Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, in order for our students to be competitive in the global economy, we must do our part to ensure that they are acquiring the knowledge and skills they need for success.

The skills needed for success go beyond the basics of reading, writing, and math, however. When surveyed, employers continually emphasize that, in our 21st century economy, students need to be adept at critical thinking and problem solving; communication; collaboration; and creativity and innovation, in addition to being proficient in core subjects.

Sixteen states, as well as local school districts from across the country, have formed a partnership with over thirty leading education organizations and corporate entities to find ways to strengthen 21st century skills in their K-12 classrooms. However, this momentum isn't sustainable unless federal policy gives states and districts the flexibility to innovate in this direction.

To remedy this, Representative Dave Loebsack and I are introducing the 21st Century Readiness Act. This bill does not create any new programs or authorize additional spending; instead, it would amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, to emphasize the importance of 21st century skills and give states and districts added flexibility to develop and enhance these skills as part of their own initiatives.

A growing coalition of states and school districts has recognized the importance of giving our students the tools they need to succeed in our 21st century workforce. This bill will give them the flexibility to succeed in these efforts.

I hope that our colleagues will join us in this effort.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the Making Work and Marriage Pay Act of 2011. This legislation will establish a bipartisan commission to study the negative impact that high effective marginal rates can have on families as they attempt to improve their circumstances through work or marriage. The National Commission on Effective Marginal Tax Rates for Low-Income Families would provide an important opportunity for removing the

disincentives that hold many back, in spite of their personal efforts to get ahead.

Federal and state governments provide financial assistance to low- income families through many means-tested programs and a variety of income tax credits. Each of these benefits is income-based, and as income rises benefits are reduced through phase-outs. These reductions occur at various earnings levels and on differing schedules.

While it is appropriate for benefits to be withdrawn as family income increases, not enough thought has been given to the combined impact on behavior of these multiple phase-outs. Different programs are created within separate Congressional committees and are implemented by assorted federal and state agencies. No one entity has the authority to consider our vast system as a whole. The Commission established under this Act would be given this task and charged with the responsibility to propose a legislative package to remove the disincentives to work and marriage that these high effective marginal rates impose.

Marginal rates matter. Economists have long contended that high tax rates affect the investment decisions of affluent individuals. People at all income levels, however, respond rationally to economic incentives and disincentives. If we want people to work their way into the middle class, we need to change a system which says that if you're poor and you struggle to earn a higher income, you won't be able to keep enough of it to make it all seem really worthwhile.

I have looked at the impact these marginal rates have on a typical single mother with two children living in Wisconsin. From $17,000 to $40,000 in earnings, this single parent would experience combined effective marginal tax rates in excess of 50 percent--averaging 59 percent between $24,000 and $41,000. At lower income levels, she even approaches a rate of 100 percent. Putting this into perspective, the U.S. corporate tax rate is 35 percent (one of the highest in the industrialized world). The highest U.S. income tax rate for individuals is also 35 percent.

Thus, for every dollar of new income earned by increased effort or the acquisition of new skills, this single mother finds herself only incrementally ahead and, perhaps, wondering whether her hard work is being justly rewarded. Despite the good intentions, these programs, in effect, offer no incentive to get ahead. Rather, the incentives are backwards and low-income workers often are encouraged to stay where they are.

The same dynamic can also affect an individual's decision whether to marry. Experts from across the political divide agree that marriage is good. Government policy, however, as enacted in this assortment of programs and phase-outs actually discourages marriage among low-income couples.

Varying benefit levels across the fifty states produce different results, but in Wisconsin, for a married couple with two children, the marriage penalty starts rising from about zero at $19,000 of combined income to $7,000 in after-tax income at $28,000 of combined earnings, which is what you get if two people earn minimum wage. At $42,000, the cost of being married reaches $8,154. That's a high price for a marriage license.

This penalty results from the high effective marginal tax rates produced by taxes and the phase-out of various benefit programs. As income rises, taxes go up and benefits go down. The couple that has combined their lives and their income sees a steeper loss of income than does the comparable couple that has remained unmarried. If marriage is a recognized good for both society and the individual couples, then government policy should not stand in the way of people choosing to marry.

It's time that Congress rationalizes this web of programs to ensure that hard work brings rewards by removing the punishingly high effective marginal tax rates faced by low-income individuals and families.

This is why I am introducing the Making Work and Marriage Pay Act.

My bill would authorize a Commission made up of Cabinet Secretaries, Governors, and recognized policy experts to recommend solutions for the problems posed by these high effective marginal tax rates. The Commission would be constructed to achieve partisan balance, input from states offering a varying level of income support, and expert participation from government and private sector experts.

The Commission would be charged with seeking a solution along certain policy lines, but would have full authority to offer additional policy recommendations. The Commission's recommendations would be in the form of a legislative blueprint to ease consideration of its comprehensive solution by the wide range of Congressional committees.

For too long, Congress has neglected to clean up the mess of uncoordinated federal benefit programs. The Making Work and Marriage Pay Act is the first step toward a benefit structure that rewards work and effort and reflects our shared belief that marriage is the basis of stable communities. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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 the bill just passed, H.R. 2279.

Mr. Chair, the Department of Defense, DOD, has a statutory goal that 25 percent of the energy procured or produced for its facilities must come from renewable sources by 2025. My amendment would simply clarify that direct use solar energy is considered a renewable energy source for the purposes of this requirement.

Direct use solar energy technology channels solar energy--in the form of sunlight--into a building to provide interior lighting that is similar to traditional electrically-powered lighting. It

can result in tremendous energy savings because it allows much of a building's internal lighting to come from sunlight, relying on electric lighting only in the off-peak evening hours or when sunlight is diminished. It is considered direct use because the sunlight is not converted to electricity prior to being utilized.

It is similar to other types of direct use renewable energy technology--geothermal heat pumps and solar thermal devices, for example--that DOD can already use to meet its renewable energy statutory goal. This amendment simply clarifies that direct use solar is considered a renewable source of energy.

These changes will provide DOD with the flexibility to meet its energy requirements more quickly and in a more cost-effective way. I respectfully request that my colleagues support this amendment.

Mr. Chair, the Courtney/Petri/Matsui amendment would transfer the successful Troops to Teachers Program back to the Department of Defense and make important changes to the program to ensure it will continue to provide opportunities for veterans to transition into second careers as educators.

I have been a supporter of the Troops to Teachers program since its authorization in the 1994 Defense Authorization Act, and I am proud of its success in placing over 12,000 veterans in our nation's classrooms. Troops to Teachers is a unique program that provides veterans with a $5,000 stipend to help cover the costs of obtaining a teaching certification in exchange for three years service in an eligible school. An additional bonus of $5,000 is available for teaching in a ``high need school.''

This structure has proven very effective in transitioning qualified retiring military personnel into second careers in teaching. Indeed, Troops participants fill several critical needs among educators: eighty percent are male, over one-third are ethnic minorities, and a majority bring an expertise in science and math to the classroom. Furthermore, these troops also bring valuable life experience and character traits that are uncommon in our nation's classroom.

However, the success of this program is in jeopardy without the needed changes that are included in the Courtney/Petri/Matsui amendment. When the program was transferred to the Education Department, a simple drafting error in the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act resulted in a Education Department ruling restricting the number of school districts in which veterans can fulfill their teaching requirement. Since the implementation of this ruling in September 2005, retiring military have found the number of schools at which they would be eligible to teach drastically reduced.

The Department's new interpretation locks out schools in many rural areas and small communities. This is a shame, especially given the success of this program and its ability to meet some of our nation's greatest teaching needs. In my own state of Wisconsin, only 11 out of 395 school districts qualify for participants to fulfill their teaching requirements. A 2006 Government Accountability Report, GAO, of the program found that the 2005 ruling had reduced interest and participation in the program, as schools in regions where troops lived were no longer considered eligible.

Our amendment would correct this ruling and ensure that veterans participating in the Troops to Teachers program receive a $5,000 stipend for teaching three years in any school that is in a district receiving Title 1 funds. This would more than double the number of schools eligible under the program. The amendment does not change the criteria for the additional $5,000 bonus, maintaining the incentive for troops to teach in the highest need schools.

The amendment also makes the Troops to Teachers Program more accessible by reducing the length of service requirements for active military. The make-up of our military has drastically changed since this program was first authorized sixteen years ago. Many of our young men and women returning from service in Iraq and Afghanistan who would like to pursue teaching careers are currently ineligible for the program.

Third, to ensure continued success of the program the amendment creates an advisory board charged with improving awareness, increasing participation and ensuring the program meets the needs of schools and veterans.

This week I, along with Representatives Courtney and Matsui, introduced the Post 9/11 Troops to Teachers Enhancement Act, that contains these needed improvements to the program. This bill has the support of both military and educational organizations. These include: the American Legion, National Education Association, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Military Officers Association of America, National Association of the State Boards of Education and many more.

Finally, our amendment transfers the Troops to Teachers Program back to the Department

of Defense. Currently, the program is operated by the Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education Support (DANTES). The Department of Education simply transfers funds to DANTES. Both the Department of Defense and the Department of Education support this transfer, which is reflected in the Administration's Fiscal Year 2012 budget request.

I want to thank Representative Courtney and Representative Matsui for their work on this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, today I am reintroducing the Post-9/11 Troops to Teachers Enhancement Act to improve opportunities for veterans to transition into second careers in teaching. I am pleased to once again be joined in this effort by Representatives Doris Matsui and Joe Courtney. I have been a supporter of the Troops to Teachers program since its inception in 1994, and I am proud of the fact that since this program was created in 1994, over 12,000 veterans have been placed in our nation's classrooms.

Troops to Teachers is a unique program that provides retiring military with a $5,000 stipend to help cover the costs of teaching certification in exchange for three years service in

a high-need school, which until recently was defined as one receiving grants under part A of Title I. To further encourage participants to teach in schools with the greatest need, a $10,000 bonus is offered to those who agree to teach for three years in a school with 50 percent of students below the poverty level.

This structure has proven very effective in transitioning qualified retiring military personnel into second careers in teaching. Indeed, Troops participants fill several critical needs among educators: A 2005 study found that eighty-two percent are male, over one-third ethnic minorities, and a majority bring an expertise in science and math to the classroom. In an increasingly globalized economy, these valuable characteristics provide a vital resource for schools across the country.

However, this success is now in jeopardy due to a drafting error in the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act which has inadvertently restricted the number of schools at which participants may fulfill their service. The applicable definition for ``high-need local education agencies'' for Troops to Teachers was inadvertently changed as it was included in the section of the legislation regarding other alternative programs that had a different definition. This stricter definition requires a higher threshold for ``high-need,'' requiring the school to have either 10,000 students or 20 percent of students from families below the poverty level. However, the original Title I definition of high-need was also retained in the law in the section specifically detailing the Troops program. Essentially, Congress inadvertently created two conflicting definitions of ``high-need'' with regard to this program.

Early on, the Department of Education and the Troops to Teachers program recognized this unintended change in law and worked together to address it. From 2003 to 2005, while discussions were being held on how to reconcile this discrepancy, the program continued to operate under the original and intended definition. However, after the completion of a negotiated rulemaking process in September 2005, the Department issued a regulation stating that the new, stricter definition was not an error but congressional intent. As one of the leading supporters of this program during the drafting of No Child Left Behind, I can assure my colleagues that this clearly was not the intent of the supporters of the program.

Mr. Speaker, the unfortunate result of this, aside from limiting the number of schools at which veterans may teach and honor their obligation of three-years service, is that it has disproportionately impacted western and rural states. In my home state of Wisconsin, the number of eligible school districts has been reduced from approximately 395 to 11. Not surprisingly, participation in the program has fallen significantly since the implementation of the new definition. This decision, although understandable given the conflicting definitions contained in the law, is a disservice both to veterans wishing to continue their service to our nation as educators as well as children who stand to benefit from their unique expertise.

The bottom line is that we are losing out on great teachers because they cannot accept the certification stipend due to a lack of schools meeting the higher needs threshold in their communities. The more we restrict opportunities for participation, the fewer teachers we will be able to bring into public education, and the fewer teachers we will eventually be able to attract to the schools with the greatest need. Further, given the nation's need for more math and science teachers, we should be removing, not creating, restrictions that prevent qualified teachers in these areas from teaching in our nation's classrooms.

Mr. Speaker, with Troops to Teachers, the Department already has an established program that is well-funded and successful. Rather than restricting it, we should be maximizing this program's potential. This legislation would correct this error and restore the original intent of the Troops to Teachers program. Our bill would ensure that veterans participating in the Troops to Teachers program may receive a $5,000 stipend for teaching for three years in any school that is in a district receiving grants under part A of Title I. This change would more than double the number of eligible schools for the program.

The legislation would retain the current criteria for troops to receive an additional bonus of $5,000 for teaching in a high need school, defined as in a school district that has at least 10 percent or greater who come from families living below the poverty level and a school where at least 50 percent of students are eligible for free or reduced lunch or have a ``high percentage'' of students with disabilities.

This legislation will also increase the number of service personnel who would qualify to participate in Troops to Teachers. Currently, eligibility for Troops to Teachers requires that members of the military have six years of service, and that members of the National Guard and reserves have 10 years of service with a commitment to serve an additional three years. This legislation will change the years of service requirement from six to four years for members of the active duty military to accommodate the many men and women who have served honorably and well in the difficult conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Additionally, it will create a ``years of service'' exemption for any member of the reserve, National Guard, or active duty military who has served on active duty since September 11, 2001, similar to eligibility requirements for the Post 9/11 GI Bill.

I urge my colleagues to join me and Representatives Matsui and Courtney in supporting this successful program and restoring the opportunity to ``serve again'' to our nation's veterans.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1893) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend the airport improvement program, and for other purposes.

Madam 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 H.R. 1893.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me note that for the third consecutive Congress we're working to enact a multiyear reauthorization bill for the FAA. I remain hopeful that we will be able to complete a long-term reauthorization in the very near future and send it to the President for his signature.

We're currently working with the Senate to finish negotiations to reconcile the differences between the Senate and the House versions. I know I, for one, am committed to passing a long-term reauthorization that will allow the FAA to continue making progress in modernizing our system, utilizing new technologies, and making other improvements.

However, the current FAA extension expires at the end of this month. H.R. 1893 is a clean, short-term extension of FAA funding and programs through June 30. It allows important safety and capacity projects at our Nation's airports to continue at the funding levels contained in the recently passed continuing resolution for fiscal year 2011.

This extension is a prudent precaution to ensure that the FAA is able to continue operating until negotiations for a long-term FAA reauthorization are completed. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Committee on Ways and Means,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, May 23, 2011.

Hon. John Mica,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Mica: I am writing concerning H.R. 1893, the

``Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011, Part II'' which

is expected to be scheduled for floor consideration today.

As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has

jurisdiction over the Internal Revenue Code. Sections 2 and 3

of this bill amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by

extending the current Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF)

expenditure authority and the associated Federal excise taxes

to June 30, 2011. In order to expedite H.R. 1893 for floor

consideration, the Committee will forgo action on the bill.

This is being done with the understanding that it does not in

any way prejudice the Committee with respect to the

appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives

on this or similar legislation.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

this understanding with respect to H.R. 1893, and would ask

that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be

included in the Congressional Record during Floor

consideration.

Sincerely,

Dave Camp

Chairman.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I was not recorded as voting for final passage of H.R. 3 on May 4, 2011. I am a cosponsor of this bill and would have voted for final passage of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, along with Rep. Joe Donnelly of Indiana, I am introducing the Social Security Identity Defense Act of 2011, legislation to enhance the ability of the Internal Revenue Service to fight identity theft when that agency becomes aware of the fraudulent use of a taxpayer's personal information.

This legislation is a direct response to the experience of constituents of mine in Princeton, Wisconsin. After a routine review of his credit report, this constituent found accounts opened by another person that had used his Social Security number. This discovery raised many concerns, not the least of which that this person's income might be reported to the IRS under his Social Security number. Upon contacting the IRS, he was told that the IRS was aware of the situation and that they had known about it for some time.

Not surprisingly, this answer was not altogether comforting. The IRS knew that someone else had been using his Social Security number, but kept that information to themselves. While the IRS remained silent, additional frauds were committed, resulting in the credit accounts opened using my constituent's personal information. When he raised this issue with the IRS, he was astounded by the agency's answer. Privacy statutes prevent the IRS from discussing the return information of one taxpayer with anyone else. In the view of the IRS, the fraudulent use of my constituent's Social Security number was the personal return information of another taxpayer, and this fraud could not be disclosed to the rightful owner of that personal identifier.

This policy makes no sense and actually puts the IRS on the wrong side in the fight against identity theft. Our legislation aims to correct this problem by changing the privacy statutes to direct the IRS to inform a taxpayer when it learns through its normal course of business that a Social Security number assigned to that taxpayer has been used fraudulently by another worker.

In May 2006, President George W. Bush signed an executive order establishing the Identity Theft Task Force made up of the U.S. Attorney General, the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, several heads of cabinet-level departments, and various other officers of the U.S. Government. The Task Force was directed to implement a policy ``effectively to deter, prevent, detect, investigate, proceed against, and prosecute unlawful use by persons of the identifying information of other persons.'' Elaborating on this policy goal, the Executive Order went on to specify actions to increase safeguards that Federal departments and agencies could implement to better secure government- held personal data.

In responding to the President's charge, the Task Force issued a strategic plan, including numerous specific recommendations focused on improvements in four key areas. Keeping sensitive consumer data out of the hands of identity thieves; increasing the obstacles to the fraudulent use of any personal data obtained by an identity thief; assistance for victims of identity theft; and deterring this crime by aggressive prosecution and punishment of identity thieves.

Combating identity theft is an important and difficult job. I believe that the Task Force has made a commendable contribution to this effort and that implementation of its recommendations by public and private entities will help in fighting this crime. As the report itself notes, ``Only an approach that encompasses effective prevention, public awareness and education, victim assistance, and law enforcement measures, and fully engages federal, state, and local authorities will be successful in protecting citizens and private entities from the crime.''

The recommendations included in this strategic plan, however, do not include improved efforts by the IRS in assisting honest taxpayers in fighting identity theft. For this reason, the Social Security Identity Defense Act picks up where this strategic plan left off and provides an additional vital tool for our government to deploy.

Under this legislation, the IRS would be required to share any information in its possession about the fraudulent use of a taxpayer's personal information with that information's rightful owner. The agency also would be directed to transmit information that may be evidence of an identity theft to the FBI so that the Bureau can make this material available to state and local law enforcement agencies upon their request. Finally, the Social Security Identity Defense Act calls for the IRS to direct employers not to include a Social Security number on a W-2 form when that agency is aware that the employee is making fraudulent use of that number.

These are important steps forward. They will empower both citizens and law enforcement agencies in their efforts to combat identity theft, and they will limit the use of personal identifiers in the commission of future crimes. I urge my colleagues to join me and Rep. Donnelly in this effort by cosponsoring the Social Security Defense Act.

Mr. Speaker, today, Rep. Gene Green and I are introducing the bipartisan Voluntary Protection Program, VPP, Act to make permanent one of the Federal Government's most successful workplace health and safety programs. The same legislation is being introduced in the Senate by Sen. Michael B. Enzi, the ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, and Senator Mary Landrieu.

This legislation would codify a successful program, the Voluntary Protection Program, operated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, that recognizes and rewards employers who voluntarily work to improve the health and safety of their worksites. The program is currently operating but has never been authorized in law and was proposed to be cut by the Obama administration's fiscal year 2011 budget. While the administration backed away from those cuts in its fiscal year 2012 budget proposal, this legislation would put the program on a more solid foundation by specifically authorizing it in law.

Since the VPP was created in 1982, it has grown to include more than 2,200 worksites and more than 921,000 employees. A 2007 report noted that Federal VPP worksites saved the government more than $59 million by avoiding injuries and that private sector VPP participants saved more than $300 million. Participating workplaces have an illness and injury rate that, on average, is 50 percent below that of their industry.

Business owners in my district have reported to me that the relationship between OSHA and businesses has become more adversarial over the past couple years. While OSHA does have a responsibility to enforce workplace safety laws, it has been my experience that most employers want to run safe workplaces. The VPP program provides a mechanism for OSHA to build a more constructive relationship with employers who have demonstrated a willingness to invest in workplace safety. This creates an incentive for other employers to follow suit, improving safety and saving money on enforcement costs at the same time.

I hope that our colleagues will join us in authorizing this bipartisan and successful workplace safety program.

I thank my chairman.

The legislation before us, H.R. 658, reauthorizes the safety and research programs, operations, airport grants, and funding for the Federal Aviation Administration for budget years 2011 through 2014. It's a 4-year reauthorization, with no earmarks, that will result in savings and in greater efficiencies.

The bill funds the FAA at the fiscal year 2008 funding levels and will save $4 billion compared to the current levels. These funding levels recognize the state of the Federal budget, but should not affect vital safety functions.

The FAA Administrator is directed to achieve required cost savings without cutting safety critical activities. The bill requires the FAA to find and eliminate wasteful processes, duplicative programs, and unnecessary practices.

Given current economic times, there is a need to put our limited resources where they are most needed and use them efficiently. Although we cannot do all that we may have wanted to, when facing budget cuts, difficult decisions have to be made. We have worked to preserve the ability of the FAA to conduct its safety functions--its most important mission and our number one priority.

The bill will phase out the Essential Air Service Program by 2013, resulting in $400 million in savings. The Essential Air Service Program was originally created in 1970 as a temporary program in the wake of airline deregulation. It was intended to allow airports to adapt to the change in the aviation industry and to plan accordingly. However, over the years, this program has resulted in taxpayers having to pay millions of dollars in subsidies to provide air service to communities even as passenger enplanements have declined as other modes of transportation have become available.

With regard to NextGen, H.R. 658 streamlines processes and provides sufficient funding, with FAA pursestring tightening, to fund NextGen projects planned in the next 4 years. H.R. 658 sets strict goals and benchmarks, and includes other measures to accelerate NextGen in order to keep the momentum going. NextGen is critical to the U.S.'s ability to compete in the global aviation system by providing safer and more efficient and environmentally friendly operations.

The bill allows for the expansion of the cost-effective Contract Tower Program, which has the potential to save, roughly, $400 million over 4 years. In addition, the legislation provides a clear and efficient process for the FAA to rapidly achieve benefits associated with the consolidation of old, obsolete and unnecessary FAA facilities, with enormous potential savings.

I would like to commend Chairman Mica for his efforts in developing this bill and moving it through the committee.

Also, while we may have differences on a few provisions, there is much in this bill that has bipartisan support. I look forward to continuing to work with my aviation partner, Representative Jerry Costello, and with our ranking member, Representative Nick Rahall, in getting agreement with the Senate so that we can finally send a bill to the President.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 658.

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

I would like my colleague from California to know that we recognize that this is a very well-intended amendment and it is addressing a concern particularly with the tremendous airport in your area. You have a later amendment that deals with the same subject that we think is more workable and better.

The concern we have has to do with the fact that there are a number of provisions in law already requiring airports to consult with local communities in a variety of situations. And we're just afraid that this particular amendment could be more of a one-size-fits-all approach across the whole country that could create problems rather than solve them. Therefore, we're looking forward to working with you on amendment No. 32, but I do oppose the current amendment as being too broad.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Yes.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

We've reviewed your amendment. Based on the recommendation of the FAA, I think Chairman Mica and I are prepared to accept your amendment.

We would also ask, however, that you consider working with us on the amendment that you intend to offer later. It's in an area that is already within the FAA's jurisdiction where they're working but not as hard as you would like, and we think we could continue to work with you on that. But we would accept this amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).

I rise in support of this amendment, and I know the chairman of the full committee has looked at it and supports it as well. It gives the FAA administrator the ability to designate a NextGen center on a competitive basis, and it would be a good and needed resource for the FAA; and, therefore, I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I understand the intent behind the amendment. We have checked with the people we as citizens pay at the FAA to develop expertise in this area, and they advise us that current safety standards are sufficient to meet the risk posed by cockpit smoke. According to our contacts, the FAA additionally believes that the existing performance-based standards for cockpit ventilation effectively eliminate the unsafe conditions associated with smoke in the flight deck.

Their current regulations require manufacturers to demonstrate that continuously generated cockpit smoke can be evacuated within 3 minutes to levels such that the residual smoke does not distract the flight crew or interfere with flight operations.

So on that basis, we oppose and urge the membership to join us in opposing this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would just repeat, current requirements of the FAA require that smoke be evacuated from a flight deck within 3 minutes. And the feeling of the FAA is that resources can best be utilized to focus on the risk that generates the smoke rather than the smoke itself, and on getting the smoke out of the way rather than the approach that is being urged by this amendment. So I continue to recommend opposition.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would just reiterate that according to the information provided to the committee by the FAA, no accidents or catastrophic events have been tied solely to the presence of smoke in the flight deck. An analysis of accident data for the last 15 years shows that the equipment that would be required by this amendment would not have reduced fatal accidents. Therefore, I urge that we listen to the experts, keep our focus on eliminating the cause of the smoke, and not adopt the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

I thank my colleague from Michigan for yielding. We've reviewed her amendment and have no objection to it. We think it's a step forward, and I would urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

We really do support the intent of the gentlelady from California's amendment, but in our opinion and without further work and review of it, it's not something that is wise to codify into law at this particular juncture.

It is my understanding that all of the major air carriers do provide electronic notification of flight status. We want to review it to make sure of the scope of those, less the major carriers, and as to how this would work in practice so that it doesn't result in litigation and not really greater consumer convenience. The industry has been moving. Since you called this to the attention of the industry back several years ago, it has been implemented by all of the major carriers. So progress is being made, and we'd like to work with you to make further progress, but we do oppose the amendment at this time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I understand the delegate from the District of Columbia would like to address this issue. I yield 2 minutes to our colleague, Eleanor Holmes Norton.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

I am just sitting here, listening to this debate and people talking about fairness and 75 years. I did a little math, and 75 years ago, the Railway Labor Act was enacted by a very heavily Democratic Congress in the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration. And now we are told that they were unfair and unkind, and so on, to organized

labor. This is something that was passed by the Congress. The law, the National Labor Relations Act, has always--until now, for 75 years--been interpreted to mean that a majority of those affected had to vote to certify a union.

I think if we want to change it, if our sense of what's fair has changed over the last 75 years--and it has in other areas--it should be done by an act of Congress and not by the National Labor Relations Board and the National Mediation Board in this fashion. It clearly upsets the balance that was struck and has served us well for several generations.

Will the gentleman yield?

We have reviewed the amendment on this side. We feel it is a limited and well-reasoned exception to the rule. Therefore, I would support the amendment and urge a ``yes'' vote.

Will the gentleman yield?

I understand this amendment has stirred a certain amount of controversy. I have worked with Chairman Costello on the underlying bill that seeks to improve safety and deal with the tragedy, some of which caused the Colgan crash.

We have been talking to the FAA. There is a disagreement about the impact of this amendment, frankly, because they indicate that this is more or less in line with their understanding of the underlying law and the procedures they intend to follow going forward and really merely clarifies it. And if that is the gentleman's intent, it seems reasonable that one take into account different circumstances to maximize safety under changing conditions in different segments of the aviation industry.

I certainly do not favor weakening safety, but I do favor strengthening it in relation to differing circumstances that exist. Whether it is emergency aviation or whether it is military aviation or commuter aviation or general aviation, there are some factors that may be reasonable to take into account to maximize safety. I understand or believe that is the author's intention, though others clearly differ with me at this point.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

I thank my colleague from Wisconsin for yielding. And if I might take this occasion to be one of the first to wish her a happy birthday. A big milestone is coming up very shortly, and I congratulate you on reaching it.

We have reviewed your amendment on this side of the aisle, and we agree with you. We feel it is an important amendment and support it.

Will the gentleman yield?

We have reviewed the amendment and are supportive of it. The people who are concerned about vintage airplanes, I know EAA that I represent, one of the largest, if not the largest, association of general aviation enthusiasts, feels this is very important. We would like to work with you to perfect the amendment. But my understanding is the FAA and others also support its intent.

Will the gentleman yield?

We have reviewed your amendment and feel that it is a reasonable and important amendment. We support it and urge a ``yes'' vote on your amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

Thank you.

We have reviewed this amendment. We support the goal that he is attempting to achieve. We want to continue working with him, but even with its being adopted, because the FAA has raised some concerns, mainly that it, as drafted, would capture all airports and would have an overly broad effect. But I understand the difficulty that created that; so we're trying to figure out if there is some way we can achieve the objective which, as best we can tell, is a perfectly reasonable, sensible objective within the rules of the House and without causing problems in other places that are unintended.

With those caveats, we support the amendment and look forward to working with you as we go forward.

Will the gentleman yield?

Earlier this afternoon, we discussed this amendment with the principal author, your colleague Ms. Waters. We are prepared to accept the amendment. We know it was offered in good faith, and is a more restrictive amendment than an earlier one that we'd discussed, so I would urge a ``yes'' vote on her amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1079) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend the airport improvement program, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5

legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 1079.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in the Congressional Record the exchange of letters concerning H.R. 1079 between the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Committee on Ways and Means,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, March 22, 2011.

Hon. John Mica,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

2165 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Mica: I am writing concerning H.R. 1079, the

``Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011,'' which is

expected to be scheduled for floor consideration the week of

March 28, 2011.

As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has

jurisdiction over the Internal Revenue Code. Sections 2 and 3

of this bill amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 by

extending the current Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF)

expenditure authority and the associated Federal excise taxes

to May 31, 2011. In order to expedite H.R. 1079 for Floor

consideration, the Committee will forgo action on the bill.

This is being done with the understanding that it does not in

any way prejudice the Committee with respect to the

appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives

on this or similar legislation. In that regard, I would note

that the Committee on Ways and Means recently favorably

reported H.R. 1034, the ``Airport and Airway Trust Fund

Financing Reauthorization Act of 2011,'' which would provide

a similar, but longer-term reauthorization, through September

30, 2014, of the AATF expenditure authority and associated

excise taxes.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

this understanding with respect to H.R. 1079, and would ask

that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be

included in the Congressional Record during Floor

consideration.

Sincerely,

Dave Camp,

Chairman.

I would just like to observe to my colleague, we will have plenty of opportunity to defend and debate the overall reauthorization later this week. The reauthorization bill is broadly supported by the industry affected. We may differ on some portions of it, but one of the major features of the reauthorization is to put in place a strengthened framework and benchmarks for NextGen; and as that new technology is deployed, almost every expert we've had testifying before the committee has said it will markedly increase the efficiency and safety of the aviation industry and reduce fuel use by some 25 percent, helping the environment and our import situation as well.

In any event, I would like to mention that the current reauthorization extension, the short-term extension before us, has bipartisan support. I would urge my colleagues in both parties to support it.

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

Yes, I am delighted to have the opportunity to join with my colleagues in recognizing the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Peace Corps.

It was my pleasure some 25 years ago to work with the fellow whose picture is up by the podium, Sargent Shriver, on some of the arrangements for the 25th anniversary of the Peace Corps. They'd had a gala reunion and a program at the Kennedy Center with such luminaries at that time as Harry Belafonte and many others. It was a memorable occasion.

Sargent Shriver, of course, was a great leader in many different areas. I met him in a reception line awhile back. He didn't really much like, though, that I'd said, So great to meet Arnold Schwarzenegger's father-in-law. He really didn't want to be known as Arnold Schwarzenegger's father-in-law. He wanted to be known, and is known, as the most dynamic director of the Peace Corps and for many others of his works--with Mrs. Shriver on the Special Olympics and for a variety of other good works that he did with his life.

We all have our Peace Corps experiences. I had the opportunity to serve in the neighboring country to Ethiopia, which was Somalia--a troubled place now. It was a great experience, though. People ask about the Peace Corps, and I always say that one of the things you have to remember about the Peace Corps is that you get a lot more out of it than you really give. You're serving other people, but you're learning. You're learning about another culture; and at the same time, you're learning about your own country and your own experiences because of the points of contrast.

What a wonderful thing it is that America has now tens of thousands of people who have served in the Peace Corps, who have returned and who now are working in every walk of life--working in international organizations, working in business organizations, knowing different cultures, knowing different languages--thereby providing a dimension to our own national life that we would otherwise not have if we did not have people who had had the experience of serving in the Peace Corps.

There is one other thing. I still can remember the quizzical but interested reaction that so many people in Somalia or, I'm sure, anywhere in the world had: Who are you? Why are you doing it? Explain that to me again.

The spirit was kind of catching, and they would participate in all kinds of little volunteer activities and things that they hadn't necessarily thought of doing themselves.

Of course, the Peace Corps volunteers are not representatives of the American Government. They are representatives of the American people. That was always emphasized very, very strongly to all of us as part of our Peace Corps training. The way we were living was among the people, not behind these diplomatic bunkers that we sometimes see in the world today. You're experiencing life in the country in which you're serving.

One thing, just as an example, is that Peace Corps volunteers, of course, do their assignments, but they're also people who do volunteer work of one kind or another. One of the big hits was when I was in Mogadishu in the Peace Corps. I was with two other people who were Peace Corps lawyers at that time, and there were about 50, 60 people who were teachers. Some were community health workers, and some were community school construction workers. They would come to Mogadishu for a couple days off, for vacation time, when school was down, that kind of thing.

And five or six of them got together and started playing some American young people's music. And the next thing you know they were invited to a restaurant in Mogadishu. Crowds of hundreds of people gathered, and it was the sensation of the town for a couple weeks. Of course they couldn't be paid for doing this sort of thing, but they might have gotten a couple of free meals from the restaurant and that kind of thing. What a wonderful, sort of natural way of building bridges. The people in this country had never really seen something like this. They weren't on a tour for any of these international shows, and they just thought it was the most wonderful thing to see live music played by American Peace Corps volunteers. And that was the face of America that they were presenting in this country, and it was one that I think has served our Nation very well.

So thank you again for giving me the opportunity to participate in this Special Order that you've organized to mark the 50th anniversary of the United States Peace Corps.

We were there during the peaceful years between the two countries. The Peace Corps had been in Somalia and then had been pulled out because war erupted between Ethiopia and Somalia. The people on the Horn of Africa have very close and great respect for each other but also a strong rivalry. It's a very interesting thing to learn about.

Thank you for organizing this occasion.

Mr. Chair, I support the amendment offered by my colleague from Ohio, Representative LaTourette.

I do believe the time has come for Congress to address a federal deficit that will exceed $1 trillion for the third consecutive year.

I do agree that the total dollar amount cut by the underlying bill is appropriate and represents a move toward fiscal responsibility.

The amendment under consideration shows the same commitment to fiscal responsibility; in fact, it cuts more spending than the underlying bill.

Beyond that, the amendment spreads the spending cuts across all non- security federal programs for the remainder of 2011.

No programs are eliminated, and with limited exceptions, no non- security spending is left untouched.

Meeting our financial crisis will entail sacrifice from many quarters, and this amendment shares that sacrifice broadly across our entire discretionary spending budget.

Beyond this year, an across-the-board cut provides a better point of departure for the 2012 appropriations process which will begin shortly.

I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, as Congress considers the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act this year, we have an obligation to listen closely to the students, parents, and educators that we represent to ensure that our efforts result in responsible and pragmatic improvements. While we have made great strides in the areas of assessment and accountability over the last nine years, this reauthorization provides a critical opportunity to learn from our experiences and fine-tune the law.

One example of a lesson my constituents have learned, and have vigorously shared with me, is that we should be encouraging states to move towards better assessment models. As I have met with educators over the past several years, one of the primary concerns that I have heard is that the state assessment fails to provide information of value to educators and administrators. Even more disturbing, it often takes four to six months before scores are returned to schools, which leaves little or no time for teachers to use the information to address student performance before they advance to the next grade.

However, I believe there is a sensible solution that Congress can adopt to address these concerns and give states more options in assessment design. Today, Rep. David Wu and I are introducing the bipartisan Assessment Accuracy and Improvement Act of 2011 to give states the option to use adaptive testing as their statewide assessment measuring reading, math, and science to fulfill No Child Left Behind requirements. I believe that this legislation will give states the ability to truly track the academic growth of every child and provide more accurate information to teachers, parents and school administrators through the use of an adaptive test.

For those who may be unfamiliar with adaptive testing, it is a test that changes in response to previously-asked questions. For example, if a student answers a question correctly, the test presents a question of increased difficulty. If a student answers incorrectly, the test presents a question of decreased difficulty. As you can see, an adaptive test customizes itself to a student's actual level of performance with a great degree of accuracy.

Giving states the flexibility to use an adaptive test and to ask questions outside of grade level will improve the accuracy of student assessment and enable educators to target appropriate instruction for each child based on performance at, above, or below grade level. In addition, using an adaptive test over time will allow accurate measurement of the performance growth of each individual student.

In Wisconsin, hundreds of school districts currently use their own funds to participate in adaptive testing in addition to the state assessment required by NCLB. Educators and administrators appreciate the diagnostic information it yields and the efficiency that it provides. I believe that school districts nationally are already ``speaking with their wallets'' by spending scarce resources to voluntarily participate in this testing because it provides valuable information that the state assessment does not.

Additionally, 30 states are currently participating in the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, SBAC, one of the two state assessment consortia to receive funding under Race to the Top. SBAC is developing a researched-based computer adaptive test aligned to the common core standards. This legislation will ensure that these states will be able to fully utilize the capabilities of this next assessment.

Mr. Speaker, adaptive testing is one of the keys to putting the `child' back into No Child Left Behind. I hope that our colleagues will join us in this pragmatic and responsible improvement to the law as we work towards a bipartisan reauthorization this year.