Tom Petri

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that here we go again, another transportation reauthorization bill before the House of Representatives. Every Member of this body knows that this bill is long overdue, and I want to assure my colleagues that we struggled mightily during the last Congress to get a long-term reauthorization bill in place, but came up a bit short. There is some good news in that the guaranteed funding in this bill is a bit higher than the bill authorized last year, and it is in line with the President's budget proposal. This $4 billion increase is largely due to the positive ethanol gas tax changes that were included in last year's corporate tax bill. That being said, however, the fact remains that many of the challenges we faced during the 108th Congress we continue to face today. The simple fact is that we do not have the resources needed to meet our Nation's transportation needs, both infrastructure needs of our Nation as documented by the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the needs of the Members as communicated to our committee, representing needs of areas all across our Nation. I believe that this is very shortsighted and that all of us, Republicans and Democrats alike, can and should support a strong infrastructure program that pays back so much in terms of economic development, international competitiveness, safety, mobility, and improved quality of life. A first-rate infrastructure is essential to a vibrant, growing economy; and in fact, we as a Nation are in danger of falling behind since, in real terms, our Federal investment in infrastructure is falling behind. Our Governors, mayors, county executives, business leaders, labor and other groups all know this. The Chamber of Commerce has teamed up with a diverse group of State and local governments, business and labor groups under the Americans for Transportation Mobility coalition to highlight the importance of transportation investment to businesses and, in fact, to local communities as well. Across this country, we have seen at the State and local level citizens voting in referenda to increase State sales taxes or issue bonds to devote more resources to transportation. They see on a daily basis how we are falling behind. Coincidentally, today the American Society of Civil Engineers issues its 2005 report card for America's infrastructure. For transportation, the grade for roads is worsened from D+, already rather low, to D. Transit decreases from a C- to a D+. Currently, we rely on the 18.3 cent gas tax, which has not been increased for over 10 years since 1993, and truck taxes to fuel highway and most transit spending at the Federal level. I am pleased that the bill before us takes steps to look at the next generation of financing for the building of roads and transit. As cars become more fuel efficient or use alternative fuels or other environmentally beneficial fuels, all of which are, of course, good things that should be encouraged, we see less revenue coming in to the Highway Trust Fund. The gas tax is meant to be a surrogate for road usage and is the standard for the user-pay system of our Federal highway program, but I am afraid that we are using a 20th-century benchmark in the 21st century. H.R. 3 takes real concrete steps to move us toward modernizing and updating how we finance our Nation's roads. The bill before us does differ from H.R. 3550 in that we have made revisions relating to the donor State issue. The ``scope'' issue has been addressed so that, for example, high priority projects are now once again covered under the Minimum Guarantee program, a major change from the bill last year, and other improvements have been made as well. As it has been noted, this issue will continue to be addressed as we are in conference, and this is not the final resolution for this particular issue. This is my fifth transportation bill since joining the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and this is always the most complicated issue to resolve. While I wish the funding levels were higher, nevertheless every State will see an increase in its funding. The bill includes programs for safety: infrastructure safety on the road, work safety, motor carrier safety, and behavioral safety. Harley Davidson is headquartered in my State, and we have several provisions addressing motorcycle safety. Motorcycle safety grants are authorized, and I encourage States to look at using these and section 402 funds to address impaired driving, which is a great cause of concern. H.R. 3 will facilitate the movement of freight around our Nation, an important element of interstate commerce and a primary Federal interest in transportation. It will allow us to meet the needs of emerging trade corridors in the post-interstate construction era and other projects that have regional national significance yet overwhelm the financial capabilities of any one State. We retain funding for transit at the traditional split and include programs that will help States meet the mobility needs of both urban and rural communities and improve transportation services for the elderly and disabled. Mr. Chairman, I thank my chairman for giving me the opportunity to address these issues.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown), a valuable member of the committee.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), a senior member of our committee. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), a member of the committee.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo).

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I would respond by saying we appreciate the gentlewoman bringing this to the attention of the chairman and myself. The chairman and I will continue to work with the gentlewoman on this issue as we continue to proceed to conference.

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

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, today, Rep. Paul Kanjorski and I are introducing bipartisan legislation to establish a program of limited tax credits and tax deductions to get average Americans more involved in the political process. This bill, the Citizens Involvement in Campaigns (CIVIC) Act, will broaden the base of political contributors and limit the influence of big money donors in federal elections. We need to take a fresh look at innovative approaches to campaign finance reform, with special attention paid to ideas that encourage, and not restrict, greater participation in our campaigns. Toward this end, I have been advocating tax credits and deductions for small political contributions for many years. An updated tax credit system would be a simple and effective means of balancing the influence of big money donors and bringing individual contributors back to our campaigns. The impact of this counterweight will reduce the burden of raising money, as well as the appearance of impropriety that accompanies the money chase. Most would agree that the ideal way to finance political campaigns is through a broad base of donors. But, as we are all painfully aware, the economic realities of modern-day campaigning lead many candidates to focus most of their efforts on collecting funds from a few large donors. This reality alienates many Americans from the political process. The concept of empowering small donors is not a new idea. For example, from 1972 to 1986, the federal government offered a tax credit for small political contributions. This provided an incentive for average Americans to contribute to campaigns in small amounts while simultaneously encouraging politicians to solicit donations from a larger pool of contributors. Currently, six geographically and politically diverse states (Oregon, Minnesota, Ohio, Virginia, Arkansas, and Arizona) offer their own tax credits for political contributions. These state-level credits vary in many respects, but all share the same goal of encouraging average Americans to become more involved. The CIVIC Act can begin the process of building this counterweight for federal elections. This bill is designed to encourage Americans who ordinarily do not get involved in politics beyond casting a vote every two or four years (that is, if they bother to vote at all) to become more active participants in our political process. The CIVIC Act will reestablish and update the discontinued federal tax credit. Taxpayers can choose between a 100% tax credit for political contributions to federal candidates or national political parties (limited to $200 per taxable year), or a 100% tax deduction (limited to $600 per taxable year). Both limits, of course, are doubled for joint returns. As long as political parties and candidates promote the existence of these credits, the program can have a real impact and aid in making elections more grassroots affairs than they are now. A limited tax credit for political contributions can be a bipartisan, cost-efficient method for helping balance the influence of large money donors in the American electoral process. Instead of driving away most Americans from participation in political life, we can invite them in. It seems to me that this will be a fruitful way to clean up our system, while at the same time convincing Americans that they actually have a meaningful stake in elections.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, today, with my colleague, Congressman Rob Andrews, I am introducing the Employee Changing Room Privacy Act. This legislation would prohibit the video or audio monitoring of an employee in any area on an employer's premises where an employee changes clothing. Unfortunately, there have been a number of cases where employers have been caught engaging in secret surveillance via video or audio equipment of their employees in these situations on the job site. For example, the Wall Street Journal reported that 19 locomotive engineers sued their employer in Oakland County (Michigan) Circuit Court, charging that their employer had hidden a camera in a locker- room exit sign. A worker at a State college was shocked to discover that her employer had secretly videotaped her changing her clothes in her office after work. A waitress at a restaurant was spied on in the employee changing room when she got dressed for work. Mr. Speaker, these are just a few examples of the conduct that the legislation Congressman Andrews and I are introducing today is intended to prevent. The Employee Changing Room Privacy Act would help ensure that workers can go to work without wondering whether their employer has hidden a video camera in the bathroom or a microphone in the office ceiling. Under the Employee Changing Room Privacy Act, an employer who violates the prohibition against video or audio monitoring of any area on an employer's premises where workers change clothing would be liable to the U.S. Government for a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for each violation. The bill also authorizes the Secretary of Labor to seek injunctive relief against an employer so as to stop future violations of the prohibitions contained in the legislation. Enactment of the Employee Changing Room Privacy Act would strengthen the right to privacy at a time when the growing use of surveillance technologies at the workplace has endangered this most fundamental of American values.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation to increase the disclosure requirements for telephone ``push polls.'' As many candidates for public office have learned through personal experience, these push polls are not legitimate telephone surveys, but campaign devices designed to smear a candidate under the guise of a standard opinion poll. Imagine a voter, who has been identified as a supporter of candidate X, being asked in a survey if this support would continue if it was learned that candidate X was guilty of a terrible indiscretion or an outright crime. It doesn't matter whether the allegations are true because the idea that candidate X is somehow unfit for office has been planted successfully. This is a telephone push poll, or ``smear'' poll. My legislation, the Push Poll Disclosure Act of 2005, combats this practice by exposing it to the light of day. Specifically, the bill requires that each participant in a federal election poll be told the identity of the survey's sponsor whenever at least 1,200 households are included. It also requires further disclosures when a survey's results are not to be released to the public. In this case, the cost of the poll and the sources of its funding must be reported to the Federal Election Commission, along with a count of the households contacted and a transcript of the questions asked. The Push Poll Disclosure Act of 2005 is a simple bill. It will not hinder legitimate polling, nor will it burden polling firms with excessive regulations. What this bill does do, however, is regulate smear polls for what they are--campaign activities, and questionable ones at that. This legislation is noncontroversial and should be bipartisan, and its passage will make campaigns for federal office a little bit cleaner. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to increase the disclosure requirements for telephone push polls. My bill, the Push Poll Disclosure Act of 2005, uses the light of public disclosure to lift the darkness surrounding these smear polls, which are a campaign device to spread disinformation about candidates under the cover of a legitimate poll. They are not, however, real polls. Their only purpose is to create a negative image among the voting public without leaving a visible trace. My bill combats this obnoxious practice by requiring increased disclosure for polls when more than 1,200 households are included. The time has come to regulate smear polls for what they are, a campaign tactic, and make those who employ this tactic take full responsibility for their actions. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. I thank my colleague for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. Initially, I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for over 2 years of work on the important legislation that the rule makes in order. I am pleased that this conference agreement includes a new provision that is similar to bipartisan legislation I sponsored with the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) to help provide specialized textbooks to students with visual disabilities. The law we are reauthorizing today, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, requires that all disabled students be provided with educational opportunities. For students with visual disabilities, this includes access to specialized instructional materials, such as braille, large print and audio textbooks. Translating a textbook into these successful formats, however, is a cumbersome, time-consuming, and expensive process for States and school districts. As a result, visually impaired students oftentimes receive their textbooks long after school has started and can be needlessly left behind their sighted peers. The legislation before us today will help solve this problem. It creates a centralized clearinghouse that States and local school districts can use to obtain electronic copies of textbooks to be translated into the appropriate format for visually impaired students. That is a simple solution that will make a big difference in the quality of education provided to visually impaired students. I commend my colleagues for the work they have done to include this provision in this legislation and urge support of the rule.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I want to join in this tribute to the many years of public service and the more than 20 years of service here in the House of our colleague Bill Lipinski. I have had the privilege of serving with Bill on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for many years. During this Congress, he has served as the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines. Together, we had to navigate through the often frustrating, confusing and twisting course of the transportation bill reauthorization effort this year and last. Bill has always been a steady partner and a strong defender of the program. He certainly hasn't been reluctant to voice his strong support for increased investment in transportation. He is a great fighter, and we have been lucky to have him on our side during this particular fight. I have valued his advice and counsel these past two years as together we have worked to produce a transportation program that moves our country forward. Beyond our work together on the Subcommittee, we have worked together on other issues, such as the expansion of O'Hare and many years fighting the whistle ban to protect our towns that had developed around the railroad tracks crisscrossing through our districts. Apart from the Committee activities, Bill has been a tireless advocate for his constituents. He was born on the southwest side of Chicago, and he truly knows and understands his district. Prior to coming to Washington, Bill was a Chicago City alderman and he still is a Ward committeeman--a good education for any member of this House! So I want to acknowledge Bill's courage, his strength in standing by his convictions, and his love for the City of Chicago. He has had a real impact, and his successes can be seen all over the city--whether riding the ``el'' or landing on a plane at Midway. I wish him and his wife, Rose Marie, all the best on his retirement. He has been a valuable member of the House, and we will miss him.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I want to join in this tribute to the many years of public service and the more than 20 years of service here in the House of our colleague Bill Lipinski. I have had the privilege of serving with Bill on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for many years. During this Congress, he has served as the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines. Together, we have had to navigate through the often frustrating, confusing and twisting course of the transportation bill reauthorization effort this year and last. Bill has always been a steady partner and a strong defender of the program. He certainly hasn't been reluctant to voice his strong support for increased investment in transportation. He is a great fighter, and we have been lucky to have him on our side during this particular fight. I have valued his advice and counsel these past two years as together we have worked to produce a transportation program that moves our country forward. Beyond our work together on the Subcommittee, we have worked together on other issues, such as the expansion of O'Hare and many years fighting the whistle ban to protect our towns that had developed around the railroad tracks crisscrossing through our districts. Apart from the Committee activities, Bill has been a tireless advocate for his constituents. He was born on the southwest side of Chicago, and he truly knows and understands his district. Prior to coming to Washington, Bill was a Chicago City alderman and he still is a Ward committeeman--a good education for any member of this House! So I want to acknowledge Bill's courage, his strength in standing by his convictions, and his love for the city of Chicago. He has had a real impact, and his successes can be seen all over the city--whether riding the ``el'' or landing on a plane at Midway. I wish him and his wife, Rose Marie, all the best on his retirement. He has been a valuable member of the House, and we will miss him.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am not talking about the mechanics of running the numbers. I am talking about the mechanics of operating the political machinery in order to get something that, in fact, would be passed by the Senate and signed by the President.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation before us. H.R. 5183, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004, part V, continues the highway construction, highway safety, transit, motor carrier, and surface transportation research programs for 8 months of fiscal year 2005, expiring on May 31, 2005. Fiscal year 2004 is completed in this extension as well. The transportation programs under all previous extensions will be continued under this extension. This is, we hope, the final short-term extension of the surface transportation programs' authorization. We have gotten extremely close to a fair and broadly accepted conclusion to the House-Senate conference on our multiyear authorization bill, but a stopgap measure is needed, once again, to give us time to finalize this deal. This short-term extension is a ``must-pass'' bill. If Congress does not pass a bill and send it to the President today, new highway projects will be shelved, safety grants will not be provided to states, transit construction will be halted, and Federal enforcement of motor carrier safety regulations on the highways and at the borders will end. H.R. 5183 provides more than $30 billion in new funding authority, which reflects 8 months' worth--or two-thirds of the funding authorization levels the House approved for fiscal year 2005 in TEA LU, H.R. 3550. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 5183 today. It is vitally important that this bill be passed by both the House and senate today, delivered to the President--the bill must be flown down to Florida--and signed before midnight tonight. Our economy cannot withstand the shutdown of the national surface transportation programs.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I would hope that we not pass this motion immediately. I understand the point that is being made, and it is perfectly reasonable. But the fact is that we are currently operating under a continuing resolution. It expires at midnight tonight, and if we do not get this measure through the Senate and to the President, who is down in Florida on other business, before that time, some of the money that would otherwise be spent on transportation, some of the jobs that would otherwise exist in the transportation sector will be lost. And the motion is very short. It simply changes the numbers in the bill by 12 and a fraction percent. But, in fact, trying to figure out how that would work in practice and the consequences of it, it would be anything but short. This would endanger the ability to continue our transportation programs.

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

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, today, with my colleague, Congressman Rob Andrews, I am introducing the Employee Freedom from Invasion of Privacy Act. This legislation would prohibit the video or audio monitoring of an employee in any area on an employer's premises where an employee changes clothing. Unfortunately, there have been a number of cases where employers have been caught engaging in secret surveillance via video or audio equipment of their employees in these situations on the job site. For example, the Wall Street Journal reported that 19 locomotive engineers sued their employer in Oakland County Michigan Circuit Court, charging that their employer had hidden a camera in a locker-room exit sign. A worker at a state college was shocked to discover that her employer had secretly videotaped her changing her clothes in her office after work. A waitress at a restaurant was spied on in the employee changing room when she got dressed for work. Mr. Speaker, these are just a few examples of the conduct that the legislation Congressman Andrews and I are introducing today is intended to prevent. The Employee Freedom from Invasion of Privacy Act would help ensure that workers can go to work without wondering whether their employer has hidden a video camera in the bathroom or a microphone in the office ceiling. Under the Employee Freedom from Invasion of Privacy Act, an employer who violates the prohibition against video or audio monitoring of any area on an employer's premises where workers change clothing would be liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for each violation. The bill also authorizes the Secretary of Labor to seek injunctive relief against an employer so as to stop future violations of the prohibitions contained in the legislation. Enactment of the Employee Freedom from Invasion of Privacy Act would strengthen the right to privacy at a time when the growing use of surveillance technologies at the workplace has endangered this most fundamental of American values.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 505 on page 117, line 7 through line 10. This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law and, therefore, constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in violation of House rules.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 505.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against page 31, line 6, beginning with ``provided further'' through line 19. This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law and therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriation bill in violation of House rules.

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