Tom Petri

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I introduced legislation, H.R. 4215, to help put the Social Security system on a better financial footing while providing future Americans with the peace of mind that comes with their own retirement account which is their personal property. My bill will establish a retirement account for each newborn American citizen, initially worth $1,000. The money for the initial $1,000 is to come from the sale of Government assets. This amount is to be invested in the same manner, and with the same choices, as the Thrift Savings Plan available to Government employees. These choices include investment options which promise higher rates of return than can be earned by the government bonds held in the Social Security Trust Fund. The investment decisions among the fund options are to be made by the parent or guardian until the account holder reaches the age of majority when he or she is able to make such decisions. The account holder, or his or her parent, can add to the principal of the account, up to $2,000 per year tax free, but even if that never happens the $1,000, if invested in a stock index fund, can be expected to grow to $651,683 by the time the account holder is ready for retirement. It is not a sound financial practice for the Government to sell its assets and use the funds to pay for its current operating costs, as it does now. If we are going to be selling assets anyway we should be reinvesting the funds in something which will pay a return. My bill will accomplish that goal and put more money into the retirement system at the same time. This bill does not replace the Social Security system; it provides more funds for it. The funds in the account are to pay for Social Security benefits for the account holder first, and only if the account is depleted can the account holder draw on the Social Security Trust Fund. If, due to individuals adding to the account, there is more in the account than necessary to pay for Social Security benefits, the account holder will have several lump sum or annuity options for withdrawing the extra funds. Future workers will not have to worry so much whether or not the Government will keep its promises or that the Social Security system might go bankrupt because each will have an account which is his or her personal property. I don't claim that this program will solve all the financial problems of Social Security but it will certainly help.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to clarify and modernize the white collar exemption in the Fair Labor Standards Act. I hope this bill will receive close attention in the next Congress. The Fair Labor Standards Act enjoys a unique status among Federal labor laws. The rights it creates, including the minimum wage and the 40-hour workweek, have become as ingrained as constitutional guarantees. Any attempt to tinker with the FLSA is immediately perceived as an attack on these basic rights or at least is so portrayed by political opponents. It is now becoming increasingly apparent, however, that more than a half century of hands-off politics has left a law that is seriously out of step with the times. No one is suggesting that the FLSA's fundamental precepts should be rethought in any way. Rather, it is the way the law achieves these ends that needs improvement. Two relatively recent developments have brought the issue to a head. First, disgruntled employees have begun to use the FLSA's salary basis test as a tool--not for logically distinguishing exempt from non-exempt employees--but rather for seeking revenge. The problem would not be so bad if it were limited to a few individual overtime awards; but it is not. Instead, seizing upon a single two-word phrase in the regulations, employees have argued that everyone theoretically ``subject to a technically flawed payroll policy is entitled to the same windfall-- regardless of whether the flaw affected any particular employee's pay. Employers, of course, rarely issue separate payroll policies for different groups of exempt employees; thus, every employee, up to the top levels of the corporate boardroom, becomes an equally viable candidate for unexpected largesse. The potential overtime liability is as enormous as it is irrational. Second, and just as disturbing, is the increasing arbitrariness of FLSA duties tests. Concepts such as discretion and independent judgment have always been difficult to define, but these problems seemed manageable in the era of assembly lines and hierarchical management structures. Today, however, technology has diversified job duties, service-based employment has proliferated, and even old-line manufacturing operations have moved to team management concepts. In this environment, employers can no longer rely on cookie-cutter paradigms in making duties judgments. Employers often have to guess-- and too many are guessing wrong. Even the courts struggle to achieve consistency, reaching irreconcilable results in cases involving the growing ranks of quasi-professionals such as accountants, engineers, insurance professionals, and journalists. The legislation I am introducing addresses these problems in three separate ways. First, my proposal will restore original understandings of the salary basis test by requiring the Department of Labor, and the courts, to focus on actual pay reductions rather than speculation as to potential deductions under some nebulous policy. The FLSA still will protect exempt employees from inappropriate practices, since regulatory provisions denying exempt status for actual salary deductions would remain unchanged. My legislation, however, will prevent employees from using a policy's theoretical application to extort huge overtime windfalls for company-wide classes of highly-paid employees who never could have imagined themselves as non-exempt laborers. Second, my proposal will address perhaps the most confusing and indefensible requirement among the FLSA's duties tests: the attempted distinction between production and management workers. Under current regulations, for example, an administrative assistant might meet exemption standards simply by opening a management executive's mail and deciding who should handle it, because such a job is directly related to management policies or general business operations of (the) employer or (the) employer's customers. On the other hand, employees with far more sophisticated, challenging, and lucrative jobs may be nonexempt simply because they work on production tasks. The regulations reasonably expect an administrative employee to exercise a certain level of discretion and independent judgment, and my legislation would not alter that requirement. There is no reason to think, however, that a production or management label on the object of an employee's discretion or judgment has anything to do with that employee's professionalism, or the need for FLSA protections. Therefore, my bill eliminates the requirement that the employee's exercise of discretion and judgment be directly related to management policies or general business operations of (the) employer or (the) employer's customers. Third, and perhaps most significantly, my legislation would directly reverse the recent trend toward questionable overtime awards for highly compensated employees by creating an income threshold exempting the highest stratum of the workforce from FLSA scrutiny. There is no reason that the FLSA, which was passed to protect laborers who toil in factory and on farm helpless victims of their own bargaining weakness should ever be interpreted to protect workers making high five-figure or six figure incomes. Yet, without considering the policy implications, courts are reaching such conclusions on an alarmingly frequent basis. A worker drawing a large salary must perform some valuable job duty for an employer. Why, then, should that employer have to satisfy a complex set of artificial and archaie duties tests to prove that the employee is valuable? A worker drawing a large salary also must possess considerable bargaining leverage. Why then, should employers be forced, regardless of the employee's needs or preferences, to calculate paychecks only in the inflexible manner dictated by government salary basis regulations? The FLSA, in nearly six decades, has strayed from its laudable goal of protecting the poorest and weakest laborers from workplace abuses. The Department of Labor, and the courts, need to refocus their efforts in this direction. My proposal would go a long way--both by directly exempting highly paid employees and by making long overdue adjustments to the salary and duties tests--toward providing this new direction. I ask that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to follow the unanimous lead of the Senate and of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in adopting the measure before us. I would like to be clear that the Senate bill we are currently considering is based on a House bill that was favorably reported last year by both the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Committee on Commerce. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure approved the bill by a unanimous voice vote. The only significant differences between the Senate bill that is before us and the bill approved by our committees are less prescriptive risk assessment provisions and increased authorization levels. The risk assessment provisions were developed with the United States Department of Transportation and reflect the current practices of the Office of Pipeline Safety, in accordance with President Clinton's executive order regarding cost-benefit analysis. This risk assessment approach is particularly suited to the pipeline safety program, as facts clearly show that pipelines remain the safest form of transportation. Fatalities from pipeline accidents represent only three one-thousandths of 1 percent of the total number of annual transportation fatalities. The second major new initiative in the bill before us, which was also included in the bill that our committees earlier adopted, is a pilot project to demonstrate the safety and cost-effectiveness of risk management. This provision gives statutory authority to a program already under development by the department. The goal of risk management is to focus resources on the greatest risks and improve protection of the public, rather than proposing a one-size-fits-all regulatory straitjacket and wasting resources and endangering the public by not focusing on where we can do the most good. A participant may submit a risk management safety plan for approval by the Secretary that would achieve a level of safety that is equal to or greater than that which would be achieved by following existing regulations. So we give them flexibility to improve safety, not to lower safety. I think it is something we should be encouraging. In return, the pipeline owner or operator would be allowed to operate free of the regulations that may be proved unnecessary based on the safety plan submitted. Mr. Speaker, I would note, as I said before, that the Senate passed this legislation by unanimous consent. We have worked for 18 months to reach the point we are today. Because this bill will improve pipeline safety by allowing the Department of Transportation and pipeline owners and operators to focus and allocate resources on the greatest risks to public safety and environment, I would urge the House to pass the bill before us. In conclusion, I would like to thank our colleagues, the gentleman from West Virginia, Nick Rahall, the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Shuster, and the gentleman from Minnesota, Jim Oberstar, for their support in the past, and their hard work on this important legislation. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Bob Franks, a member of the Committee on Transportation, has worked diligently on this issue for a number of years, and so has the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Schaefer, and the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Bliley, of the Committee on Commerce, which shares jurisdiction over the pipeline safety program. Finally, I would like to recognize the many hours that the Department of Transportation has devoted to this legislation. I think it is a good, worthwhile product, and we should adopt it today.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, it is with the deepest regret that I note the passing this past Monday, September 23, of Father James W. Sauve, who was most recently the executive director of the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities. Father Sauve was born in Two Rivers, WI, where his father Willard still lives. He spent 10 years at Marquette University in Milwaukee as a professor, campus minister and administrator; and another 10 years in Rome as Executive Secretary of the International Center for Jesuit Education. I believe other members will comment more fully on Father Sauve's accomplishments, but it is quite clear that he made immense contributions to education in general and Jesuit education in particular. In his passing, we have all suffered a great loss, but through his life we have all gained immeasurably. No greater tribute can be paid to any man. I wish to extend my deepest sympathy to Father Sauve's family and friends, and hope that they will not only mourn his death, but be able to celebrate his life.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, this bill, which amends the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, would allow States to avoid delay and implement traffic signal synchronization projects prior to demonstrating that such projects are in conformity with State and Federal implementation plans. Instead, States would be required to consider the effect on emissions of such projects in subsequent conformity determinations. As a result, this bill does not waive any Clean Air Act conformity requirements. Although I do not object to the bill today, I note for the record that the subject matter of H.R. 2988 does fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure as well as the Committee on Commerce. When Congress was considering the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, members of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation were named as conferees on various provisions of the bill that impacted transportation, including the very provision being amended. While not ceding our committee's shared jurisdiction on conformity provisions within the Clean Air Act, I do applaud this bill which seeks to speed project delivery and enhance air quality and traffic congestion.

Mr. PETRI

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

Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], the sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. LaHood].

Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the amendment in the nature of a substitute directs the Secretary of Transportation to issue, under an ongoing rulemaking proceeding, a rule relating to materials of trade exceptions to hazardous materials regulations. This provision was adopted by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on September 12, 1996. The amendment also provides that any rule extending Federal hazardous materials regulation to intrastate transportation relating to farm vehicles which does not allow for State exceptions, cannot take effect prior to the reauthorization of the Hazardous Materials Program or 180 days after the effective date of the final rule, whichever is earlier. On March 20, 1996, the Department of Transportation proposed that businesses which carry small amounts of hazardous materials in the course of their business meet reduced regulatory requirements. This proposal is part of a larger rulemaking, known as HM-200, concerning Federal regulation of intrastate transportation--but the materials of trade exception would apply to both intrastate and interstate transportation. DOT has stated its intention to issue a final rule on HM-200 by the end of this year. However, should that be delayed because other aspects of HM-200 may be controversial, then DOT must at least complete this portion of the rulemaking which can provide sensible relief to small businesses now regulated. This bill does not interfere in the rulemaking process and it does not prescribe the contents of the final rule. It only directs when that process must be concluded. I applaud the efforts of the Transportation Department in seeking to provide relief to small businesses through the proposed rule. Section 4 of the amendment is of great importance to many farming communities and States. Several States which have adopted the Federal hazardous materials rules for transportation within their State have provided for various exceptions for farm vehicles. If States are preempted from continuing to grant such exceptions in a final rule issued under the pending HM-200 rulemaking, this provision in section 4 of the amendment ensures that the Congress has an adequate opportunity to carefully consider the effects of such a rule and whether legislative action is necessary. I want to note that in this amendment a regulation that prohibits States from granting exceptions means a regulation that prohibits, limits or changes the status quo in current practices or authorities of the States. I appreciate the cooperation demonstrated by Congressman Oberstar, Congressman Rahall, and, of course, Chairman Shuster in fashioning this amendment. Several members of the committee, including Congressman Ewing, Congressman Poshard, and Congressman Barcia--and well as Congressman Buyer and other members representing rural, farming districts--have been instrumental in bringing to our attention the farm vehicle issue. I urge the House to approve the amendment and H.R. 3153. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 insert extraneous material in the Record on H.R. 3153.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4040, the Intermodal Safe Container Act Amendments of 1996. I want to thank my colleagues Bud Shuster, Susan Molinari, and Howard Coble, and my Democratic colleagues James Oberstar, Nick Rahall, Bob Wise, and Bob Clement, for their cooperation in swiftly moving this legislation. This legislation corrects several problems in the 1992 Intermodal Safe Container Act which sets standards for the intermodal transfer of freight containers between ocean shipping lines, railroads, and motor carriers so that no trucks hauling containers are overweight. The 1992 act has been delayed by DOT only until January 1, 1997. A coalition of ocean carriers, railroads, motor carriers, and freight shippers recommended changes to the 1992 act, since these problems could not be corrected by DOT. DOT supports these changes. These recommendations are the basis of this legislation. This bill encourages compliance with highway weight rules. It clearly establishes that shippers must provide a certification that identifies the weight and contents of the container. If this certification is not made or is incorrect, the shippers are automatically liable for any resultant highway weight violations. The Act speeds shipments by permitting all carriers to use electronic certifications and reduces paperwork by permitting a bill of lading to be used as the certification. The weight threshold for a container certification has been set at 29,001 pounds. This reduces the burden of complying with the act, but still ensures that all containers likely to cause overweight violations will be identified. Finally, it provides a phase-in for carriers to adapt to the new requirements. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I introduced legislation to create one seamless system of tax breaks for families with children, combining the best aspects of the earned income tax credit, and the proposed $500-per- child credit. My bill will begin to alleviate the problems related to the current EITC such as the marriage tax penalty, the lack of additional help to low-income families with more than two children and especially the high marginal tax rates in the phaseout range. It will give families with children a tax break just as was the intent of the $500-per-child credit but will do so in a more equitable way with most of the benefits targeted to the lower half of the income scale. I ask that a description of the bill and a copy of a letter from the Joint Committee on Taxation scoring my bill be printed in the Record. Integrating the $500-Per-Child Credit With the EITC To Improve Both Problems to be solved: 1. Current earned income tax credit (EITC)--a vital adjunct to welfare reform because it enables low-skilled people with kids to support themselves by working--has 3 big flaws: a. contains high marginal tax rates (21% or 16%) during phaseout--when combined with other taxes and phaseouts (i.e. food stamps, housing subsidies, and a possible medicaid voucher), removes any incentive to get ahead because total marginal tax rate can top 100%; b. contains high marriage penalties ($6018 + $750 income tax penalty in extreme case this year); c. provides no extra help to larger families with greatest need. 2. $500 per child tax credit in Balanced Budget Act (BBA) was skewed toward upper half of income distribution because it wasn't refundable. Almost half of all children wouldn't get full credit, including all in 2 parent families below following income thresholds (single parent thresholds are each $3350 lower, but they are more likely to take full dependent care credit): ------------------------------------------------------------------------ With no With full dependent dependent care care credit credit ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 child......................................... $17,684 $21,524 2 children...................................... 23,567 29,967 3 children...................................... 29,450 35,850 4 children...................................... 35,333 41,733 5 children...................................... 41,216 47,616 6 children...................................... 47,099 53,499 7 children...................................... 52,982 59,382 8 children...................................... 58,865 65,265 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ At same time, EITC cuts in BBA hit families hard in upper 'teens and 20's. Example: couple with 2 kids, $25,000 income, and no dependent care credit gets full $1000 child credit but loses $642 of EITC, for net tax cut of only $358. Solution: 1. For kids under 18, eliminate personal exemption ($2550 in '96) and substitute $1000 credit--provides net tax cuts per child as follows: 15% bracket (about 0 to $40K taxable 1996 joint return income)--$618. 28% bracket (about 40K to 97K taxable 1996 joint return income)--$286. Upper brackets--credit phases down to same value as a personal exemption for AGIs above $110,000 (joint) & $75,000 (household head), thereby providing no tax cut for families above those thresholds. 2. Universal $1000 credit is refundable for those with earned income and substitutes for a major portion of the EITC--NO PHASEOUT NECESSARY BECAUSE EVERYONE GETS IT. Provide extra EITC to PARENTS--maximum of $1665 for couples and net of $1267 for single parents (due to their lowered tax threshold), phased out at 10% for couples and 11% for single parents. Advantages: 1. Costs $11 billion less than $500 credit + EITC cuts in '97 Budget Res.; 2. Tax cut is progressive; 3. Credit itself is doubled; 4. Maximum EITC marriage penalty cut from $6018 to $2770 in '96 & more later; 5. EITC marginal tax (i.e. phaseout) rates cut from 16% & 21% (current law) or 34% (BBA conference report maximum) to 10 and 11%; 6. Provides extra $618 per child for WORKING poor families with more than two kids; 7. Supports welfare reform in which basic income of able- bodied is wages plus general tax credits plus a general health plan voucher.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment cuts the $10 million in the bill that would be used to begin construction of the Animas-La Plata [A-LP] Bureau of Reclamation water project in southern Colorado and northern New Mexico. Just on the face of it, pumping water over 1,000 feet uphill into another watershed, largely for irrigation, does not appear to be a sensible thing to do. I know of no other irrigation system with such an inherently uneconomic basic design. Proponents attempt to justify A-LP by saying it is needed to satisfy Indian water rights claims, but this project can't possibly be built in time to avoid litigation. The 1988 Settlement Agreement says that if the Indian water rights have not been fulfilled by the year 2000, the tribes may unilaterally abandon the A-LP project and seek an alternative settlement. It is physically impossible for the Bureau of Reclamation to meet this construction deadline. Although the Indian water rights provide an excuse for this project, they are not its driving force. The driving force is huge Federal water subsidies for local, non-Indian water users. Now, let me be clear: I don't have a problem with supplying water to non-Indian users--as long as they are willing to pay for it. There is no national interest whatever in forcing my constitutents-- and everyone else's too--to pay for the massive water subsidies in A- LP. For example, let's look at irrigation, the use to which most of the project's water would be devoted. The capital cost of irrigating each acre of land works out to $7,467. The land that would be irrigated is currently worth about $300 to $500 per acre. With irrigation, the value of these high elevation and rather marginal lands might double. The farmers who own this land are supposed to pay about $300 per acre to build the A-LP project, but everybody else would pay the rest. Does it make any sense at all to force nonirrigators to pay over $7,000 per acre to raise irrigators' land values by a few hundred dollars per acre? For $7,000 per acre, maybe we could grow corn in Antarctica. But that wouldn't make sense, and neither does this. Federal taxpayers would get almost as bad a deal on the project's municipal and industrial water. Under Federal law, municipal and industrial users are supposed to cover the entire cost of that water-- signing a contract with the Federal Government before construction starts. In the case of the A-LP project, some repayment contracts have been signed, but records show that those contracts wouldn't repay the full cost of the water to the Treasury. Even worse, only a couple of the municipal and industrial users have signed such contracts, while other have not. How can we possibly start building this project when we don't have the appropriate contracts in place? At the very least, we shouldn't appropriate money to start construction on a boondoggle like this until applicable laws have been complied with. Perhaps the best argument against Animas-La Plata is contained in this ad in favor of it, that appeared in the Durango Herald in 1987. It says: ``Why we should support the Animas-La Plata project. Reason No. 7: Because someone else is paying most of the tab. We get the water. We get the reservoir. They pay the bill.'' My friends, we should not pay this bill. The days of massive Federal subsidies--subsidies from your constituents and mine--for mammoth water projects aimed at opening and developing the West should be over. The West is open and developed. Any further development should be paid for by the people who benefit from it. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on our amendment to delete funding for this ``Jurassic'' porker. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would conclude by saying that in fact very few municipal contracts have been entered into for only a fraction of that part of the cost. The cost of the project for the land involved will be $7,467 per acre, several hundred dollars paid for by the landowners, the rest paid for by the taxpayers. So that is the rest of the story. I urge adoption of the amendment.

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

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, the bill would designate the bridge to be constructed to replace the Cape Girardeau Bridge in Missouri in honor of our late colleague, Bill Emerson, who passed away last weekend. Bill truly was a man of the House. He first came to Washington at the age of 15 when he was appointed to serve as a House page. He returned in 1961 and worked on the staff of several Members. After working in the private sector, Bill was elected to the House in 1980 and has won each election since, serving on both the Agriculture and Transportation and Infrastructure Committees. I had the honor of serving with Bill on the Transportation Committee and always found him to be hardworking, and dedicated to his beliefs and serving his constituents in Missouri. He was never afraid to state his views or take on an issue, and it was one of many traits that we admired about Bill. I remember well his good humor and straightforward manner, even when the committee was considering controversial or difficult matters. But make no mistake, you always knew exactly how he felt about an issue. In the end, Bill demonstrated extraordinary courage in the face of his illness this year, and he would not, and did not, let it interfere with his daily responsibilities here and in his district. We extend our condolences to his wife, Jo Ann, to his children, Elizabeth, Abigail, Victoria, and Katharine, and to his staff who worked with him over the years. The Transportation Committee and this House have suffered a great loss and we will truly miss Bill Emerson. I urge passage of S. 1903.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 1903) to designate the bridge, estimated to be completed in the year 2000, that replaces the bridge on Missouri Highway 74 spanning from East Cape Girardeau, IL, to Cape Girardeau, MO, as the ``Bill Emerson Memorial Bridge'', and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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 S. 1903, the Senate bill just passed.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Henry Hyde, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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 on H.R. 3572.