Tom Petri

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1119.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, today with my colleague from Wisconsin, Ron Kind, I am introducing the Teacher Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Act. It is a common practice across the country for school districts to provide senior employees an opportunity or incentive to voluntarily retire before the age at which they could receive Medicare coverage and full retirement benefits from a state or municipal retirement system. These early retirement incentive plans, ERIPs, are truly a win-win proposition for school districts and employees. School districts are able to lower overall payroll costs and pass the savings on to early retirees in the form of greater retirement options and supplemental benefits. In a profession where many experience ``burnout'' before full retirement age, ERIPs are a highly valued option among teachers, retirees, and school boards. Despite the popularity and mutual benefits of these plans, school districts in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa over the past several years have been threatened with age discrimination charges by the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission for their voluntary early retirement incentive plans, and many school districts in other states may be at risk for similar action. We do not believe that it was the intent of Congress that voluntary benefits, negotiated between unions and employers and offered to all employees who reach a certain age, should come under the definition of age discrimination. The Petri-Kind Teacher Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Act of 2003 would clarify the Congress' intent by carving out an exemption in federal age discrimination law for voluntary early retirement plans offered to elementary and secondary school teachers, similar to the exemption that already exists for teachers in colleges and universities. This bill will go a long way in clearing up the legal uncertainty surrounding voluntary ERIPs, thus making available greater retirement options for teachers and giving school districts more flexibility in managing their workforce.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening in support of the Kind amendment to H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003. This amendment will strike title II of Division C of this bill. This title addresses various aspects of oil and gas production from Federal lease lands, both onshore and offshore. It reportedly seeks to provide greater incentives and royalty relief to oil and gas producers to encourage exploration and development in these areas. However, these incentives are far too generous. They are not in the public interest. they will not provide for a secure energy future. Because of this, I urge my colleagues to support the Kind amendment.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the Securing Consumers' Assurance in Moving Act of 2003 (the SCAM Act) in order to put more cops on the beat in policing the interstate household goods industry and to provide more information for consumers facing an interstate move. While the vast and overwhelming majority of moving companies operate in a fair, open and honest way, I am sure all Members are aware of the increasing problem with so-called "rogue" movers who prey upon consumers. Since the ICC was abolished in 1996, there have been fewer resources available for consumer protection enforcement at the Department of Transportation which now oversees the moving industry. Over the course of the last several years, this issue has been the subject of hearings and continuing oversight by the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines, and I believe it is now time to act. We have all heard the horror stories of moves gone wrong. One of the most egregious practices is the "hostage goods" situation, where a mover low-balls an estimate, loads the consumer's goods onto his truck, drives off, and then refuses to deliver the goods until paid an amount in cash that can be up to 4 or 5 times the amount of the original estimate--in strict violation of Federal regulation. I have heard from some who have gone months without knowing where their goods are located. And yet there is little the consumer can do. A major issue which has emerged is the authority of states to take action, since various courts have ruled that they have no jurisdiction over interstate moves--citing primarily the Carmack amendment. This policy was enacted in 1906 and simply sets forth a uniform liability scheme for loss and damage to avoid uncertainties over differing state laws. A lot has changed since 1906 and Congress has never really had a debate on what role states or individuals should have regarding consumer protection and the moving industry. I understand that the moving industry has concerns regarding the application of consumer protection laws, claiming that it will be difficult to operate with 50 different state laws. However, states have been enforcing consumer protection laws--which are aimed at those businesses engaged in fraud and deceptive practices--for many years now and somehow other businesses which are not exempt have survived and thrived. Certainly within the trucking industry, the movement of an individual's household goods is unique from commercial shipments. A consumer may utilize a moving company once or twice in a lifetime and entrusts virtually all his worldly goods to a mover--which gives a lot of leverage to the moving company. Although the President has requested funds for another 7 personnel to oversee household goods, I believe it will never be possible for the federal government to provide adequate oversight over those who take advantage of consumers--it is more appropriate that the states also be able to get involved against those who operate now with near immunity from effective oversight. The bill I am introducing has three major goals--allowing for Federal-State partnerships to enhance enforcement; establishing new fines for certain behavior; and increasing opportunities for consumer education for those contemplating a move, Specifically, the bill would: Clarify that an individual or states can use consumer protection laws against interstate movers; require DOT to establish a working group of state attorneys general, consumer protection administrators and law enforcement to coordinate information and enforcement efforts; require DOT to establish a database of consumer complaints with a procedure for public access to the database; require DOT to review current federal regulations regarding insurance coverage and determine whether revisions are necessary to provide adequate protection to consumers; establish a civil penalty of $10,000 and potential 6-month suspension of operating authority, and create criminal penalties, for movers who hold goods hostage in violation of the 110 % rule; create a $25,000 civil penalty for brokers or movers operating without authority; and establish a $10,000 civil penalty for a broker who provides an estimate before entering into an agreement with a carrier; require that movers and brokers include additional information regarding DOT registration numbers, consumer rights and responsibilities, and broker-carrier relationships on Web sites; and increase disclosure requirements for brokers who arrange for the shipment of household goods. Mr. Speaker, it is an unfortunate but necessary step that I am taking today in introducing this legislation. For too long the scales have been tipped in favor of those few within the moving industry who abuse consumers--it is time to even the scales.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words this afternoon about how important the Peace Corps has become to the United States' foreign relations since its inception in 1961 by President John F. Kennedy. I served as a Peace Corps volunteer in Mogadishu, Somalia from 1966-67, so I can attest to not just the great work done by my fellow volunteers, but more importantly how Peace Corps volunteers have grown into wonderful ambassadors to their host communities and countries on the United States' behalf. Volunteers have worked in 136 countries over the past 42 years, with nearly 7,000 volunteers serving in 70 countries today. The work these dedicated men and women do is often hard, but always rewarding. They can be stationed in a city on the African coast, like I was, or a remote village in South America. Ranging from teaching school to agricultural development to health care, Peace Corps volunteers are trained to assist a community in almost every way possible and have become an invaluable part of the communities they serve. After four decades of participating and teaching in communities on 6 continents, it is obvious that the Peace Corps has been successful beyond any expectations, helping countless communities realize the benefits of peace, freedom and economic prosperity. On its forty-second anniversary, I would like to commend the Corps and all of its volunteers for the unmatched education and service they have provided abroad and at home. I'm excited to see how far we will go in the next 42 years.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Committee for setting an obligation limit of $31.6 billion for the federal highway program in 2003. As we are facing a struggling economy and overwhelming transportation challenges, it is essential that we continue to invest now to preserve jobs, save lives, and provide the basic infrastructure we need to get back on the road to economic growth. The Trust Fund can support this spending as we have a $16 billion balance and, at a time when we are looking at an economic stimulus package, it does not make sense to shortchange a program that helps grow the economy and provide good, well-paying jobs. That being said, I am disappointed that once again the Committee has changed the way the program functions and, in essence, amended TEA 21 in the process. Once again funds--$269 million worth--which would otherwise go to the states are held back in order to expand earmarking opportunities, and at a 100% federal share. In addition, $285 million is appropriated from the Highway Trust Fund and $90 million is appropriated from the General Fund for further earmarking. And it appears that obligation authority is distributed in a way that favors program earmarked by appropriators at the expense of other apportioned or allocated programs. As last year, contract authority distributed to the states under the core programs is rescinded. It is only in the last two years that these types of activities have been approved by the appropriators, and it is a trend that should end with this bill. I again want to praise the overall level of highway spending provided in this conference report. Now that we are finally finished with fiscal year 2003, and begin the 2004 appropriations process, I hope we can return to a process that respects the jurisdiction of the authorizing committees, that does not take funds away from the states, and that we can work together to advance the transportation agenda of our nation.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Representative Bill Lipinski, the Ranking Democratic Member of the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines, Representative Don Young, the Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and Representative Jim Oberstar, the Committee's Ranking Democratic Member, I would like to outline the Subcommittee's procedure for identifying items of concern to Members as we take up the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21). This legislation authorized $218 billion for our Nation's highway, transit, motor carrier, highway safety and research programs for 6 years and is due to expire on September 30, 2003. The importance of the surface transportation systems to our Nation's economic health cannot be overstated. Highway and transit investments stimulate economic activity. These investments increase productivity by decreasing time spent on the road, encouraging new economic development, and increasing property values. Transportation investment generates a 6-to-1 net return on investment. The linchpin of economic vitality is free movement of people and goods. In the U.S., more than 75 percent of the Nation's freight moves on highways--an annual value to the economy of more than $5 trillion. And, for every $1 billion in federal highway and transit spending, more than 42,000 jobs are created or sustained. Despite the gains of TEA 21, transportation investment has fallen short of what is needed. The Department of Transportation estimates that the cost to improve highway and transit conditions to optimal levels would require more than doubling our current combined federal program size to $74 billion per year. Meeting these needs will require a variety of strategies, including better use of existing systems, application of advanced technology, innovative financing, and public- private partnerships. It is our goal to develop a bill that increases transportation investment to improve and maintain this world-class system. Reauthorization is the top priority of the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines. In the second session of the 107th Congress, the Subcommittee held a series of 17 TEA 21 oversight hearings and received testimony from 140 witnesses. The hearings gave many interested Members, the Administration and affected groups the opportunity to testify and present their views. We would be happy to make copies of these hearing transcripts available to any interested Members. We anticipate that the bipartisan legislation we develop this year will be based largely on the information obtained at last year's extensive programmatic hearings. As we begin the process this year, we would like to encourage Members to inform the Subcommittee about any policy initiatives that they want the Subcommittee to consider in the reauthorization of TEA 21. Members having such specific policy requests should inform the Subcommittee in writing no later than March 14, 2003. Many Members have already contacted the Subcommittee to inquire about, or to request, specific funding for critical transportation needs in their districts. On January 8, 2003, Transportation Committee Chairman Don Young and Ranking Member Jim Oberstar sent a Dear Colleague that included a 21-question evaluation form for consideration of projects of importance to members. This form is reprinted in its entirety below. All project requests should be submitted no later than March 14, 2003. (Please note that this is a 2-week extension beyond the original deadline of February 28th.) Such submissions should be transmitted to us via the intranet website, http://ushrtrans.house.gov, and in writing, attached to a signed letter on the letterhead of the sponsoring Member. We will also be holding a series of Subcommittee hearings in March and April, at which time Members and local officials will have an opportunity to testify on behalf of those requests. While these hearings are intended to give Members an opportunity to present information about specific project needs and policy requests, it is not necessary for Members to testify. We look forward to working with all Members of the House as we prepare this important legislation that will set the course for our nation's surface transportation programs. TRANSPORTATION PROJECT EVALUATION CRITERIA COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this bill, which will build upon the tremendous successes of the 1996 welfare reforms. When those reforms were enacted, opponents predicted apocalyptic scenes of poverty and suffering among America's low-income families. Time has proven, however, that those reforms were right. Child poverty is at its lowest level in 25 years and poverty among African-American children is at its lowest level in history. By requiring welfare beneficiaries to work and engage in productive activities, Congress helped change society. Former welfare beneficiaries now testify that by being pushed into work activities, they are now better members of society and better parents to their children. Although we have moved millions of families off welfare and into work, the road to advancement and self-sufficiency remains a difficult challenge. For a long time I have been concerned by the disincentives to working hard, earning more money, and getting married that we have created over time. The lack of coordination between federal programs directed toward low-income families has resulted in what I call the ``Poverty Trap.'' As the earnings of low-income families increase, most of their benefits, such as housing, food stamps, child-care co- payments, and the Earned Income Tax Credit, phase-out in a manner that discourages working harder and advancing in a job. In some cases a pay raise of a dollar an hour can mean the loss of benefits at a rate that exceeds that raise. This effective marginal tax can exceed 100 percent and trap families in poverty. I am pleased that this bill requires the General Accounting Office to undertake a comprehensive study of the obstacles created by the combined phase-outs of low-income support programs and recommend ways to coordinate and reform these programs. Because of this ``Poverty Trap,'' I also enthusiastically support provisions within this bill which provide states and local governments with the flexibility to implement demonstration projects that coordinate multiple low-income support programs. Under these provisions states can integrate eligible programs as long as those projects serve the populations and achieve the purposes of the underlying programs. This requirement further ensures that beneficiaries of these underlying programs are going to gain, not lose, as a result of these demonstration projects. While I wish these flexibility provisions went further, they are an important step that will enable needed innovation at the state and local level to help families escape poverty. The states have proven to be laboratories for successful change in our welfare system, and this flexibility will enhance their capabilities. I urge all my colleagues who want to help low-income families leave welfare and achieve self-sufficiency to support this bill and the state and local flexibility provisions within it.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation, the Higher Education Accrediting Agency Responsibility Act of 2003, that will remove the requirement that institutions of higher education be accredited in order to be eligible for federal funds. The system of accreditation of colleges and universities that has developed in the United States does not serve its avowed purpose of ensuring that institutions of higher education have good academic programs and standards, and it fails to provide hardly any benefit at all to our higher education system. Additionally, more effective and less costly mechanisms are already in place to protect students. For example, no institution can receive federal funds until the Department of Education certifies its financial and administrative capacity, and institutions also must meet various state licensing and oversight requirements related to quality. Accreditation these days has little to do with academic rigor or educational outcomes; rather, it serves only to show that a school has the right set of inputs, and virtually every college and university in the nation is able to comply with these standards. Because federal law makes eligibility to receive federal student loan funds conditional upon retaining accredited status from an accrediting association recognized by the Department of Education, schools have a rather large incentive to maintain their accreditation status. This places an enormous amount of influence in the hands of the accrediting agencies, which oftentimes force schools to reallocate resources or even adopt policies at odds with a school's individual mission in order to comply with accreditation requirements and recommendations. As we continue to pursue policies of accountability for our education institutions and strive to do our part in making higher education affordable for more Americans, we must examine ways that the accreditation process can be changed to play a more useful role--one that provides meaningful information about a school to students and parents. I believe the Higher Education Accrediting Agency Responsibility Act of 2003 is the necessary first step to achieve this goal.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Poverty Trap Study Act of 2003. Although we have moved millions of families off welfare and into work, the road to advancement and self-sufficiency remains a difficult challenge. For a long time I have been concerned by the disincentives to working hard, earning more money, and even getting married, that we have created over time through the many support programs that provide assistance to lower income families. Too often a low-income household will find that, despite a rise in earnings, the family is actually worse off than it was beforehand. One by one over the decades we have created programs to help the poor as we have perceived needs for housing assistance, nutritional assistance, health care, etc. At some income level these programs had to be eliminated or phased out. Unfortunately, as each program was designed individually without regard for the cumulative effects, we ended up phasing out all of them over the same income range, generally just above the poverty level. Tax liability also begins around the same income level. As a result, many working families in the income range of about $12,000-$30,000 lose a dollar or close to it in taxes and lost welfare benefits for each additional dollar income they earn--a combined marginal tax rate over 100 percent! Specifically, a family with two children in this income range pays 30 percent of income as rent if they are in subsidized housing, loses 21 percent of additional income to the EITC phaseout, 24 percent to the food stamp phaseout, 15 percent to the federal income tax, 7.65 percent to the employee share of FICA and, depending on the state, around 3 percent state income tax. It's time for Congress to look at welfare and tax policy for low income families in a coherent fashion instead of the hit or miss piecemeal approach we have been employing. My legislation would create a commission to examine the cumulative effective marginal tax rates for low income families with children in a cross section of states, measure the effects, and make recommendations to fix the problem.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, it is a shame and a scandal that many anti- poverty programs actually keep people poor by making it too expensive for them to work their way out of poverty. Our many anti-poverty programs were individually designed without regard for each other and without regard for the fact that if several benefits phase out simultaneously a poor person who works hard may find himself or herself worse off than if he or she stayed home or had done the minimum necessary to maintain the maximum level of benefits. I call this the poverty trap. Able-bodied people will work their way out of poverty if they can clearly see the benefit. Accordingly, today I am introducing the Poverty Trap Study Act, to create a commission to examine the way benefit phase-outs and tax increases can sap the incentive of poor beneficiaries. It is a hard problem to tackle, but we must get started. This is an issue that liberals, conservatives, and moderates should all find of compelling importance, and I solicit my colleagues' support.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, today my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), and I are introducing the Instructional Materials Accessibility Act, which makes sure that blind students will be able to enjoy an equal opportunity to a quality education. It often takes months for a blind student to have the same materials as his or her sighted peers because of the cumbersome process needed to translate a textbook into Braille or other specialized format. This legislation will eliminate these delays by putting in place standards to assist States and school districts in delivering instructional materials to blind students. I would urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Instructional Materials Accessibility Act, which will ensure that, for the first time, blind students will be able to fully enjoy an equal opportunity to a quality education. This same bill attracted 88 bipartisan cosponsors in the 107th Congress, most notably my friend George Miller, the Ranking Member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, who has worked closely with me on crafting this legislation. Unfortunately, it is the exception rather than the rule that blind students have access to textbooks for a given class at the beginning of the school year. Because of the cumbersome process needed to translate a textbook into Braille or other specialized format, it can take up to six months for the blind student to have the same materials as his or her sighted peers. Only a heroic effort can save this student from being hopelessly behind in class. This was not much of an issue before the 1960's. Before that time, most blind children attended centralized schools for the blind, and there was (and is) existing infrastructure, such as the American Printing House for the Blind in Kentucky, to provide support services such as production of Braille textbooks. Beginning in the 1960's, though, blind children began attending schools in their home communities, and now the vast majority do so. As a result, every local school district which has one or more blind students must obtain or create the necessary specialized textbooks for these students. However, again this is a laborious process that is beyond the capability of most school districts to carry out quickly or easily. Although states already have the obligation under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and other federal statutes to provide equivalent educational opportunities to disabled and non- disabled students, it has become apparent that specific and practical standards need to be put in place to anticipate and meet accessibility needs in this area. The Instructional Materials Accessibility Act (IMAA) takes several approaches that, taken together, will greatly reduce the waiting time for blind students to receive their textbooks. This bill establishes a standardized electronic file format for instructional materials. Conversion into an electronic format is a necessary step in the process of creating a Braille version of a textbook. Twenty-six states currently require publishers to provide electronic copies of textbooks but have no agreed-upon file format. This drives up costs for publishers and often results in unusable electronic files provided. And it does nothing to reduce the months- long period needed for production of the specialized textbook. Our bill requires statewide plans to ensure that students who are blind or visually impaired have access to instructional materials in formats they can use at the same time the materials are provided to all other students. Our bill will establish a national clearinghouse to provide ``one-stop shopping'' for local school districts to acquire the needed materials. In the future, publishers will be able to submit an electronic copy of a textbook to this clearinghouse, rather than having to deal with inconsistent state requirements. Finally, our bill authorizes a small capacity-building grant program to assist state and local educators in using electronic files supplied by publishers. This issue has been a bone of contention between textbook publishers and the blind community for quite a while. However, working together over a period of many months, both communities finally arrived at a mutually agreeable and practical solution to this problem and the publishers and the blind advocates strongly support the IMAA as introduced in both Houses. In the 107th Congress, the support and great need for this legislation prompted the Department of Education to fund the development of a voluntary standardized electronic format for specialized instructional materials. Once completed, this standardized file format would implement a significant piece of the IMAA. However, a standardized file format by itself will not solve all the problems which cause delays in the delivery of textbooks to visually impaired students. That is why this legislation is still needed. Once implemented, the IMAA will make life easier for states, publishers and most of all blind students, at a very modest cost.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation to establish a program of limited tax credits and tax deductions to get average Americans involved in the political process. My 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. Members of Congress can be forgiven for being exhausted by the recent debates over campaign finance reform that last year concluded with passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). Although that legislation will curb some of the worst abuses of our current campaign system, such as the unlimited soft money loophole, the reality is that special interests and high-income donors still will have a disproportionate level of influence in our political system. We cannot stop here, with the job only partly complete. As the next step in the process of campaign finance reform, we need to take a fresh look at innovative approaches, including ways that encourage, and not restrict, people's 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 percent tax credit for political contributions to federal candidates or national political parties (limited to $200 per taxable year), or a 100 percent 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 side benefit of this legislation will be to strengthen political parties, which, many feel, have been weakened by the passage of BCRA. Under the CIVIC Act, only federal candidates and national party committees count as eligible recipients for purposes of the tax benefits. This will allow the parties to tap new sources of revenue and begin to replace the massive soft-money donations that have been cut off. In conclusion, 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, I am introducing legislation to authorize a deduction from corporate income for dividends paid to stockholders. This legislation, the Dividend Payment Incentive Act of 2003, will provide benefits to shareholders, public company managers, and the broader U.S. economy. Passage of this bill is important for many reasons, including: This legislation will end the double taxation of dividends. Currently, corporate income is taxed at 35 percent and then shareholders also pay personal income tax on any dividends received. An investor in the 27 percent tax bracket nets less than 48 cents for each dollar of earnings a public company allocates to dividend payments. Current tax policy provides a disincentive for corporations to transfer earnings to shareholders, and dividend payments have declined significantly. In fact, many corporations make no dividend distributions. Clearly, the expectation of receiving regular dividend payments from profitable companies can persuade investors to invest money in our equity markets. It has been estimated that dividends comprised half of the average return to shareholders in the decades before 1990. Encouraging managers to make dividend distributions can help to boost overall stock market performance by providing a very real incentive for investors to put their hard-earned money back into the stock market. Because corporate income is taxed at a single 35 percent rate and personal income is taxed at marginal rates ranging from 15 to 38.6 percent, ending the double taxation of dividends on the corporate tax side will provide a fairer distribution of the benefit to taxpayers at all income levels. This stands in sharp contrast with proposals to reduce the personal income tax on dividends received which will give a greater benefit to taxpayers paying higher marginal tax rates. Income allocated to dividends is fully taxed while interest payments are deductible. This uneven treatment of different financing vehicles distorts the corporate decisionmaking process by creating a distinct financial advantage for borrowing. Allowing a deduction for dividends paid will equalize this treatment and enable corporate managers to consider the full range of debt and equity financing options. The time has come to end the double taxation of dividends, and it should be clear that enacting this reform through a corporate side deduction will provide the greatest benefit to the broadest array of taxpayers.

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. My legislation, the Push Poll Disclosure Act of 2003, requires that each participant in a poll conducted for a candidate for a Federal office seeking the opinion of more that 1,200 households be told the identity of the survey's sponsor, 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 2003 is a simple bill. It will not hinder the traditional use of polling, nor will it burden polling firms with excessive regulations. What this bill does do, however, is regulate push 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.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2546.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 2546) to amend title 49, United States Code, to prohibit States from requiring a license or fee on account of the fact that a motor vehicle is providing interstate pre- arranged ground transportation service, and for other purposes.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Real Interstate Driver Equity Act of 2001, known as H.R. 2546, was introduced by our colleague the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt). This legislation is needed to solve a problem that arises when a for-hire vehicle, usually a limousine or sedan, travels across a state line in interstate commerce. As the law is written today, State and local jurisdictions can require for-hire vehicles to be licensed in multiple States. In some cases, if they do not pay for additional licenses, the for-hire vehicle can only drop its passenger in another State. They cannot make incidental stops or return the same passenger to his original departing State. For example, a traveler might arrange to be picked up at an airport. On the way home to another State, a common occurrence in Washington, D.C. and in many other communities, the traveler might wish to stop and have dinner within the State he arrived in. This sounds reasonable. What could be the objection? Unfortunately, that stopover could result in the for-hire car being towed, ticketed and impounded. The traveler would be stranded, the car service is left without a vehicle and faces hundreds or even thousands of dollars in fines and in fees. This is not a fair practice, and H.R. 2546 corrects the problem. For- hire car services providing prearranged ground transportation should be able to engage in interstate commerce. However, some restrictions currently in place would still apply. For example, this legislation does not allow a carrier to operate in another jurisdiction with new clients that were not pre-arranged as though they were licensed within that jurisdiction. The bill also protects the right of transportation terminal operators to provide preferential access and for States to require criminal background checks. This bill does not provide any direct financial relief for the hard- hit ground transportation industry. However, it does reduce an unnecessary burden and will increase choice, sufficiency and convenience for consumers. The bill was reported by the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on November 7, 2001, and passed the House on November 13 of that year. Last month the Senate amended the bill slightly by more specifically defining intermediate stops and making some other minor technical corrections. These changes are agreeable to the House sponsors of the legislation and to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and I urge the House to pass H.R. 2546 today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I thought I would have another speaker in the form of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), who is the author of this bill, but he is at the White House at an important meeting, and I am sure he will insert remarks in the Record outlining his support for this legislation.

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

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the joint resolution making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2003. Much has been said about the highway funding provision that was included in last week's continuing resolution and which remains in effect under this resolution. This provision was necessary to reverse the administration's decision to reduce the highway program to a $27.7 billion annualized rate of funding while under the first two continuing resolutions. As a result of the highway funding provision in last week's continuing resolution, the Office of Management and Budget issued a new apportionment for the highway program, increasing the rate of funding from $27.7 billion to $31.8 billion, on an annualized basis. This proves beyond any doubt that the highway funding provision enacted last week had the desired effect of requiring the highway program to be continued at the fiscal year 2002 funding level of $31.8 billion, while the continuing resolution remains in effect. I am pleased to insert into the Record a copy of the OMB apportionment as well as a letter from OMB regarding this issue. From this letter, it is clear that the $27.7 billion limit on total obligations has no practical effect under a short-term continuing resolution. If at some point in the future the House considers a longer-term CR, one that remains in effect well into next year, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, as has been indicated by the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), will work to ensure that the $27.7 billion limit on total obligations is removed. Should that become necessary, we look forward to having the support of all those friends of the highway program who have spoken in favor of the $31.8 billion funding level here on the House floor over this past week. I am hopeful that a long-term CR will not become necessary and that this year's final highway funding level will be appropriately determined in the context of House and Senate negotiations on the budget 2003 transportation appropriation bill. I urge support for the resolution that will be brought forward by the rule before us. Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, October 15, 2002. Hon. Don Young, Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: OMB has reviewed section 137 of Public Law 107-240, Making Further Continuing Appropriations for Fiscal Year (FY) 2003, which passed the House on October 11, 2002. The enactment of section 137 will have no impact on the level of highway jobs or the level of highway spending for states. The effect of section 137 is to retain the FY 2002 rate of operations for the Federal aid highway program at $31.8 billion for the duration of the continuing resolution by requiring OMB to apportion funds at an annualized rate of $31.8 billion during that period. As of today, OMB has apportioned funds in accordance with section 137. Much confusion has surrounded the language in section 137 that limits total annual obligations for this program while operating under continuing resolutions to no more than $27.7 billion. This provision, as many of the terms of the current resolution, is subject to section 107(c) of P.L. 107-229, which establishes the date of expiration of the continuing resolution. H.J. Res. 122 sets that date of expiration at October 18, 2002. Consequently, it is mathematically impossible for the highway program, spending at an annualized rate of $31.8 billion, to reach the $27.7 billion cap on total obligations prior to mid-August 2003, well beyond the expiration date of this or any other continuing resolution that is expected in the future. Therefore, the effect of section 137 is to provide that the highway program continue at the FY 2002 enacted level of $31.8 billion until the final FY 2003 funding level is determined in the context of House, Senate and Administration negotiations on the FY 2003 Transportation Appropriations bill. Sincerely, Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, we want to pay tribute today to Don Schneider, who has recently assumed the position of Chairman of the Board of Schneider National Inc., based in Green Bay, Wisconsin. Don becomes Chairman after serving as President and CEO of the company since 1974. Don is one of the most innovative and creative businessmen we know-- not only in the State of Wisconsin, but in the entire country. Upon meeting Don, one is immediately struck by his tremendous energy, drive and the commitment he has for his company and for the transportation and logistics business. Indeed, that is why he has been so successful. The enjoyment he takes in tackling problems and finding solutions is infectious and motivates all those around him. He is a forward-thinker who literally has revolutionized the transportation industry. For example, Don has been a leader in the use of technology, and his company was the first to adopt satellite-based communications and positioning in its trucks--which many years later is now considered standard in the transportation industry. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee of the House has called on Don several times to present testimony regarding emerging infrastructure and transportation issues. His presentations on the role of a well-performing transportation network in spurring economic growth and of reducing logistic costs--which can be as much as 11 percent of product costs--for greater product supply chain efficiency has been critical to the understanding of the Committee and the Congress as we consider related legislation. Schneider National was founded by Don's father back in 1935. During his high school years, Don worked as a mechanic's helper and then a driver, which he continued to do while attending college. In 1961, he joined the company as a manager and succeeded his father as President and CEO in 1974. During his years at the helm of the company, he has built it into a $2.4 billion business that is now the largest truckload carrier in the country. In 1993, Don founded Schneider Logistics as a wholly owned subsidiary. Again, with its focus on technology, Schneider Logistics guides its Fortune 1000 customers in efficiently managing and moving their goods. Don has always been charitable with his time out of the office and is actively involved in a number of organizations. He is Chairman of the Business Advisory Committee for Northwestern University's Transportation Center and is a member of the Advisory Board for the Kellogg Graduate School of Management. Don also is a member of the board and executive committee of the Green Bay Packers football team and a former director of the Federal Reserve Board. It is heartening these days to see a businessman who is humble, who treats his employees with respect, and who truly believes in the value of his work. The accolades and awards he has received as an outstanding entrepreneur are too numerous to mention. So we, too, want to recognize Don and his accomplishments, and wish him all the best in this new phase of his life. We have no doubt that he will continue to make valuable contributions to our community and to the transportation industry.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this resolution, as it contains a provision clarifying that, under this continuing resolution, the Federal Highway Program will be funded at $31.8 billion. This continuing resolution is designed to be a temporary measure continuing funding for government programs at current levels until annual appropriation bills for 2003 can be enacted into law. I know the Committee on Appropriations has approved a bill with a $27.7 billion obligation limitation for the Federal Highway Program, while the Senate Appropriations Committee has funded the program at $31.8 billion. A final level of funding will be decided later as the appropriation process continues. This process in no way ties our hands in determining what the final appropriation level should be. Again, the purpose of the CR is to continue funding at the current rate; and it should not be used to inhibit Congress's prerogative to set final spending levels for this budget year, which I hope will be at the Senate level.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, today, I have introduced legislation that will remove the requirement that institutions of higher education be accredited in order to be eligible for federal funds. The system of accreditation of colleges and universities that has developed in the United States does not serve its avowed purpose of ensuring that institutions of higher education have good academic programs and standards, and it fails to provide hardly any benefit at all to our higher education system. Additionally, more effective and less costly mechanisms are already in place to protect students because no institution can receive federal funds until the Department of Education certifies its financial and administrative capacity. Accreditation these days has little to do with academic rigor or educational outcomes; rather, it serves only to show that a school has the right set of inputs, and virtually every college and university in the nation is able to comply with these standards. Because federal law makes eligibility to receive federal student loan funds conditional upon retaining accredited status from an accrediting association recognized by the Department of Education, schools have a rather large incentive to maintain their accreditation status. This places an enormous amount of influence in the hands of the accreditors, who oftentimes force schools to reallocate resources or even adopt policies at odds with a school's individual mission in order to comply with accreditation requirements and recommendations. As we continue to pursue policies of accountability for our education institutions and strive to do our part in making higher education affordable for more Americans, we should examine ways that the accreditation process can be changed to play a more useful role--one that provides meaningful information about a school to students and parents. I believe my legislation is the necessary first step to achieve this goal.