Tom Petri

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, last month the war risk insurance program was reauthorized by the House, but only through the end of next month. We need to quickly move to reauthorize the program for a longer period of time and do it in a way that is acceptable to the Senate. This program has operated successfully for over 47 years. The bill would reauthorize the war risk insurance program through December 31, 2003. Insurance is an essential feature of any commercial airline operation, but ordinary business insurance operations are normally not willing, and certainly not at normal rates, to insure flights to high-risk areas such as countries at war or on the verge of war. In many cases, flights into these dangerous situations, however, are required to further our Nation's foreign policy or national security objectives. On many occasions in the past, commercial airlines, rather than military planes, have been used to move materiel and troops into war-type areas including, for example, most recently during Desert Storm-Desert Shield operations and other conflicts. Without the war risk program, commercial airlines would not have flown these military flights, and therefore the Department of Defense would have had to grant or purchase aircraft at a cost to the taxpayers of millions of dollars, if not billions. Although the program is not currently being used in Kosovo, it could be needed at any time and, therefore, we cannot afford to allow the program to lapse. The bill before the House now is virtually the same as the bill that we passed last February, but the Senate dropped a provision in the bill involving unrelated technical changes to the centennial of flight commission. Therefore, we need to pass this bill and send it back to the Senate. I would urge support for the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Nondiscrimination in Employee Benefits Act of 1999. This legislation will require that employers offering benefits to associates of their employees who are not spouses or dependents of those employees not discriminate on the basis of the nature of the relationship between the employee and the designated associates. For many years health and other benefits provided by employers were available only to the employee and his or her spouse and children. Today, more and more employers are permitting unmarried employees to designate someone else for similar coverage, but only if the employee and the other person declare that they are in a homosexual relationship. This is done in the name of nondiscrimination and homosexual rights. However, in too many cases these policies themselves discriminate, even against some family members. In one case involving constituents of mine, the employee has her mother living with her. Her employer-provided health insurance will not allow coverage of her mother; however if they were unrelated and declared that the relationship was romantic in nature, her company's policy would allow coverage. This is clearly unfair. Why should we, in this manner, set homosexual relationships above all other relationships between unmarried individuals? Mr. Speaker, my bill simply requires that if a company allows an employee to choose someone to receive such benefits, the choice must be open to all equally. I ask that a copy of the bill be included in the Record.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Environmental Research and Education Foundation. This Foundation is dedicated to helping society plan environmental solutions for the future. It was created by visionary leaders in the waste services and equipment industry who recognized the critical importance--now and for future generations--of properly managing our wastes, creating sustainable recyclying markets, conserving resources and protecting the environment. Our nation has the best waste-management infrastructure that it has ever had, with widespread access to recycling and highly engineered disposal facilities. Nevertheless, the sheer volume of our garbage dictates the need for first-rate research into new and better ways to manage wastes. The Foundation serves this need. it has raised millions of dollars thanks to the generosity of its leaders and other contributors. I expect the fruits of the Foundation's research to have substantial impact on the policies and practices that we evolve over time.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I also would like to respond to the previous speaker, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman). While admonishing the trial court to be sensitive to demands on the President's time, the U.S. Supreme Court recently unanimously ruled that he had the same obligations as every other citizen in the Nation's courts. Testifying truthfully under oath is one of those obligations. The President maintains he did this. I believe beyond a reasonable doubt that he repeatedly committed perjury. I do not believe our President should be held to a lower standard of accountability than other citizens who perjure themselves. If anything, he should be held to a higher standard because of the trust proposed in his office and because he is the chief law enforcement officer in a Nation whose very foundation is the rule of law. Other Federal officials, including three judges, in the last dozen years have faced removal from office after committing perjury. So should our President. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will vote to refer articles of impeachment to the Senate.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, this past Monday, September 28th, more than 700 law enforcement officers from throughout Wisconsin and the Midwest gathered at First Reformed Church in Oostburg, Wisconsin to pay their respects to police officer Dale Ten Haken. Officer Ten Haken, a member of the Manitowoc, Wisconsin police force, was shot to death on the evening of September 23rd during a seemingly routine traffic investigation. A five-year veteran of the Manitowoc Police Department, Dale was a dedicated public servant who loved police work, the career he had chosen as had his father and two brothers before him. Dale was 27 years old, and was engaged to be married in a few months. The sorrow shown by the officers who came together to honor Dale as one of their own is shared by the people of Wisconsin and especially by the citizens of Manitowoc whom he served. Because Dale's death was the result of a senseless, unprovoked and unnecessary attack, the people's grief is compounded by a sense of anger and bewilderment. Officer Ten Haken had stopped four teenagers to investigate why the car they were driving had no license plates and the headlights were not turned on. As he called for another officer to assist him, he was shot three times in the back. Although formal charges will not be filed until next week, it appears the two 17-year old suspects feared a return to the local judicial system. Both have prior police records and were currently wanted for bail and probation violations. In Manitowoc, an official period of mourning continues until Saturday morning, October 3rd, when a public memorial service for Dale Ten Haken will be held in Washington Park. It is fitting, if ironic, that the memorial service take place in this common area in the center of the city, a lovely spot where the suspects and other young people have been known to hang out and pass time. Mayor Kevin Crawford, in a newspaper column this week in the local Herald Times Reporter, has issued a wake-up call for the people of his city, asking for a renewed focus on and commitment to youth. Said Crawford, ``We need to `wake up' Manitowoc. Dale Ten Haken wants us to. In our homes and our schools and our churches we need to decide if we're giving our kids everything they need to grow up good and strong and moral.'' Unfortunately, senseless acts of youth violence crowd today's headlines, and we search for the causes for young lives that spin out of control. As we ponder the whys and wherefores of this particular Wisconsin tragedy, we mostly feel a sense of tremendous loss for a good man who died much too young, a police officer who gave up his life while protecting those of his fellow citizens. Dale Ten Haken's name will be the first one added to the new monument to fallen Manitowoc County police officers dedicated just four months ago. Hopefully, his will be the last. As the city of Manitowoc pays tribute to Dale Ten Haken and reflects on his sacrifice, it is fitting that this House join in commemorating the life of a man committed to serving others and to making a difference.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, September 26th, I plan to be present--votes permitting--for a long overdue ceremony in Ripon, Wisconsin, for a true American hero. It was December 15, 1967. Most Americans were getting ready for Christmas. But 1st Lieutenant Gerald D. Wheaton's artillery battalion had just taken over a position near Chu Chi in South Vietnam previously assigned to another battalion. Wheaton was the Battalion Ammunition Officer, and he knew he had a job on his hands when he found that his predecessor had left him with broken boxes, mixed lots, and in some cases missing charges. So he got to work--a time consuming and exacting job. The battalion had no ammunition trucks, so he had to beg and borrow vehicles for resupply. Six weeks later, the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong violated a ceasefire in order to launch their mammoth surprise Tet offensive throughout the Republic of Vietnam. The first days of the offensive were chaotic. Wheaton's brigade was given the mission to keep the main supply route open from Quang Tri Province to Camp Evans about 30 miles away. A North Vietnamese regiment attacked the garrison at Hi Lang and cut the supply road to Camp Evans. Lt. Col. Robert E. Lee, Jr. (then a Major) says: I ordered Lt. Wheaton to move his ammunition section from Phu Bi to Quang Tri City and be prepared to resupply C Battery in the vicinity of Quang Tri City, a battery in the vicinity of Hi Lang and a 155 battery at LZ Jane. The batteries were approximately thirty miles apart. Lt. Wheaton loaded his section on two helicopters. At the time, we were not aware of the magnitude of the Tet offensive. The helicopters came under heavy ground fire and one turned back. Lt. Wheaton insisted his helicopter continue the mission. Lt. Wheaton's decision ensured his battalion was resupplied with ammunition. Keeping his own battalion and a reinforcing artillery battery resupplied was a monumental challenge which Lt. Wheaton met despite great personal risk from land mines, sniper fire and ambush. Indeed, later Lt. Wheaton was seriously injured when his jeep drove over a land mine. His passenger was killed. As a result of his efforts before and during the Tet offensive, Col. Lee believes that Lt. Wheaton's actions saved the lives of many American soldiers, so he recommended Lt. Wheaton for a Bronze Star. But then, nothing happened. During the hectic days following the offensive the original recommendation was somehow misplaced. During a reunion, Lt. Col. (Ret.) Lee learned that Lt. Wheaton had failed to receive the recognition he was due. So in July of last year Col. Lee contacted my office to see if we could right a wrong and help with a resubmission of the recommendations for Lt. Wheaton's awards. I was happy to help. The Army requires extensive procedures to make sure the awards it makes are merited, but over the course of a year we were able to demonstrate our case. On Saturday, September 26 at 11 a.m. at the Ripon, Wisconsin VFW I plan to be on hand to offer my personal gratitude to Gerald Wheaton. We will be joined by Col. Lee and by Wheaton's former Battalion Commander, Col. (Ret.) William Malouche as Gerald D. Wheaton receives the Bronze Star for meritorious service, and the Bronze Star with a ``V'' Device for valor. I believe Lt. Wheaton deserves the full measure of recognition and congratulations that can be extended by this House on behalf of a grateful nation.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Mollohan amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Mollohan Amendment. The Constitution provides for an actual enumeration of our nation's population every ten years. Speaking of possible tax levies on the states, Alexander Hamilton said in ``The Federalist 36,'' ``the proportion of these taxes is not to be left to the discretion of the national Legislature: but is to be determined by the numbers of each State as described in the second section of the first article. An actual census or enumeration of the people must furnish the rule; a circumstance which effectually shuts the door to partiality or oppression.'' Hamilton was wise. We open ourselves to partiality and oppression if we open the census to manipulation. From the first constitutionally mandated census in 1790 to the most recent in 1990, our government has used the most modern means available to perform as complete an actual head count of our population as possible. Now, for the first time, our census bureau proposes to undertake less than a complete census and then to adjust its count to what experts estimate to be a complete count. One reason advanced for this departure from 200 years of practice is that an incomplete count would save money. Well, this Congress is prepared to spend the money necessary for a first class full enumeration. And, I dare say, recent advances in communications and data technology should enable the bureau to successfully complete a more accurate actual enumeration than ever before in our nation's history. ``But doing a 90% count and then adjusting it will be cheaper, more accurate, and fairer,'' says the census bureau. Leaving aside the fact that you can't possibly know when you have completed 90% because you don't know what 100% is; and leaving aside the fact that the Congress is manifestly prepared to appropriate the funds required for a first class census rather than an economy model; what's wrong with adjusting the numbers to reflect estimated non-participation in the census process by residents who, for whatever reason, fail to participate? What's wrong is that this is a zero sum game. To the extent the census bureau adjusts the figures to increase the numbers for non- participants, it reduces the representation and flow of federal funds for others who discharge their civic responsibility to participate in the census process. And there will be a tremendous price to pay in civic morale if this unprecedented change if forced into effect on a partisan basis. First of all, whether warranted or not, the fact that this change is insisted upon and forced into effect along largely political party lines will give rise to the belief that the census adjustment is being implemented for partisan advantage. Secondly, the fact that the change to an administratively determined adjusted census figure is most strongly advocated by those whose power and authority will be increased by this new approach, will give rise to the conviction that the adjusted figure is the result not of a search for greater truth, but rather of the pursuit of advantage for those in control of the adjustment process. And thirdly, the fact that actual participation in the census will no longer really affect the count will result in a decline in participation and in an increase in skepticism, and public cynicism, toward basic institutions of government. Finally, I plead with my colleagues not to play partisan games that could jeopardize the census. Do not insist, on a partisan basis, for the first time, on an incomplete count and adjustment. Let us go forward, as we always have in the past, with a complete enumeration and do all that we can to make it as complete as is humanly possible. Then adjust if you think it improves things and we will settle it in court. But to do a partial count and adjustment going in, without even attempting a complete count, will confront our people and the courts with a fait-accompli. If the courts then throw out that sampling-based census, we'll have to do it all over again, at tremendous cost, possibly delaying redistricting, and inviting public disgust. Defeat the Mollohan Amendment!

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against page 18, line 2, beginning with ``provided'' through ``motor carriers'' on line 5. This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI because it transfers contract authority funds from the Federal Highway Administration to pay for the functions of the Office of Motor Carriers. This provision changes existing law, and, therefore, constitutes legislating on an appropriation bill in violation of House rules.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 339. This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI because it limits contract authority for the Pennsylvania Station project. This provision 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 page 16, line 20 through line 24. This provisions violates clause 2 of rule XXI because it rescinds $5 million in Airport and Airway Trust Fund contract authority, not general fund appropriations for grants and aid to airports. Airport and Airway Trust Fund contract authority, while a form of direct spending, is legislative in nature, and rescinding such authority is not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations. This rescission constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of House rules.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against page 11, line 19, beginning with ``of which'' through ``fund'' on Line 20. This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI because it alters the funding formula established under the airport improvement program by appropriating $2.06 billion out of the airport and airway fund for FAA operations. The correct figure should be approximately $1,970,000,000 if the formula under existing law is followed. The added funding for appropriations has the effect of changing existing law and therefore constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill in violation of House rules.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I have three points of order against this part of the bill.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, on H.R. 3862, the Child Custody Protection Act, Rollcall No 280, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in support of the dean of the Wisconsin delegation the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and his amendment. Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that the Federal milk marketing order system has been gradually strangling the dairy producers of Wisconsin. There is no doubt about it. Before the Federal Government got into this business, Wisconsin was known as America's dairyland. We were by far number one in dairy production. Since the Federal Government got into this in the Depression and then it has been extended, what we have seen is the pattern where gradually the producers of Wisconsin have been squeezed out of business. I will yield to no one in the country in their concern about dairy producers, but I would question them being concerned about dairy producers just because they happen to be next door rather than across the United States. The fact of the matter is the effect of the Northeast Compact and of the milk marketing order system has been to put hard-working dairy farmers out of business net in the United States. The reason really that the impact is disproportionate on Wisconsin is due to the different structure of our dairy industry historically from many other areas of the country. Most of the areas of the country were historically fluid milk producing areas of the country for urban consumers. In Wisconsin, 90 percent of our milk on average historically has gone into value-added processed products, cheese, butter and the like, and then shipped all across the United States. Over years as people learned how to manipulate the milk marketing order system, what has happened is that they have used the price supports to help them produce fluid milk for their local consumers, they have used that to subsidize excess production, and then manufactured that excess production into butter and cheese and so on, driving Wisconsin producers out of business. The fact of the matter is we are no longer America's dairyland in Wisconsin. We are number two, both in milk production and now, for the first time in several generations, in the number of cows, to California. That is because, not that Wisconsin farmers do not work hard, not that they are relatively inefficient but because of the discrimination against the upper Midwest that is inherent in the Federal Government milk marketing program. The time has come to end that program and not keep it alive.

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

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

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I just wondered why, when extending for 6 months the Secretary's marketing order determination, they include in the extension for 6 months the New England Dairy Compact, since the two are not related.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I certainly do. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us is legislating on an appropriation bill and changes existing law. My amendment would not change existing law. It would change the bill before us to protect and maintain existing law, and, therefore, I feel that it is certainly in order. The only reason that this is necessary is that legislating on appropriations was protected by the rule of my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, this amendment removes a provision in the bill that extends the Northeast Dairy Compact for 6 months. The amendment thus takes us back to current law and allows the compact to sunset as originally intended on April 4 of next year. This compact, as we know from the legislative history, was inserted in the 1996 farm bill in conference and has never been reviewed by the Committee on the Judiciary or stood for a vote on the floor of the House. This unprecedented use of the interstate compact provisions of the U.S. Constitution should not be extended, at least without careful review by the Committee on the Judiciary; but even with such review, in my opinion, should not be extended. The compact established a cartel to raise milk prices in New England, and it has done so. Retail fluid milk prices were raised about 8 percent in Boston. Guess what? Farmers have raised production by three times the national average in Vermont, consumers have lowered their consumption, and mounting surpluses are being turned into milk powder and sold to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Calculated properly, the cost of these surplus purchases is actually more than the farmers gained from higher prices. If the farmers actually pay these costs as they are supposed to under the terms of the compact, even they will be net losers from this price-fixing scheme. If, through some kind of political manipulation, they do not pay for the surplus, the taxpayers will get stuck with the bill. Meanwhile, the existence of this surplus depresses manufactured milk prices and ultimately all milk prices in the rest of the United States. Seventy years of experience in the Soviet Union should have taught the world that this kind of central planning and market manipulation is doomed to failure. It must be allowed to sunset as intended. This amendment is supported by over 400 organizations spanning the complete political spectrum, including the National Taxpayers Union, Public Voice for Food and Health Policy, Citizens Against Government Waste, Consumer Alert, the International Dairy Foods Association, Farmers Union Milk Marketing Cooperative, the Milk Industry Foundation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Foremost Farms USA Cooperative, Citizens for a Sound Economy, and many, many others. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for sensible market-oriented policy and to remove an onerous special milk tax from poor consumers by supporting this amendment. Point of Order

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us simply makes corrections to inadvertent errors that were contained in the conference report to accompany H.R. 2400, known as the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, which was approved by the Congress on May 22. This legislation reinstates certain provisions agreed to by the conferees but which, for whatever reason, were not included in the final version. Again, these provisions simply reflect agreements reached by the conferees. In addition, upon review by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Department of Transportation, certain other inadvertent errors and technical problems have been discovered and the bill before us today will correct these errors. Congressional approval of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, known as TEA 21, has already been heralded as one of the landmark achievements of the 105th Congress. Building upon the success of its predecessor, ISTEA, TEA 21 continues our nation's highway, transit and safety programs and will lead us into the 21st Century. Perhaps the most important reform in TEA 21 is that transportation spending will now be linked to the taxes being paid by motorists and deposited into the Highway Trust Fund. In addition, major reforms were made to benefit donor states, with each state being guaranteed at least a 90.5 percent Highway Trust Fund return on apportioned programs and projects. TEA 21 also included a number of provisions that give states additional opportunity to finance highway projects through the use of tolls. The provisions include a new pilot program that allows tolls on three Interstates requiring major rehabilitation, and a value pricing program which allows up to 15 projects, up to 3 on the Interstates, as part of programs to reduce congestion. New and existing innovative finance programs could likely encourage additional tolls. Highway user groups, including the American Trucking Associations, the American Automobile Association and the American Highway User Alliance, have expressed concern about the potential impact of additional tolls on their members and the general public. They believe that new tolls will adversely affect interstate commerce and travel by increasing congestion, posing safety problems and increasing air quality problems. These groups also believe that new tolls are really taxes that constitute double taxation of highway users who are already paying the bill for our highways in the form of fuel taxes and registration fees. Recent polls suggest the public may have similar concerns. As these pilot programs are implemented, we will continue to monitor, through possible hearings and in other ways, the impacts on highway users of these programs as Congress determines what role tolls should play in the future in meeting transportation needs around the country. The final sentence of Section 4014(c) of TEA 21 allows motor carriers to obtain a driver applicant's motor vehicle record without complying with any requirement to obtain the prior written consent of the applicant that might be imposed by any other provision of federal or state law. This language is intended to address a very limited safety concern for motor carriers who are mandated to obtain such records by the Federal Highway Administration. Finally, section 1211(n) of TEA 21 makes certain revisions to a Wisconsin Substitute project originally authorized in section 1045 of ISTEA. It is my understanding that, in carrying out this provision, the Governor of Wisconsin will consult with local officials and that the $241 million of Interstate Substitute funds will be spent in the Milwaukee area.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 99) to display the POW/MIA flag at the Capitol Sunday, May 24, 1998, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Budget have until midnight Wednesday, June 27, 1998, to file a privileged report on a concurrent resolution on the budget.