot with over 3800 hours in a variety of aircraft. His awards and commendations include the Meritorious Service Medal, Air Force Commendation Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, the Joint Service Achievement Medal, the Outstanding Unit Award and the Organizational Excellence Award. Colonel McMurry represents the very best in leadership in the Wisconsin National Guard. He is considered one of the most accomplished and respected senior officers in the Air National Guard. He has led in the area of new technologies to train the men and women of the future Total Force. In addition to his distinguished military career, Colonel McMurry has served in a number of community leadership roles including the American Legion, Lions Club, County Wisconsin Workers Steering Committee and the Greater Mauston Wisconsin Development Corporation. Colonel McMurry resides in Mauston with his wife, Sue, and their three children, April, Sara and Mike. I have considered it an honor and a privilege to have worked with Colonel McMurry since his arrival at Volk Field, which is located within the 6th Congressional District that I represent. It is fitting that he receives full recognition and praise for the service he has rendered to his community, his state and his nation along with the thanks and best wishes of his fellow citizens in Wisconsin.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bipartisan amendment before us, because it provides us with a tremendous opportunity to combine needed agricultural assistance to a broad array of farmers with environmental protection. I would like to first of all commend the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and ranking member, who authored the underlying bill before us, for incorporating significant increases in our conservation programs. But the fact is that we can do more. We should do more to ensure that all of our Nation's farmers have equitable access to Federal assistance by further expanding our conservation programs. This amendment provides much of this needed equity. I share the disappointment of many farmers in my own area of Wisconsin who seek assistance for sound environmental practices, but are turned away because these programs are oversubscribed. The benefits of this amendment for a State like Wisconsin are obvious. The dairy farmers, especially crop producers that dominate my State's agriculture, will have an opportunity to access assistance that would otherwise be unavailable to them. Farmers in my area will receive an 8 percent increase in agricultural assistance under this amendment compared with the base bill. At the same time, this amendment does not preclude commodity producers from accessing this assistance either. The amendment simply increases the Federal Government's encouragement for sound environmental practices and gives all farmers a greater opportunity to receive assistance. Mr. Chairman, the amendment moves the bill significantly in the direction requested by our President and our Secretary of Agriculture as outlined in their submission to the Congress and the country, over a 100-page agriculture policy statement. They have been working on this. Along with the Senate, I hope we can work better as a team with our administration.

Mr. PETRI. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 342 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution before us. Tuesday's terrorist attacks were designed to create fear and chaos, but the real effect has been to pull us together. Through a systematic act of war, the terrorists have awakened a sleeping giant, and as a result they will discover how effective we can be now that we are sufficiently united and motivated. Mr. Speaker, our friends in the British Parliament and German Bundestag have made it clear to me that they regard yesterday's attack as an attack against civilization, not just against the United States; and I believe that attitude is shared by most people around the world, and that most of the world's governments will cooperate with us in a spirit of resolute solidarity as we develop a strong, intelligent response.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that this rule does not allow the Rahall-Petri-Kind amendment to be considered by the members of the House. Yesterday we went before the Committee on Rules to ask that our amendment striking Title II of Division F of H.R. 4 be made in order during floor debate. This title addresses various aspects of oil and gas production from federal lease lands, both onshore and offshore. The title reportedly seeks to provide greater incentives and royalty relief to oil and gas producers to encourage exploration and development in these areas. These incentives raise several serious policy questions. Unfortunately, this amendment was not made in order, and the full House was denied the opportunity to address this important issue. The incentives contained in this section are far too generous. They are not in the public interest. They will not provide for our energy security. Further, none of these provisions was contained in President Bush's report on Energy Policy. Indeed, this title is an oil and gas producer's dream, but it is a taxpayer's nightmare. First, this section provides a full royalty holiday for certain offshore leases granted over the next 2 years. Royalty payment suspension will be allowed for drilling operations in water as shallow as 400 meters. Just a few weeks ago, Interior Secretary Norton testified before the Resources Committee that the Administration does not support granting relief for production in water under 800 meters in depth. And, importantly, the Secretary currently has the authority to waive royalties. We don't need to mandate it--especially at a time of high prices. The CBO cost estimates for this relief are only the tip of the iceberg--taxpayers will continue to lose hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars of revenue during the full lifetimes of these leases. Second, this title proposes to allow the Secretary of the Interior to replace the current royalty system with a ``Royalty-in-Kind'' program which allows royalties for oil and gas taken from public lands to be paid in actual deliveries of crude oil or natural gas. This would require enlarging the size of the federal presence in these western states so that federal employees can assume private sector responsibilities. This cannot be done efficiently; an audit of a recent royalty-in-kind pilot program in Wyoming found that it had lost $3 million. Third, this legislation would mandate a royalty holiday for, and expand the definition of, marginally producing oil and gas wells. Onshore wells producing less than 30 barrels of oil per day would be considered marginal. It is my understanding that approximately 85 percent of all the oil wells on public lands produce less than 30 barrels of oil per day. Clearly, this stretches anyone's definition of marginal. Moreover, relief for truly marginal wells is already provided in this bill through the expansion of the marginal well tax credit. Fourth, the legislation contains several provisions which transfer the costs of regulatory compliance to taxpayers. Such fees are normally paid by permit applicants. There is no good reason to grant this type of financial relief, and I can think of no other federal program in which taxpayers bear these costs. I agree that we need to address our energy future to assure all Americans access to reliable and affordable energy. But I fail to see how granting a royalty holiday for oil and gas production on federal leases will accomplish this goal. This title benefits the oil and gas industry without providing any benefit for taxpayers--these royalties are, afterall, rent payments for the privilege of extracting energy resources from publicly owned land. Again, I am disappointed that the rule did not allow members to consider separately these questionable royalty relief provisions.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, with many railroad retirees amongst my constituents, I am pleased to rise in strong support of this legislation. Several years ago, as Chairman of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee, I became aware of the need to increase the retirement security of our nation's railroad workers. The members of the Transportation committee worked hard to bring all the stakeholders together to work out a comprehensive plan to reform the railroad retirement system. I am quite pleased that this legislation represents the product of that work. By diversifying the investment vehicles for retirement accounts, this legislation improves retirement benefits and reduces taxes on railroad employers. This sensible legislation is supported by both railroad management and most labor unions. Last year, this House overwhelmingly passed similar legislation, but he Senate failed to act on it. Let's not make our railroad retirees and their families wait any longer for this needed reform. I urge my colleagues in both chambers to support quick passage and enactment of this legislation.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) for his work on this bill. Over the years, I have been intimately involved in several of the issues contained in this bill, and I am aware of the many challenges that he faces in putting it together. It is one of those issues about which I rise today. For several decades, Congress has debated the merits of constructing a massive water on the Animas River in Colorado. Last fall, the Colorado Ute Settlement Act Amendments of 2000 was included in the end-of-the-year omnibus appropriations bill with little opportunity for debate or a vote on this specific project, and today's bill appropriates $16 million for it. While the features of this Animas La Plata project are not as egregious as earlier versions, there are serious concerns that significant loopholes remain which will enable project beneficiaries to violate the intent of the act. None of these loopholes is more significant than the possibility that nontribal beneficiaries are going to avoid their responsibilities, as required by reclamation law, for the full repayment of all capital and operating costs associated with their share of water from the project. This has been a continuing concern of many of us who have opposed this project in the past. There are already some indications that local nontribal water users may be trying to do just that with the potential of buying water from the tribes instead. To cite just one example, on May 24, 2001, the director of Colorado's Water Conservation Board sent an e-mail to other State officials stating, and I quote, ``given the cost of ALP water, I do not think the State can afford to purchase. We discussed the possibility of an option to lease or option to purchase at some future date with a nominal annual payment. I would prefer to let the Feds pay for it at this time with the Indians holding title.'' The language adopted last year clearly states that nontribal repayment arrangements must be made before construction begins. Furthermore, it directed the Secretary of the Interior to report to Congress by April 1 of this year on the status of the repayment negotiations. That report has still not been made. Mr. Chairman, I hope that what was declared in the 1987 ad in the Colorado paper does not come to pass. It said, ``Why should we support the Animas La Plata project? Reason number seven, because someone else is paying most of the tab. We get the water. We get the reservoir. They pay the bill.'' If the local beneficiaries are not willing to pay their share, nobody else's constituents should have to pay this bill. Such a situation certainly begs the question of whether the project is really worthwhile, that is what the principle of cost sharing is all about. I will continue to closely monitor the development of this project and, if necessary, work to stop the further funding of this project if it does not progress as required by law, and I ask the chairman and the committee and all of my colleagues to do the same. Please keep an eye on this project and do not allow it to move forward if all parties do not fulfill their repayment obligations.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, for a quarter of a century, Manitowoc, Wisconsin, has been served by one of our nation's great local broadcasters. Lee Davis began his radio career in 1954 as a disc jockey and program manager in Philadelphia. Before coming to Manitowoc in 1975, he was general manager of WMAQ-AM and FM in Chicago as well as national program manager for Rollins, Inc., where he was responsible for seven stations around the country. Now, as owner and general manager of WCUB and WLTU, Lee Davis gives us big city professionalism along with small town friendliness and involvement. Listeners in the Manitowoc area are well served by Lee's stewardship of WCUB's Breakfast Club, where he brings the community together through his insightful interviews and conversation, and where he provides local radio broadcasting as it should be--by and for the people who actually live in the community. I recently learned that Lee Davis has been chosen for induction into the Wisconsin Broadcasters Association Hall of Fame. He richly deserves it, and I want to join the people of Manitowoc in extending our congratulations.