Tom Petri

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). Mr. Chairman, it is interesting that in the course of the discussion of the rule of this bill, in the course, a lot of people came to the floor of the House of Representatives in the course of the last few weeks, as well, saying that the scope of this bill is too large, that an increase of over 40 percent in transportation funds over 6 years is a budget buster. And yet the amendment we have before us indicates that the bill is not large enough, and the hope of the gentleman in offering this amendment is that we add some additional hundred plus million dollars to the bill to meet a particular need, that despite the fact that we do include a $42 million Access to Jobs pilot program in the bill, and in addition in this bill there is some $20 billion, $20 billion in formula funds for over 6 years that can be used for the needs of people who want to go from welfare to work and to meet their transportation needs. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we have mass transit and many other transit operations of a particular nature already in existence around the United States, we do not need to pile on a lot of money that will ultimately be used for administration rather than help real people find real jobs. We are willing to experiment in this bill with a pilot program, but I think before we know what we are talking about we should not start throwing additional money at it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, today we are considering legislation that, perhaps more than any bill we will consider this Congress, touches the lives of each and every constituent of each and every Member of this House. Mr. Chairman, until something goes wrong, we often overlook the impact that transportation has on our daily lives. No matter who we are or where we live, we rely on an efficient and safe transportation network. Whether we live in an urban area where transit provides a way to get to and from work; whether we farm land in a rural area and need to get crops to market quickly; whether we own a business that needs to truck in materials and get finished goods out over the roads; whether we are a young mother worrying about safely driving our young children to school each day; or whether we load up the family and go down the highway on our annual family vacation in Disney World or the Grand Canyon, we need a good transportation system in the United States for daily commutes, to transport freight around the country, and to provide opportunities for tourism and for recreation. Transportation is something that we use every day, and it provides a safe and efficient way of getting around and moving goods, and it is something that our constituents expect. Mr. Chairman, today we have an opportunity to pass legislation that truly does provide tangible, real benefits for all Americans. Some have tried to attack the bill before us based on the funding levels and budget implications of authorizations for projects in various Members' districts. But those critics ignore one important fact: all the spending in this bill is fully supported by the gas taxes paid and collected in the Highway Trust Fund. In fact, spending is actually below trust fund revenues over the next 6 years. Spending in this bill is linked to the amount of taxes collected in the trust fund, taxes collected from the motoring public and which can be used only for transportation purposes. Spending increases in this bill are so large in part because we are finally using the gas taxes for transportation instead of hoarding them in the trust fund to subsidize other spending. The current trust fund balance is about $23 billion. Under the budget agreement last year it would have grown to $70 billion. What is fair about that, government borrowing from the trust fund to spend on all kinds of things, adding to the national debt? Gas taxes are user fees collected to fund transportation. They should either be used for that purpose, as BESTEA does, or the gas tax should be cut. Now, some have used the term ``hypocrisy'' to describe this bill. Well, the true hypocrisy is taxing the American public, saying we will use those taxes only for transportation, and then not living up to our part of the bargain. That is why America has become so skeptical about Washington. We are ending that practice in this bill. We should not lose sight of the fact that since BESTEA more fully spends the new gas taxes coming into the trust fund, we have agreed to write off a total of $9 billion of the outstanding $22 billion cash balance in the Highway Trust Fund, and we have agreed to forgo interest that would otherwise be credited to this trust fund saving over $14 billion in national indebtedness. No one has been talking about that, but it reduces the outstanding debt of the United States by over $20 billion. We have significantly reformed distribution formulas to provide for the more equitable allocation of funds among the States. Funding formulas are updated so that we no longer use historic shares to distribute funds, and instead we use up-to-date transportation data that more accurately reflects usage and need. Minimum allocation for donor States is increased to 95 percent. Several other donor State funding provisions are included. A very significant reform is that for the first time projects are included in the minimum allocation calculation so States cannot be severely disadvantaged or advantaged whether they have or do not have projects. Finally, donee States do not lose in terms of actual dollars received, but in fact increase substantially over the amounts received, over the past 6 years of ISTEA. Under BESTEA, we are able to increase funding for clean air programs. We increase by $2 billion funding for safety and safety education programs, and we have done an increase in transit funding by 43 percent. It contains significant reforms to streamline project delivery and reduce red tape, including coordinating environmental reviews, reducing project approval requirements and eliminating programmatic responsibilities of Department of Transportation regional offices. Mr. Chairman, passage of BESTEA today means Americans traveling on the roads will be safer. It means that we will take a step forward in sustaining and improving the economic prosperity that we as Americans are so fortunate to enjoy. And it means that we will be competitive in a global economy that relies on efficient transportation. We quite literally need good highways, bridges and public transit to keep us moving ahead into the future.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure may file a supplemental report to the bill (H.R. 2400) to authorize funds for federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, transit programs, and for other purposes, at any time before midnight, March 27, 1998.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure have until midnight, Wednesday, March 25, 1998, to file a report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2400) to authorize funds for federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, transit programs, and for other purposes.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of S. 1417, the Hispanic Cultural Center Act of 1997. This bill provides for the design, construction and equipping of a Center for Performing Arts with the complex of the New Mexico Hispanic Cultural Center. Already, $5.5 million has been appropriated for the center. These funds are subject to authorization, which can be provided through the passage of the bill that is before us. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Redmond]. (Mr. REDMOND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1417) to provide for the design, construction, furnishing, and equipping of a center for performing arts within the complex known as the New Mexico Hispanic Cultural Center and for other purposes.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House is considering this important piece of legislation before it adjourns for the year. This bill will ensure that key surface transportation programs, including the highway, transit, and highway safety programs, continue to receive funding while a multi-year reauthorization is being crafted by the Congress. At one point in time this fall, it appeared that there was a good chance that the other body would not even consider an extension. Fortunately, upon further reflection, they reached the same conclusion that we had reached--that it just isn't good transportation policy to allow these programs to wither on the vine or to allow the Federal Highway Administration to shut down due to lack of funds. I want to comment briefly on the formula for distributing highway funds. This bill distributes $9.7 billion in obligation limitation to the States based primarily on the level of unobligated balances each state had at the beginning of the year. This is the distribution method insisted upon by the Senate. This method is generally less favorable to the ``Donor'' states than the method included in BESTEA--the bill considered by my subcommittee in September--and the short term extension passed by the House on October 1. In fact, 21 ``Donor'' States receive a lower percentage than they did under the House passed bill. Many of these States receive a trust fund return on their obligation authority that is below 80 percent. The House accepted this method of distributing the obligation limitation in return for several concessions on the part of the Senate that we considered important in helping us proceed with the longer term bill next year--including preserving the budget baseline and providing additional contract authority to the States so that they would not be dependent exclusively on balances of unobligated funds. I hope this serves as a forewarning to the ``Donor'' States that they need to be vigilant as we continue to develop a final formula for a multi-year bill. Chairman Shuster and I remain committed to modernizing the ISTEA formulas. Current formulas clearly are indefensible and have the perverse effect of reducing overall support for a strong Federal highway program. I urge the House to approve S. 1519.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I rise in opposition to the LaTourette-Traficant amendment. The amendment would gut the labor reforms in the Amtrak bill, leaving Amtrak with the onerous labor provisions that it has been saddled with for the last 26 years. Let me be clear about what current labor requirements entail. Amtrak must pay up to 6 years of full wages and benefits to any worker who is laid off due to a route elimination or frequency reduction to below three times per week. That is right, 6 years of severance pay. Even worse, any worker who is asked to move his or her job location more than 30 miles is eligible for the 6 years of benefits. So workers do not even have to be laid off in order to claim the 6 years of pay. In addition, there is currently a Federal law that prevents Amtrak from contracting out any work other than foods or beverage service if it will result in the layoff of a single employee in a bargaining unit. This prohibits Amtrak from gaining any of the savings that are possible through contracting out work. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us contains a compromise reform proposal on these two issues that was worked out in the last Congress with the full participation and support of organized labor. It is a fair compromise that allows labor and management to negotiate through the collective bargaining process the issues of labor protection and contracting out. Amtrak could agree to any terms on these issues. Federal law would not predetermine the outcome in any way. It is important to note that at the end of the bargaining process, if there were no agreement, labor would have the right to strike just as it would under any other railroad labor collective bargaining agreement. Mr. Chairman, we do not require airlines to pay laid-off employees for 6 years. We do not prevent the airlines from contracting out work. Why should we do that for Amtrak? I urge my colleagues to defeat the LaTourette amendment, pass the bill, and secure Amtrak's future.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 270. This rule is a fair rule especially in light of the history of this legislation. In the 104th Congress, the House passed virtually the same bill that we have before us today. That legislation enjoyed the bipartisan support of 406 House Members and the full endorsement of organized labor. In fact, labor participated in drafting the labor reforms that it is opposing today. This rule allows for a Democratic substitute amendment and for one Republican amendment with a substitute. Members will have the opportunity to vote on these amendments. Amtrak reform legislation must be enacted. Anyone who has been paying attention to Amtrak knows that it is about to enter into bankruptcy. The General Accounting Office has confirmed this as well as the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's bipartisan Blue Ribbon Panel on intercity rail. Mr. Speaker, today's vote is about the future of intercity rail in the United States. If we want to continue to have rail service as a transportation option, then we must enact reform legislation dealing with Amtrak. There is no way Amtrak can survive without it. In addition, the reform legislation will free up $2.3 billion that was provided in the Taxpayer Relief Act for badly needed capital investment in Amtrak. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule and on the legislation to follow.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my support for this shortterm extension of ISTEA. The bill serves many important purposes. It allows States to continue to operate and manage their programs without interruption in the new fiscal year. At the same time, it will allow us to fully consider and make our case for increased transportation investment during budget negotiations next year. We then will be able to move the multiyear reauthorization bill, H.R. 2400, that the committee has developed. It is important to note that funds going to the States in this extension are not based on ISTEA averages or some chart approved by conferees 6 years ago. It is based on the year 1997--the best year for donor States since that is the year that the equity program known as 90 percent of payments came into play and provided donor States a more equitable return. I know there may be some States or contractors who want the safety and security of a long-term bill. Certainly we had hoped to provide them with that and a 6-month extension is not the preferable course of action. But, as my own State has told me, while we want a long-term bill, we do not want a long-term bill at any cost. There may be some uncertainty, but the potential payoff can be great. If we were to authorize 6 years of transportation spending under the budget agreement, the highway trust fund balance would soar to roughly $80 billion. It is totally unacceptable for this Congress to continue to collect taxes from American citizens at the gas pump and then not spend those revenues for urgently needed transportation improvements. Even under H.R. 2400, where we begin to more fully spend highway trust fund revenues, the balance will grow to about $50 billion before stabilizing. The committee will not move forward with legislation that does not set us on a course of living up to the promise of the highway trust fund made over 40 years ago that taxes imposed on the traveling public would be used only for preserving and upgrading our Nation's transportation system. We need the time provided in this extension to review changing economic conditions and spending and revenue projections in order to set a realistic, responsible level of funding for transportation for the future. H.R. 2516 allows the State programs to continue while we pursue our goal of a multiyear reauthorization bill and higher funding levels. I urge the House to approve H.R. 2516.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill and the inclusion of provisions to require the Census Bureau to conduct, as the Constitution says, an actual enumeration rather than using the statistical technique known as sampling. Following the 1990 census we had a debate over whether to use the number resulting from the actual enumeration or a number adjusted by sampling. This time the Bureau does not even intend to try to count everyone. As I understand it, the plan is to try to count 90 percent of the people and estimate the rest. I oppose the use of sampling for several reasons. It would leave the census numbers open to political manipulation and would tend to undermine the public's confidence in the census. We have seen various administrations manipulate the FBI, IRS, and reportedly even the Immigration and Naturalization Service for political gain. Once we move away from a hard count what guarantee do we have that this or a future administration will not manipulate the census numbers for partisan gains? A Member of the other body has stated that we should all support sampling since we all rely on something similar, public opinion polls, to get elected. The problem with this thinking is that we may use polls to guide us but we don't let them determine the winner. I would have no objection if the Bureau uses sampling to determine where there may have been an undercount, and then goes back in and redoubles its efforts to count those people. That would be analogous to the way we use opinion polls. To rely on sampling rather than a physical count is comparable to changing election returns if they are at variance with the polls. Sampling is said to adjust for undercounts in major cities. But once you estimate how many people are in a given city, to what wards, neighborhoods, and precincts do they belong? How can State legislatures and school boards and city councils be apportioned if we don't know where these estimated people live? Is sampling really accurate enough to tell us if some small town has 3,300 people instead of the 3,000 from a hard count? When a State, such as Wisconsin, has hundreds of towns of such size, will sampling adjust for an undercount there the way it might in Los Angeles or some other major city? In 1990 an entire ward in one town in my district was missed. The community leaders pointed this out during the post-census review and the mistake was corrected. For 2000 the Bureau will not do a post-census review presumably since no one can know what mistakes were made since everyone wasn't supposed to be counted anyway. Will the undercount of Indian reservations, of which there are several in Wisconsin be corrected? My understanding is that the bureau plans to do a hard count on Indian reservations. Yet native Americans were among the most undercounted in the last census. So how can it be claimed that the reason the bureau wants to use sampling is to correct for past undercounts? The main argument of those supporting sampling is that it will save money. Well that may or may not be true but that can't be the only basis for designing the census. The cheapest possible census would be if the numbers were just made up altogether. We obviously aren't going to do that but the point is that saving money is not the only goal. Fairness is a goal and sampling is unfair to smaller communities and rural States. Following the Constitution, which calls for an actual enumeration, is a goal and the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue. What happens if we complete the 2000 census using sampling to estimate 10 percent of the population and then the Supreme Court throws it out? Then we will have wasted the $4 billion spent on the original census not to mention who knows how much in litigation. Rather than saving money, sampling could end up costing the taxpayers two or three times as much money as a hard count if we have to redo the whole thing. I believe a greater effort should be made to reach all Americans to provide an accurate hard count. Fifty percent of the undercount from the last census was caused by people never receiving the forms. Better mailing lists and better coordination with the Post Office and local governments can correct this problem. Approximately 32 percent of the undercount can be corrected through the use of easier to read forms and perhaps an 800 information number. The rest will have to be reached through better outreach. Instead the Bureau plans to spend less money on outreach, figuring that sampling can make up the difference. I don't believe the bureau's plan will provide for the fairest and most accurate census. I encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to call my colleagues' attention to an article published in today's Washington Post, written by Congressman Bud Shuster, chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Chairman Shuster makes a compelling case not only for the need to invest in our Nation's infrastructure but to do so by utilizing the highway trust fund, into which Americans pay their gas taxes. By unlocking the trust fund, as Chairman Shuster notes, we can make our highways and transit systems safer and more efficient. As we undertake our reauthorization of the Nation's surface transportation program, Chairman Shuster's article is necessary reading. [From the Washington Post, Sept. 15, 1997] Money To Get America Moving (By Bud Shuster) The Post can't have it both ways--disdaining the spending of gas-tax dollars to build America's highways [``The Highway Bill,'' editorial, Sept. 7] while decrying in numerous news stories the growing congestion on the region's highways, the looming crisis of Washington's transit system and the need for a billion-dollar replacement of the Woodrow Wilson bridge. Beyond the Beltway, America is also growing and prospering, but our transportation infrastructure is crumbling. A 70 percent increase in Asian trade is jamming Seattle's port and snarling traffic at 45 railroad crossings. The antiquated roads of the no-longer sleepy Rio Grande valley are clogged by a 250 percent increase in Mexican-Texan trade. Miami is exploding, with traffic on its main east-west corridor projected to increase by 120 percent and its population projected to increase by 60 percent by the year 2010. In the past decade, New York has had a 2 percent increase in population but a 27 percent increase in vehicle miles traveled; Illinois, a 3 percent increase in population but a 33 percent increase in vehicle miles traveled; Virginia, a 16 percent increase in population but a 46 percent increase in vehicle miles traveled; and, California, a 20 percent increase in population but a 33 percent increase in vehicle miles traveled. Comparable population-to-transportation growth ratios exist in almost every state. Urban congestion costs $43 billion annually, our 23 largest airports each experience more than 200,000 hours in delays annually and 30 percent of our 42,000 annual highway fatalities are caused by unsafe roads and bridges. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, we need to invest $16 billion more annually in our highways, $10 billion more in our airports and $13 billion more in transit. The good news is the gas, airline ticket and related taxes Americans are paying into transportation trust funds are adequate to begin meeting these needs. The bad news is that the money is not being spent as promised when the transportation trust funds were established. The transportation trust funds have $32 billion in unspent balances, and those balances will increase to more than $105 billion in five years if nothing changes. And by law, the trust fund revenues can be spent only on transportation infrastructure. The Building Efficient Surface Transportation & Equity Act of 1997 (BESTEA) will put the trust back into the transportation trust funds by unlocking those funds to be spent as they were intended. Annual gas taxes and related user fees going into the Highway Trust Fund support increasing highway spending from $4 billion to $6 billion annually, without touching the $32 billion balance in the transportation trust funds. In fact, the spending levels in BESTEA will cause the trust fund balances to rise to $59 billion in five years. But that's a battle for the future. BESTEA is also good transportation policy and has the widespread support of environmentalists, the National League of Cities, the National Association of State Legislatures and hundreds of others groups. Moreover, the National Governors' Association has urged us to go even further than BESTEA spend the surplus and all future revenue flowing into the Highway Trust Fund. We can keep faith with the American people by spending their trust fund gas taxes to improve roads, bridges and transit systems while balancing the budget. Both the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office have indicated that the five-year budget plan underestimated federal revenues by $135 billion. Fully funding BESTEA transportation trust funds spending by about $25 billion over five years--only 18 percent of the assumed revenues--so no other programs will need to be cut to stay within the five- year deficit-reduction plan. This is an investment in our future that can and should be made.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, just to summarize, the issue that we will be voting on is whether we should continue to spend money on this project pending an agreement on a new scaled back project, or whether we should suspend acquisition and just have money for planning until the new project is agreed on. If Members do not want to spend money until we have a new project, vote against Fazio and then vote for the underlying amendment, Petri- DeFazio. If they want to keep spending money, even though we do not have agreement and negotiations are going on, then vote for the substitute. I urge Members to vote against the substitute and for the underlying amendment.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as I have previously stated, the only limitation on the use of the funds would be on activities related to the acquisition of land for the construction of the project as originally authorized. In fact, it has always been our intention that by eliminating the funds in this way, the funds would still be available for the study and planning of a reasonable alternative.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides that no money can be spent on land acquisition or construction of the Animas LaPlata Water Project in Colorado and New Mexico. Although this Energy and Water Appropriations bill does not contain any additional funds for the Animas LaPlata project, there is approximately $8.2 million of previously appropriated and unobligated funds that remain, and the other body has appropriated an additional $6 million for this year. I believe the House of Representatives deserves an opportunity to restate its view on this important issue. As Members know, last year the House voted against the project by a 221 to 200 vote, removing its money from last year's appropriations bill. Nine and a half million dollars was then inserted in the bill in conference. Fortunately, the supporters to the project have agreed that the project as originally conceived cannot be built. Yet now they have recently presented an alternative which still costs hundreds of millions of dollars, still contains a number of objectionable features, is not in compliance with existing Federal laws and, most importantly, has not been authorized. This alternative is a new project and should be authorized before it goes forward. We appreciate the fact that the bill contains no new money for the Animas LaPlata project, and we thank the chairman for that. Our concern is that the committee report language directs that existing funds continue to be spent on the project and that spending is not limited to studies of alternatives. We do not believe any funds should be committed to the construction of a project that everyone has abandoned or an unauthorized alternative under the guise of the old project until a new alternative has been developed and authorized. There is, in fact, a negotiation process underway in the State of Colorado led by Governor Romer and Lieutenant Governor Schoettler discussing new alternatives and other possibilities. We support this negotiation process and hope it results in an acceptable alternative. But until it does so, it is completely premature to be appropriating and spending any more money for the construction of the old project or a new one. I would just like to have the House be very clear that no funds should be used to start construction until Congress has authorized a new alternative, and that is what this amendment attempts to do. I would ask all my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. PETRI. Reclaiming my time, there is mutual suspicion, obviously, in this. But the report language accompanying the bill that we are considering today does contain language providing for continued spending on the project. My amendment was an effort to overcome that support language and provide for what we regard as a more neutral field. And, hopefully, there will be some discussions before this comes out of conference and maybe the whole thing can be resolved at that point, I think, we have identified the area of difference.

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

Mr. PETRI. Reclaiming my time, as I said, I have not had a chance to read the amendment completely, but as best I can tell, the basic difference between the amendment that I offered and the substitute is that ours would insert in the bill language to the effect that no activity can be conducted that would provide for implementing the acquisition of land for or the construction of the current Animas-La Plata project. And that would obviously be pending the negotiations and the new project coming forward. This substitute amendment provides, yes, you can go ahead and continue spending money and engaging in activities pursuant to the Colorado Ute Water Settlement Act of 1988; in other words, biasing the negotiations that are now going on in Colorado. I think that would be a mistake, and I urge my colleagues to vote against the substitute and support the underlying amendment.

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

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak against the substitute. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I apologize to you and Members since I had not had an opportunity to read the amendment and it was not submitted to anyone or printed in the RECORD to stand to my feet to object. I have reserved a point of order and perhaps could have saved some time, because it appears to me, at least on the face of it, that it is legislating on appropriation and would not withstand a point of order. Leaving that aside, nonetheless, it is somewhat of a symbolic argument in that the issue really here is pending the negotiations going on in Colorado to come up with a viable project that honors the Indian treaty rights and is environmentally sensible at the same time: Do we continue down the road of a roughly $750 million project that is a road to nowhere, at great expense to the taxpayers' spending, money that is in the pipeline; or do we stop what is being done now until we have a new project that in fact there is a consensus for? We are arguing not to throw good money after bad. Let the negotiations go forward. Do not bias those negotiations by continuing to spend money on a project really to nowhere. And, therefore, I would oppose this amendment since it would encourage and permit the spending of money that might be wasteful