Tom Petri

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3572, which would name a bridge on U.S. 231 over the Ohio River near Owensboro, KY, in honor of our late and former colleague, William Natcher, is identical to legislation which was passed unanimously by this House on September 22, 1994. Unfortunately, the Senate never acted on this legislation during the previous Congress. A compilation of tributes to Chairman Natcher has recently been published and in the near future will be distributed throughout the State of Kentucky by members of the Kentucky delegation. We are considering this bill today in conjunction with those activities. Representative Natcher was born in Bowling Green, KY, in 1909 and was educated at Western Kentucky State College and the Ohio State University law school. His life was dedicated to public service-- serving in the U.S. Navy during World War II and holdings a series of local and State offices before being elected to Congress in 1953. He moved up the ranks of the Appropriations Committee, eventually assuming the chairmanship of the full committee in 1993. I am proud to have had the privilege of serving in the House with Congressman Natcher. Although well-known for having cast 18,401 consecutive votes during his 40 years here, Congressman Natcher's accomplishments are much more than that voting record. He put a very high value on public service and set a very high standard for himself. Bill Natcher was always an inspiration to me and, I know, to many other Members as well. He was a gentleman, a stateman, and a man of unquestioned integrity who served this House and his constituents in Kentucky from 1954 until his death in 1994, with quiet, unfailing dedication. The naming of this bridge for Bill Natcher is a fitting and lasting memorial to our friend and former colleague. I urge passage of H.R. 3572. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Lewis], Mr. Natcher's successor in this body.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning]. (Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3572) to designate the bridge on U.S. Route 231 which crosses the Ohio River between Maceo, KY, and Rockport, IN, as the ``William H. Natcher Bridge.''

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. I thank my colleague for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation deeming approval of the Wisconsin Works waiver request. My colleagues have described some of the attributes of the Wisconsin welfare reform effort. Let me add another one. One of the gravest failings of our current welfare system is the tremendous disincentives to work and get ahead forced onto the most unfortunate in our society. There's little incentive to get off welfare and into a job to begin with. And even when a low-skilled parent is working, she has almost no chance to improve her lot. Many of the working poor face marginal tax rates at or exceeding 100 percent-- meaning that they lose more in benefits and pay more in taxes than they gain in wages when they increase their hours or earn a raise. The rest of the working families in the income range just above the poverty level tend to have effective marginal tax rates of at least 75 percent. Wisconsin's W-2 program begins to address this problem in two ways. First, it aims to get everyone into some kind of work by providing the jobs where necessary and removing any nonwork alternative. Then it allows people to earn more as they rise from totally subsidized work in exchange for a grant where they can develop the basic skills necessary to function in the working world, to community service jobs, to partially subsidized jobs in the private sector, and finally into unsubsidized jobs. Rather than treading water, or even losing ground, when low income Wisconsinites work their way up the ladder and eventually off of government assistance, they should see an improvement in their disposable income at each step. The biggest improvement should occur as they move from community service work into private sector jobs, because the EITC will be added at that step. They'll still be affected by food stamp and child care phaseouts and eventually the EITC phaseout, income taxes, and a health subsidy phaseout but at least the State of Wisconsin is aware of these problems and moving in the right direction. We need to look at a whole array of Federal programs which all phase out over a similar income range, just above the poverty level, and have the cumulative effect of punishing people for working harder. These programs have been created one at a time in a policy vacuum with the combined effects rarely being considered. The fact that jurisdiction over them is spread among a half dozen congressional committees just makes it that much harder to consider the combined effects. I have tried to bring this issue to the attention of my colleagues and will continue to do so. However, it is clear that this problem is not going to be dealt with at the Federal level in any meaningful way in the near future. Therefore, in the meantime we should take the shackles off the States and allow them to try to deal with this problem as best they can. That is one of the goals of this Wisconsin plan and I urge my colleagues to support low wage working Americans and grant Wisconsin the necessary waivers to carry out its bold and innovative plan.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, the biggest single problem facing lower income Americans, especially those with children, is that they face a crippling array of marginal tax rates that almost completely destroys their incentives to try to earn more income. They are virtually trapped at low incomes. That same array of taxes on additional income will take away most or all of a minimum wage increase from the very people everyone talks about helping--that is, minimum wage earners supporting children. Childless people are above the poverty line if they work full time at the current minimum wage. They are not usually the folks we shed tears over when we talk about increasing the minimum. It is family heads we are concerned about. But in virtually all cases, parents earning the minimum wage will also receive food stamps, the earned income tax credit, child care subsidies, Medicaid, and possibly housing subsidies, as well as other benefits like school lunch, Head Start, WIC, and energy assistance. As earnings go up, many of these benefits go down, effectively canceling out most or all of the earnings gain. That is the marginal tax problem, and it hamstrings people all the way up the scale to incomes in the high twenty thousands. In a forthcoming paper, Gene Steurle and Linda Giannarelli of the Urban Institute show the combined tax effects on a single mother of two children in Pennsylvania, an average State, as her earned income moves through various stages from zero all the way up to 300 percent of the minimum wage. Between full time minimum wage earnings and 150 percent of the minimum wage, she faces a combined tax rate of 101 percent. That is, a 50-percent earnings gain produces a $58 a year drop in disposable income. If she boosts her earnings from 150 percent of the minimum to twice the minimum, she faces a combined 95 percent tax rate on those additional earnings. She is only $175 per year better off at twice the minimum as she is at the minimum wage. Even without a housing subsidy, she faces marginal tax rates of about 73 percent. So, Mr. Speaker, raising the minimum wage is a cruel hoax on low- skilled parents. First, it puts their jobs in danger. If they keep their jobs, they wind up with little or no more income, but they will face higher prices for many of the things they have to buy. Instead of trying to score political points through Government price-fixing in the labor market, we should be working to provide economic opportunity to all low income Americans by slashing the extortionate tax rates that are destroying their ability to improve their lot.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, while the minimum wage debate is important, what we are not debating is more important. For the 20th time since the enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act, we will debate the part of that act that affects less than 10 percent of the American work force. For the 20th time we will ignore the remainder of the statute--its overtime provisions--that affect 90 percent of the work force. The original minimum wage was 25 cents. In failing to update the act's overtime provisions, we are left with provisions that have as much relevance to today's workforce needs as a 25-cent wage would to today's economy. Employers and employees can't ignore these provisions. Rather, they must shoehorn their weekly operations into a construct that was designed for the workplace of the 1930's, not the 1990's, let alone the 21st century. For example, when an employee works more than 40 hours in a week, the law requires her to be compensated for overtime with money. However, many workers would prefer to be paid with more time off rather than money. State, local, and Federal employees have such a choice. Yet, by law, private sector employees do not. In addition, many employees resent being strapped to the traditional 40-hour week concept. They prefer more flexible arrangement such as ``9/80'' schedules that allow employees to compress 80 hours into 9 workdays over a 2-week period. That way, they can take every other Friday off. Unfortunately, under current law employers who give them this option have to pay overtime. That creates morale problems for other employees with traditional schedules who work the same number of hours but don't get overtime. The law should allow employees to choose these schedules voluntarily without incurring overtime penalties for their employer. The most egregious effects of the law stem from the requirement that covered employees be paid an hourly wage rather than a salary. For most workers, this is not a problem. But many employees--particularly professional and administrative employees--prefer not to have their lives tied to a time clock. They would prefer the certainty of a salary to an hourly paycheck that requires them to clock overtime hours in order to meet their income goals. The law requires payment on an hourly basis to anyone who does not fall within the white-collar worker exemption. The concept of the exemption is fine, but the reality is that the employee has to have exactly the same duties as a 1950's white-collar worker, which is when the definitions were written. Thus many employees who clearly view themselves as while-collar workers--such as engineers, accountants, marketing representatives, and insurance underwriters--are outraged when they have to start filling out time sheets and asking permission to work past 5 p.m. What stands in the way of our addressing these problems and giving the FLSA a long-overdue tuneup. Nothing less than pure demagoguery. Exaggerated claims that even the most modest improvements to the FLSA will mean the death of the 40-hour workweek have produced total paralysis on these issues. So we are left with modest tinkering with the statute, such as the company vehicle provision, that address anomalies that have cropped up in certain industries, but in the grand scheme of things affect very few workers. The FLSA is already riddled with such provisions. Mr. Chairman, after we resolve this current minimum wage issue, I hope we can focus on issues that affect the day-to-day worklives of most American workers. Once the smoke has cleared on this issue and the rhetoric has toned down a few notches, I will introduce legislation to provide this focus. Mr. Chairman, reason, not paranoia, should prevail. Let's listen to real workers and give them a wage-hour law they can live with.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, having discovered a clerical error relative to H.R. 2951, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] be removed as cosponsor of that bill.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I just want to underline the importance of the gentleman's remarks and agree with them fully, and tell the body that in my own case in the 6th District of Wisconsin years ago, Fish and Wildlife Service was acquiring land without Congressional authorization, and sending letters to landowners, farmers principally, which they thought meant they were subject to eminent domain and were being forced to sell. There were outrages and protests. Finally we heard they did not have any legal authority for doing what they did and managed to get it stopped. I would not let this completely out of the box. I would keep some type of opportunity to review and make them justify to neutral, informed observers what they are actually doing, so we do not see Government get a little too heavyhanded.

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

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill which is critical to the future of our transportation systems. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, nearly 25 percent of our Nation's bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, and over 30 percent of our interstate pavement is in poor or mediocre condition. The average fleet age for our transit buses is greater than the useful life of those vehicles. And yet, because of obligation limitations imposed in annual appropriations bills, the ISTEA highway program has been under funded by $6.8 billion over the past 5 years. Let me be clear, this $6.8 billion was fully budgeted for and could have been supported by the highway trust fund. Each Member can look at this table here on the floor and clearly see the funding his or her State has lost. This is $6.8 billion of contract authority--accounted for and contained in the budget resolution--which States have not been allowed to use for transportation improvements. The Surface Transportation Subcommittee is now beginning the process of reauthorizing ISTEA. The future budget authority provided and the size of the program will be a determining factor in the type of transportation program we can enact to lead us into the 21st century. This is a simple fact of life. We must be able to spend the gas taxes we collect on our future transportation program or we will be severely limited in the flexibility and creativity necessary to address today's transportation needs. For example, like more than a majority of House Members, I represent a donor State and want to revise the current outdated and inequitable formulas. But, this will be hard to do, if not impossible to do, with a shrinking program--a program funded entirely by user fees that may be cut by as much as 40 percent according to some budget projections. This vote is important to the ISTEA reauthorization. Don't be scared off by exaggerated claims make by opponents of this bill. There is no general fund subsidy of the highway trust fund. The vast majority of general fund transportation spending that opponents have cited is from the now-defunct revenue sharing program, the community development block grant program, spending by nontransportation agencies, and other specific programs approved by the Appropriations Committee that are totally separate from and hardly relevant to the highway trust fund, the Federal-aid highway program, and this debate today. In fact, it's the other way around--limitations on trust fund spending have subsidized other general fund spending. This bill is not a budget buster and it will not automatically increase the deficit by some $30 billion as some have claimed. Appropriate controls and Congressional authority remain in place. But H.R. 842 will go a long way toward ensuring that, in the future, the user fees and taxes we have imposed on the traveling public and which are paid so dutifully by them day in and day out, will be spent for their intended and lawful purpose. Not to do so is dishonest and unfair to the American public. Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 842--it's the right thing to do.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, the only thing is that both of our heads of hair are getting to look a little bit more like a nice white glass of milk. Mr. Speaker, in all the years the Democrats controlled the House, every farm bill came up under an open rule. A year ago my party took over with grand promises of greater openness. And now we are presented with the first-ever closed rule on a farm bill. Seventy-odd amendments were submitted to Rules and only 16 are allowed. I sought, together with several of my colleagues, to offer an amendment to phase out the Federal dairy program, of which my own district is probably the third largest beneficiary in the country. The dairy program is the most byzantine Soviet style price fixing scheme in the entire Federal Government. Even many of my dairy farmer constituents are prepared to kill this monstrosity because they know it is completely unnecessary and even harmful to their industry. If we cannot kill this program with leadership from the heart of dairy country, what can we kill? I have been working on this effort for the past year, and my amendment is supported by a wide array of pro-free-market, pro- taxpayer, pro-consumer, and industry groups running clear across the political spectrum. And now this rule tells me I cannot offer it. Don't we Republicans believe in openness? Don't we believe in free markets? Don't we believe in deregulation? Don't we believe in smaller government? Don't we believe in balancing the budget? Whatever happened to all these principles? I will tell you what happened. They are all being trampled under the heel of this rule. I urge all my colleagues to vote against this profoundly embarrassing closed rule.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to prohibit the use of Federal funds to pay for the construction of a dam on the North Fork of the American River at Auburn, CA. In 1992, I led the successful bipartisan effort to defeat the authorization of the $700,000,000 Auburn Dam--potentially the most expensive dam project in U.S. history. However, this project has been resurrected. I understand that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is poised to seek Congressional authority and funding once again for another Auburn Dam project--this time, for a larger, more expensive version of the dam that we defeated on the House floor in 1992. Furthermore, I understand that the Federal Bureau of Reclamation is now also considering dam construction proposals. This project has been opposed and rejected time and time again in recent history. Back in 1965, it was authorized as a multipurpose project, mainly for the purpose of farm irrigation. In 1975, after about $200 million had been spent on site preparation and other separate features, construction was halted because of concerns that the dam might trigger seismic activity. In 1979, the Department of the Interior concluded that seismic activity in the earthquake faults located under the proposed dam site might jeopardize the structural integrity of the dam, the failure of which could devastate the Sacramento metropolitan area. In 1980, the dam was redesigned, but the project never moved forward because of the advent of Federal water program cost sharing reforms under the Reagan administration. Under these reforms, traditional beneficiaries of Auburn Dam were no longer interested in advancing the project if they were to be partly responsible for its financing. Realizing that the multipurpose dam proposal was doomed, in 1992 proponents found a new reason for the dam to live: flood control. But the evidence against a dam project hadn't changed, and the House rejected funding authority for the project again on September 23, 1992. I am introducing this legislation today to once again deliver a strong message to my fellow Members of Congress, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation: Financial constraints, environmental concerns, and the availability of less expensive, less environmentally intrusive alternatives led the House to reject previous Auburn Dam proposals--and they will do so again if the issue is brought before Congress. Every time this proposal has been reincarnated, its estimated costs have risen dramatically. This time, the price tag has ballooned to just under $1 billion. At a time when the Congress is grappling with the question of exactly how to balance the Federal budget and desperately seeking solutions on how the deal with our $5 trillion public debt, how can the Congress possibly justify the unnecessary expenditure of such a gross amount of money? It is not necessary to build a dam at Auburn in order to protect the California Central Valley community and the city of Sacramento from flooding in the event of a storm the size of any which have previously struck. In order to justify the latest proposal, proponents claim that the dam is needed to protect the region from storms that are far larger than the greatest flood that may reasonably be expected on the American River. Fortunately, however, the Corps of Engineers and regional flood control authorities have identified much less expensive alternatives which will significantly improve the performance of Sacramento's flood control system. And it is possible that these alternatives could be paid for by the local community without any Federal funding--or at least without the majority of project costs being borne by Federal taxpayers. In order to build the latest Auburn Dam, project supporters expect U.S. taxpayers to bear 75 percent of its approximate cost of $1 billion. I feel strongly that the Federal civil works program is not an entitlement program, and that it certainly should not be expected to bear this kind of burden in the case of a regional water project. Those who know flood control concur with this assessment. In fact, the National Academy of Engineering released a blue ribbon report on the American River flood control project which found that, since the project was without widespread benefits and located in an area with substantial financial resources, there was no Federal interest in additional flood control work on the American River. But cost is far from the only reason why I am introducing this bill today. A few months ago, the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] declared an Auburn Dam to be environmentally unacceptable. Each year, about half a million people visit the American River canyons that would be inundated by such a dam, and many of them strongly oppose actions by their government to take this resource away from them. Up to 39 miles of pristine canyon habitat would be flooded by a dam built according to the latest proposal, robbing wildlife of precious habitat. Citizens and editorial boards throughout California have denounced the dam in both its past and present incarnations. This dam was stopped in the seventies because of concerns about seismic safety. It never moved forward during the eighties because of President Reagan's commitment to seek full reimbursement for the water and power benefits which a multipurpose dam would provide to the region and its residents. In the nineties, Congress has thus far said no once already to an Auburn Dam because of economic and environmental concerns. My introduction of this legislation today is intended to send a strong message: Congress must say no to building an Auburn Dam once again--for all of the above reasons.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I think it is particularly noteworthy at a time when passions have tended to run particularly high on other issues before this Congress, that members of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation on both sides of the aisle have been able to work together repeatedly on major issues involving significant policy changes. They could have been overwhelmed by this acrimony, but we have resisted that. Mr. Speaker, it is due in no small part to the leadership of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] and to that of the other ranking members on the subcommittees of the conference. I would like to wish the gentleman the best for the season.

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

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my support for this conference report to accompany H.R. 2539, the ICC Termination Act of 1995. Approval of the conference report will allow the Interstate Commerce Commission to close its doors within the next several days in an orderly fashion. The conference report provides for the transfer of certain ICC functions to the Department of Transportation and to a new Surface Transportation Board to be established within DOT. All other remaining ICC functions will be eliminated. I want to express my appreciation for the efforts of all the conferees, led on the House side by Chairman Shuster and on the Senate side by Chairman Pressler. The conferees have worked diligently over the past several weeks to ensure that the Congress considers this important matter in a timely fashion. Since the ICC is funded only through the end of this year, it is essential that we approve this legislation now and that it is signed into law by the President, In order to avoid the chaos and uncertainty that would envelop the transportation industry if the ICC were to close on January first without having in place a process for the transfer of functions. The motor carrier provisions in the ICC Termination Act of 1995 continue the economic deregulation of this industry which began in 1980, and was followed by various other deregulation initiatives, including three major bills just last Congress. H.R. 2539 will abolish the ICC and eliminate many of the Commission's remaining motor carrier functions that are no longer appropriate in today's current competitive motor carrier industry. Functions and responsibilities which do remain are transferred to either the Department of Transportation--which primarily will oversee registration and licensing--or to the Surface Transportation Board-- which will be responsible primarily for the limited remaining rate regulation and tariff filings, final resolution of undercharge claims, and approval and oversight of agreements for antitrust immunity. Much of the regulation that remains has been streamlined and reformed. While we have provided for continued deregulation in this bill, many of us had hoped to have gone further. However, this legislation does contain many compromises, as is usually necessary to move forward such a complicated measure. Continued oversight of remaining motor carrier regulation is still required, and the Surface Transportation Subcommittee will closely monitor the industry and the need to retain these remaining regulatory requirements in the future. Mr. Speaker, I urge my House colleagues to provide for an orderly shut-down of the Interstate Commerce Commission by approving this conference report today.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, while the President's overall approach to the budget is deplorable, he actually occupies the conservative high ground on the issue of student loans. Both guaranteed and direct student lending are Government programs, and both are run primarily by the private sector. The key difference is in the pricing of those private sector services. Under guaranteed lending, all the payments to the private sector are determined politically--by Congress in the Higher Education Act. Under direct lending, all private sector services are procured through competitively bid contracts. [Let me repeat: under guaranteed lending, every payment made to private parties is determined politically. Under direct lending, every payment to private parties is determined in a market process.] Conservatives should prefer a market process over a political process every time. It should come as no surprise that direct lending, as a market- oriented program, also costs less. The CBO does not score the savings primarily because it scores direct loans as if they were fixed rate loans carrying interest rate risk for the Government, when in fact they are variable rate loans with no such risk. Conservatives should care more about the real cost than the CBO cost. Mr. Speaker, politically set payments for private services are a classic recipe for corporate welfare, and guaranteed student loans demonstrate it. I deeply regret that many Members of my party have been led to support home State special interests rather than true conservative principles on this issue. I believe it undermines all our other efforts at Government reform, and therefore I urge all my colleagues to examine this issue much more closely.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this conference report to accompany S. 440, the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995. I want to acknowledge the efforts and contributions of all the House and Senate conferees, as well as the critical assistance of Rodney Slater, the Federal Highway administrator, who was ready at all hours of the day to meet and give his advice and counsel as the conferees worked on this conference report these past several weeks. S. 440 will designate 160,000 miles of our Nation's most important roads as the National Highway System. A dedicated source of Federal funds, authorized at $3.6 billion annually, is reserved for these roads. In addition, approval of this conference report will lead to the release of over $6 billion in National Highway System and Interstate maintenance funds which have been withheld from the States since October 1 of this year. S. 440 also sets up a process for the designation and approval of intermodel connectors--roads connecting the NHS to ports, airports, rail yards and the like. Until these connectors can be initially approved by the Congress, interim eligibility provisions are included. The interim eligibility provision refers to a project to construct an intermodal connector. The definition of the word construct is already defined very broadly in title 23. It is our intention that the word construct in this section is to be read very broadly to include not only construction and reconstruction projects, but also projects involving resurfacing. Restoration, rehabilitation, and operational improvements, such as the installation of traffic surveillance and control equipment and computerized signal systems. This conference report accomplishes much more than the designation of the National Highway System. Various Federal mandates and penalties are repealed, including the repeal of motorcycle helmet mandates and associated penalties, the repeal of the national maximum speed limit and associated penalties, and the repeal of the mandated use of crumb rubber in asphalt and associated penalties. The conference report contains many other worthy provisions to improve our Nation's Federal highway program and to facilitate the construction of transportation projects across the country. The conference report, like the House bill which was passed in September, does not contain any new funding for any specific highway project. Although I am generally pleased with this conference report, there is one major disappointment. The Senate refused to agree to the House provision which would have utilized over $500 million in excess and available budget authority in the minimum allocation program to restore funding reductions that every State will experience as a result of section 1003 of ISTEA. Unfortunately, the Senate chose to offer up this budget authority as savings for the purposes of budget reconciliation. I believe the decision of the House to utilize this budget authority in a way that would not increase the deficit but would have benefited the highway program was a better course to take. I regret the Senate did not agree. Nevertheless, this conference report is worthy of the support of every member of the house and I urge my colleagues to approve the conference report and approve the National Highway System.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, the motor carrier provisions in the ICC Termination Act of 1995 continue the economic deregulation of this industry which began in 1980 and was followed by various other deregulation initiatives, including three major bills just last Congress. It is important to note, in reviewing this bill, that substantial deregulation of the motor carrier industry has already been accomplished. This bill before us will abolish the ICC and eliminate many of the Commission's remaining motor carrier functions that are no longer appropriate in today's current competitive motor carrier industry. Functions and responsibilities which do remain are transferred to either the Department of Transportation--which primarily will oversee registration and licensing--or the Transportation Adjudication Panel-- which primarily will be responsible for the limited remaining rate regulation and tariff filings, final resolution of undercharge claims, and approval and oversight of agreements for antitrust immunity. Much of the regulation that remains has been streamlined and reformed, such as limiting agreements for antitrust immunity to 3-year periods. While we have provided for continued deregulation in this bill, I do believe we could have gone further. In the interests of working in a bipartisan and timely fashion, the bill does contain many compromises, and so many interested groups are not totally satisfied, just as I am not. Those groups which were looking for more significant reforms should know that opportunities for further reform do exist in the future. The committee intends to closely monitor the status of the industry and the need to retain those remaining functions that are transferred to the Department and to the panel. This bill should not be considered as the final word on these matters. It is imperative that we complete our work on this bill today since the ICC is funded only through the end of this year. The bill before us will not only terminate the ICC, but will also achieve significant reforms in the motor carrier industry, and I ask for the support of the Members of the House for the bill as it is brought before us.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I support this committee amendment. Since the subcommittee and full committee markups 2 weeks ago, we have had the opportunity to further review the legislative provisions and consider the further comments of the various groups, including carriers and shippers, as to ways to improve the bill. Some of the motor carrier provisions reflect the recommendations made by affected groups, the Department of Transportation, and the Interstate Commerce Commission, and relate to bus mergers, household goods arbitration disputes, cargo liability and a few other areas. The majority of provisions, however, are simply technical or conforming in nature. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this rule should be adopted and we should move swiftly to enact the TEAM Act, because it is necessary for us to do that to enable modern business practices to be continued and expanded here in the United States. We have come a long way since the World War I Henry Ford-style mass production, where you do what you are told and you show up. Henry Ford used to say ``The only trouble I have with employees is that I am hiring their mind along with their hands.'' He just wanted people who would do what they were told and be as productive as possible and not bring all of their abilities to building quality into their product. We have come a long way from that. To have a sophisticated modern economy, we need to involve employees' abilities as fully as possible in the workplace and in the enterprise in which they are active. I had a meeting some years ago when we were worried about the Japanese threat, and one of the Japanese businessmen who was there said ``Well, you know, we are going to beat you every time in the marketplace.'' I asked ``Why is that?'' He said ``Because when we compete with an American corporation with 10,000 employees, we are only competing really with 10 or 15 brains. The rest are just doing what they are told. I have 5,000 Japanese employees, and all of their brains are actively working to maximize our quality and our cost effectiveness in the workplace.'' We have changed that here in America. We have got to keep on changing that through employee involvement, employee circles, working to give everyone a greater say in how their jobs are operated and in the goods that they produce and the quality that is built into them. That is what employee involvement is all about. Unfortunately, under some outdated--in this new world--labor legislation passed in other times, courts have held that employee involvement practices violate legal standards. For example, here is a case of the Donnelly Corp., whose employee involvement program really resulted in a classic catch-22 situation and would be in violation of law if we fail to pass the TEAM Act. That company had a program which was lauded by the U.S. Department of Labor for its innovations in worker-management relations. But, ironically, as a result of Donnelly's testimony before the Dunlop Commission on the future of worker-management relations as they worked to try to improve our competitiveness and the fulfilling nature of employment in our country, their program is regarded as in jeopardy. The National Labor Relations Board is challenging the program of the Donnelly Corp. as a violation of section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act. Donnelly's program, as I said, was praised for its reliance on the principle that workers, when given the opportunity, make an invaluable contribution to the success of their companies. They do not have to be told what to do. They can decide for themselves. The development of the Donnelly program was directly intended to empower employees and push decisionmaking authority down to the shop floor. Unfortunately, a single labor law professor who heard their innovative story decided to punish them and their employer for the sake of preserving the 1930 style of collective bargaining. So the TEAM Act would ensure that proceedings like that now involving the Donnelly Corp. before the National Labor Relations Board could not be brought because it would clarify the law and make it clear that employee involvement would not violate section 8(a)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act. For that reason I would urge adoption of this rule and the passage of the TEAM Act.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, as we enter the debate over the application of the TEAM Act to American workplaces, let's be clear at the outset on one important point. This bill has no application to companies which currently operate under a collective-bargaining agreement with an organized group of employees. Opponents of the TEAM Act claim that the bill would let employers undermine established unions by creating workplace committees or sham company unions to take their place. This claim is false. The bill does not address work relationships in union settings. It only affects employer/employee relations in nonunion settings. The bill would leave untouched restrictions prohibiting employers in unionized settings from dealing directly with employees. To establish an employee involvement program in a unionized company, the management would still have to work directly through the unions or else be guilty of an unfair labor practice. The language of the TEAM Act makes it clear that employee teams [[Page H 9510]] are legal only if they do not assume the rule of a labor union. The TEAM Act thus clearly preserves union veto power over employee involvement. Please support the TEAM Act when it comes to the floor today.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I must oppose this amendment which would strike from H.R. 2274 the repeal of the national maximum speed limit and associated penalties. We have already seen what happens when motorists believe that a particular speed limit is too low for the conditions of a road--they exceed the limit. How many Americans drive faster than 55 miles per hour? The recent increase to 65 miles per hour on some of our rural interstates simply made legal the status quo--we already were driving 65. Let me be clear that if we remove the national maximum speed limit, we will not find ourselves with no speed limits on any roads as you might think from listening to some. The States will step in and take up this responsibility which is the way it should be. A one-size-fits-all approach has proven to be very frustrating from many States and motorists. What is an appropriate speed for the urban Northeast may not be appropriate for certain areas in Montana, or Texas, or other more desolate regions in the country. I cannot understand why some seem to believe that only Washington is capable of setting speed limits. Do we really believe that States are not capable of doing this, that the States do not care just as much, if not more, for the safety and well-being of motorists in their States? By repealing the national maximum speed limit, we will once again allow the States, based on their own intimate knowledge of particular road designs, conditions, location, and other relevant factors, to determine the appropriate speed limit for each of their roads. I believe the States are capable of this, that they are concerned about the safety of their citizens and that they will act responsibly and in the best interests of motorists. I urge the House to defeat this amendment.