Tom Petri

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds to my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, we have enjoyed working with the gentleman on this amendment, have studied it, and are willing to accept it.

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

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will again yield, it is my intent to support the 2-year time frame contained in H.R. 2274.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2274 was approved by voice vote by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on September 8, 1995. The most important provision of the bill before us today is the approval of the National Highway System, a 160,000 mile network of our Nation's most important roads. Although NHS routes comprise only 4 percent of our Nation's public roads, it will carry over 40 percent of our Nation's traffic and more than 70 percent of our commercial truck traffic. The country has changed dramatically since the Interstate System was laid out more than 40 years ago, and the NHS will move us into the postinterstate era. Approval of H.R. 2274 will ensure continued Federal funding for these vital roads. H.R. 2274 also provides a comprehensive solution to the reduction in Federal highway funding that each State will experience next year due to section 1003 of ISTEA. According to the latest estimates from the Federal Highway Administration, this reduction could total as much as $3 billion, amounting to a nearly 13-percent across-the-board cut in each program. Unlike other proposals which have been put forth to address this situation, H.R. 2274 will fully restore funding for programs outside the obligation ceiling by utilizing available budget authority and, through the reprogramming of budget authority, will partially restore funding for programs subject to the obligation ceiling. It also will mitigate the effect of the remaining reduction by allowing States greater flexibility over a certain limited amount of unobligated program balances. The basic balance of funding control provided by ISTEA is retained in this bill since a State may transfer unobligated balances of urban suballocated funds, which are controlled by metropolitan planning organizations, only with the written concurrence of the metropolitan planning organization for that area. In addition, funds provided to States as part of the section 1003 restoration are subject to the urban suballocation in accordance with ISTEA. Finally, congestion mitigation and air quality funds must be spent in nonattainment areas, but can be used for any purpose--with all clean air requirements for transportation projects continuing to apply. In order to ease the burden on States, certain Federal mandates also are repealed, including a repeal of the requirement that States use rubberized asphalt, or crumb rubber, in a certain percentage of Federal-aid highway projects or face the loss of Federal highway funds. Although a prohibition on the implementation of the penalties has been included in annual appropriations bills over the past several years, H.R. 2274 provides for a permanent repeal. Also, the penalties for failure to implement various management systems are suspended until the reauthorization of ISTEA. During the committee consideration of H.R. 2274, two amendments were adopted which repeal two further Federal mandates. First, the national maximum speed limit and associated penalties are repealed. [[Page H 9267]] The power to set speed limits will be returned to the States as was the case prior to the energy crisis in 1974. The repeal amendment was adopted by the subcommittee and also was reaffirmed by the full committee by large, bipartisan votes. Second, an amendment was adopted by the full committee to repeal the current penalties imposed on States which do not enact universal motorcycle helmet laws. Again, it will be left up to each State to determine whether to enact such a law, as was the case prior to ISTEA. This amendment was also adopted by a wide bipartisan margin of 38 to 17. The remaining provisions in H.R. 2274 are, for the most part, minor and noncontroversial policy revisions or minor corrections to current law. I would note that certain trucking reform measures are also included in the bill which, again, are primarily very limited in scope and provided to certain segments of the trucking industry. These groups have worked with the committee over the past several months to demonstrate why certain regulations which are aimed primarily at long-haul, over-the-road truckers, may not be appropriate for certain other types of driving activities. In concluding, I want to thank our ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from California, Norm Mineta, for the assistance he has provided on this bill and the leadership he has provided to our committee on both sides of the aisle over his years in the Congress and as a senior member of the committee. As we know, Mr. Mineta will be leaving the Congress next month, although his involvement in transportation issues certainly will be continuing, and in some sense even deepen. His dedication and interest in improving the Nation's transportation system has been of great benefit to our country, and so, while we wish him well in his new endeavor, his departure will certainly be felt, and felt especially deeply on our committee, and by his colleagues. The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall], the ranking minority member on the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, has once again provided valuable input on the development of the bill before us. Finally, of course, the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], has been instrumental in providing the critical leadership necessary to advance the national highway legislation. It is imperative that the House approve this bill so the required congressional approval of the National Highway System may be granted, so that the section 1003 restoration and mitigation provisions may be realized by the States, and so other improvements to our transportation programs may be enacted. I urge the House to approve H.R. 2274.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward]. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment which would strike from H.R. 2274 the repeal of the helmet penalties. This year, 25 States lost to safety programs over $51 million in highway funds because they did not have universal helmet laws. If we adopt this amendment and do not repeal the penalties, this year and in the future that amount will double--that means that $100 million in highway construction and maintenance projects will not be able to go forward in these 25 States. I am sure that many of these foregone projects would go a long way toward improving safety. Many penalized States are particularly frustrated with this loss of funds since many have fatality rates which are actually lower than many States which do have such laws. These States--through motorcycle rider education programs or other types of safety programs--have good motorcycle safety records. Yet because they have chosen not to adopt the one method prescribed in Washington, these States are losing highway funds. And States with fatality rates far worse are not losing highway funds. This does not make sense. I also oppose this amendment because I do not believe the Federal Government should be trying to impose its will on the States regarding this issue. Even without these penalties, a State can adopt a universal helmet law if it so chooses, and half of the States have done so. They don't need us telling them what to do. As the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation has heard repeatedly over the past several years, States do view this as a Federal mandate. And yet I must question the effectiveness of this mandate. Since ISTEA was enacted in 1991, only one State has passed the required law. This is not a good track record. Finally, I do not believe it is right or fair to try to blame the current problems of Medicaid or other health care problems on motorcycle riders. There are many activities people knowingly do which expose them to some health risk--using drugs, exposure to the sun, dangerous sports, overeating--and yet those people have not been subjected to the kind of rhetoric we hear on this issue. We should repeal these penalties which take away much needed highway construction funds from fully half of all the States, which do not take into account other safety initiatives of the States, and have not proven to be effective. I urge the House to defeat this amendment.

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

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York. The language in the bill before us provides a permanent authorization for the current tolling configuration for the Narrows Bridge in New York City. This is simply making permanent language approved by Congress every year since 1986 to provide for the one-way toll on the bridge to Staten Island. Should we go back to collecting tolls in both directions, Staten Islanders will be subjected to increased levels of carbon monoxide and other hazardous air pollutants from idling cars in residential areas as well as increased congestion. While I am certainly aware of the concerns of our colleague, Congressman Nadler, I also understand that this amendment will not solve his problem; and, therefore, I urge the House to defeat this amendment.

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

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to our colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].

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

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman, from Texas, Mr. Pete Geren.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Madison, WI [Mr. Klug].

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster].

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Illinois will yield, the gentleman is correct. Under those two sections of H.R. 2274, State legislatures may set such salary caps within the 2-year time frame designated for exercising this option.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say we have worked on this closely with leaders on both sides of the aisle. I believe it has everyone's concurrence and it does just make conforming and technical changes.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I must oppose this amendment offered by Mr. Rahall. This House has voted to turn back to the States the responsibility for setting speed limits--including maximum speed limits. I do not believe we here in Washington should prejudge what is the appropriate speed in every area of the country. I have long heard the frustration of my colleagues from Texas, Oklahoma, Montana, and other areas where distances between destinations are very far and drivers on the roads are few. While my own State of Wisconsin, perhaps, may not see a reason to increase speeds beyond 65, other States may make the determination that it is the proper action to take. In any event, what we are saying today is--it is up to the States. So while I appreciate the sincere interest of my colleague on the Surface Transportation Subcommittee, I must urge the House to defeat this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Dairy Freedom Act of 1995. This bill deregulates the diary industry within 5 years by eliminating the Federal milk marketing order system on January 1, 1996, reducing the Federal dairy price support over the next 4 years beginning January 1, 1996, and then eliminating the price support program on January 1, 2000. It also directs the first savings realized through this plan toward eliminating the current dairy assessment paid by farmers, then applies all subsequent program savings to reduce and eventually eliminate the taxpayers' contribution to the program. Through an oppressive and costly system of Federal milk marketing orders, the Federal Government currently fixes the price of 70 percent of the raw milk produced in the United States according to how the processor intends to use it. The Federal order system also pools and then redistributes milk revenues among farmers by computing a blend price which all processors are required by law to pay to farmers. And through the dairy price support system, the Federal Government attempts to support the price of raw milk by entering dairy product markets and buying butter, cheese, and nonfat dry milk at minimum guaranteed prices. This creates artificial demand in the market for dairy products and effectively encourages overproduction of certain products due to the fact that the Government is required by law to purchase them. The fact that this program uses centralized government planning methods in an attempt to micro-manage the dairy industry is bad enough. But what I and many, many folks in the upper Midwest find truly despicable about it is that it effectively discriminates against our dairy farmers by holding their milk prices down, while keeping prices artificially high in other parts of the country. It is ironic and sad that this program--supposedly created to help dairy farmers--is now substantially to blame for driving more than a few of them out of business. In addition, this program continues to cost farmers, taxpayers, and consumers hundreds of millions of dollars each every year. Farmers are required to pay an assessment in order to help defray the cost of purchasing surplus dairy products through the Federal dairy price support system. Rather than allowing the free market to counter overproduction of certain dairy products, the current program effectively sets floor prices and taxes farmers for part of the cost of maintaining those prices by removing manufactured products from the market. Taxpayers pick up the tab for most of the program's cost, which is expected to total more than $370 million in fiscal year 1996 if the program remains unchanged. Finally, consumers pay for this program at the checkout counter when they purchase dairy products or other food products made with milk which has been priced artificially high by the Federal Government. I feel very strongly that any Federal dairy policy which continues to prevent the proper functioning of the free market in the dairy industry, and which effectively discriminates among farmers on a regional basis, is unacceptable. Instead of keeping this program intact and reauthorizing some semblance of the status quo, I propose today that the Congress take action to free America's dairy industry by incorporating my Dairy Freedom Act into the agriculture reauthorization language which is to be included in this year's budget reconciliation bill. I urge my colleagues to join me in taking this bold yet long- overdue step in favor of free markets, lower prices for consumers, less waste of taxpayer dollars, and free and fair competition in the U.S. dairy industry.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation to defend our Nation's pension plans from the liberal social agenda of the Clinton administration. With the Republicans in control of the Congress, the Clinton administration has had a difficult time funding its liberal programs. As a way around this, the President's Department of Labor has been encouraging pension fund managers to invest in politically correct projects. In effect, the President is using America's savings as his own piggy bank, and in doing so, he is putting his political goals ahead of protecting our Nation's pensioners. This policy puts $3.8 trillion of private pension plan assets at risk. Should we have Government bureaucrats picking which investments are better than others? I don't think so. This bill is intended to put an end to this backdoor money grab. However, there is a related but equally important issue. Pension plans now contain more than half of our economy's investment capital. Since fund managers have a responsibility to invest their holdings prudently, they tend to be extremely risk-adverse and invest only in large, well established companies. With their fiduciary responsibilities in mind, fund managers are understandably reluctant to invest in growth companies and venture markets. These markets are comprised to small companies, whose success is vital to our Nation's economy. While these markets are riskier, their rate of return generally out performs other investments. However, as a result of risk-averse fund management, I doubt that there will be enough capital channeled to these economically important investments. We have to try to enable fund managers with fiduciary responsibilities to invest a portion of their assets in these riskier ventures. There should be ways to do this while safeguarding our Nation's pension plans. Of course, this is different than investing in ETI's. Investments in venture markets are focused on economic benefits, while ETI's are focused on social and political goals.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I ask that a statement appear in the Record following rollcall 641 indicating that, though I was recorded as voting ``aye'' it was my intention to vote ``no,'' on the amendment.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, this bill contains legislative provisions concerning the new direct student loan program that would severely damage the Department of Education's ability to manage that program effectively; and that constitutes blatant protection for special interests at the taxpayers' expense. The bill cuts student loan administrative funds from $550 million to $320 million, and reserves half of that for the guarantee agencies. Since the guarantee agencies were projected to receive only $156 million based on this year's ACA formula and next year's projected loan volume, they are guaranteed a $4 million increase by this bill, and it could be more. Meanwhile, funds available for the Department are cut from $394 to $160 million. That's a cut of $234 million, or 60 percent. The Department says it could easily live with a $100 million cut, and perhaps it could absorb somewhat more. But a 60 percent cut is nothing more than a clear attempt to totally gut the administration of direct loans. This is a stealth attack on that program carried out in this appropriations bill where it does not belong, before the proper authorizing committee has considered the issue. Now when we are cutting everything else, why on Earth are we guaranteeing an increase of at least $4 million, and possibly much more, for these guarantee agencies? Is this the Guarantee Agency Protection Act? This is ridiculous. Chairman Porter argued in his ``Dear Colleague'' letter yesterday that guaranteed loans, with 69 percent of the total loan volume, would be managed with only half of the administrative funds, namely this $160 million reserved for the guarantee agencies. I respect my colleague so highly that I know he has been terribly misled by someone, for he would never knowingly put out such total claptrap. Here is what guarantee agencies get in addition to the $160 million in administrative cost allowance. They get a 1 percent fee from borrowers, totalling about $170 million next year. By the way, that is not scored by CBO as a cost of guaranteed loans, even though the Federal Government gets to keep that amount on direct loans. They get the interest on their $1.8 billion of taxpayer-provided reserve funds. At 6 percent, that would be about $108 million. That's also not scored as a cost of guaranteed loans, even though the taxpayers could take back that entire $1.8 billion under 100 percent direct lending. They get to keep 27 percent of whatever they collect on loans after they have gone into default. That's about $300 million a year. By the way, it also gives them an incentive to allow loans to go into default. Finally, they make untold profits as secondary market players by arbitraging with tax free bonds at cost to the taxpayers of $2.3 billion over 5 years, also not scored as a cost of guaranteed loans even though it would not happen with direct loans. All told, the guarantee agencies support their 8,000 employees with revenues of about $638 million plus their arbitraging profits. Actually, 5,000 employees are supported by the $638 million, an average of $127,600 per employee. But these agencies aren't the servicers of most guaranteed loans at all. The lenders do that using part of the interest paid by students. These agencies are nothing but middlemen who would be completely unnecessary under direct lending. Their entire $638 million plus cost could be wiped out. So, the claim that $160 million of their funds represents the total cost of administering guaranteed loans is an outrageous distortion. Now let's look at the Department's funds. Of the $394 million the Department was to get next year, it says $200 million was for the guaranteed loan program--to administer the default payment system, the loan application and management system, and the collection system. By the way, the recent CBO scoring actually counted that money as a cost of direct loans rather than of guaranteed loans--an inexcusable plain error. Now, if the department has only $160 million to administer both guaranteed and direct loans, including the entire cost of direct loans--even the servicing--there's no way that can be done without gutting direct loans. That's the real purpose of these provisions, and we should not be fighting that battle on this bill. The second purpose is to protect the guarantee agencies. If that's not obvious from the provision increasing their ACA to $160 million, it's obvious from the provision preventing the Secretary from taking back any of their reserve funds. With direct lending growing, we will not need as many guarantee agencies. Why prevent us from taking tack the reserves when any of them go out of business? This is blatant special interest protection, and we should be ashamed to be putting it in this bill. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey, [Mr. Andrews] and I were going to offer an amendment to eliminate these terrible provisions. Because he cannot be here today, and because we have not had enough time to educate the Members about these issues, I will not offer that amendment. But I do urge the committee to reconsider this issue, and change these provisions in conference.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, because of the severe financial crisis of the District of Columbia and its inability to provide a 20-percent local match share, no Federal-aid highway funds have been obligated in the District for all of 1995. The highway program is at a virtual standstill, highway contractors are being forced to lay off workers, and there are concerns regarding the conditions of several of the major routes traveled each day by 300,000 commuters and visitors to the Nation's Capital. H.R. 2017 would waive for 2 years the District's local cost share necessary to access roughly $82 million in Federal highway funds in 1995 and a similar amount next year. However, because of the serious concerns on the part of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee regarding this unprecedented waiver, other very substantial requirements and safeguards have been included in H.R. 2017. The annual gas taxes and other vehicle use taxes collected by the District each year are currently earmarked for the Metro account of the general fund. H.R. 2017 will require that the District establish a dedicated highway fund by the end of this year which must maintain, at a minimum, amounts necessary to meet the District's cost-sharing requirements beginning in fiscal year 1997. The fund must also have amounts necessary to meet the strict repayment schedule over fiscal years 1996 through 1998 of the approximately $35 million of local match funds that are temporarily waived under this legislation. If any deadlines are not met, the Secretary of Transportation will withhold any further project approvals until the requirement is met by the District. By establishing this dedicated fund, the District will no longer rely on the bond market to secure the funds for its local share as has been its practice in the past. Rather, a stable and more secure source of the match, as well as repayment funds, will be in place. Finally, section 4 of H.R. 2017 imposes additional requirements on the District which should lead to improvements in the District's highway program both during the 2-year waiver period and in the future. Mr. Speaker, I do have concerns about moving forward with legislation which will waive, however temporarily, cost sharing requirements for one particular State due to its financial condition. The cost sharing principle is basic to the Federal Aid Highway Program and has been one of the reasons for its success over the past 40 years. We do not grant this waiver lightly, nor do we intend that this be an invitation to other States to seek waivers in the future. The Transportation Committee has worked closely and cooperatively with the various parties which have an interest in this legislation. These include Congresswoman Norton and other Members representing the capital region, the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, the recently created D.C. Financial Authority, and the District itself. The Speaker of the House also has an interest in this legislation. While I am disappointed that the financial mismanagement of the District has forced us to consider this bill today, passage of H.R. 2017 will allow critical highway projects to move forward in the District immediately, and will also result in a better, more stable highway program in the future. I urge the House to approve H.R. 2017.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Deutsch amendment, because what it boils down to is a short-sighted attempt to exclude one particular industry from participation in this promotion program simply because animal rights activists do not like that industry. The funding to promote U.S. mink exports to foreign markets is by law used only to promote the sale of U.S. produced mink and only U.S. mink ranchers can benefit from this program. The funding benefits only U.S. entities, just as every other MPP-funded program does. Ninty-five percent of U.S. produced mink are sold through two auction houses; one of them a rancher cooperative, that is rancher-owned, the other is substantially owned by hundreds of U.S. mink ranchers. It is ridiculous to say that the mink ranchers who produce all those pelts do not benefit by the marketing work done by these two companies. I cannot honestly understand how less than $2 million in marketing assistance to U.S. mink exporters can be truthfully characterized as ``wasteful spending.'' It is not a give away. It is a matching funds program which helps counter the massive subsidies that European countries give directly to their mink producers. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the questions we will answer when we vote on this amendment are these: Shall Congress discriminate against the MPP mink program just because it helps market U.S.-produced mink and not American seafood, paper products, grapes, walnuts, chocolate, cotton, raisins, feed grains, meats, wheat, rice, apples, wine or citrus from Florida and other States, even though the mink industry receives less marketing subsidy than any of these industries; and, shall Congress deny marketing assistance to the mink industry for the sole purpose of satisfying the extremists animal rights lobby? Mr. Chairman, I must say that I think the rational answer to those questions, and the only real answer to those questions, is a resounding ``no.'' I urge my colleagues to join me in voting a resounding ``no'' on the amendment.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2002, the fiscal year 1996 DOT Appropriation Act. I want to thank Chairman Wolf, Chairman Livingston, and ranking members Obey and Coleman for their hard work in producing this legislation. This bill sets high trust fund spending levels in the highway and transit programs. It recognizes the importance of infrastructure to our Nation, even in difficult budgetary times. Unfortunately, some difficult choices needed to be made. However, I applaud the decision to make trust fund infrastructure spending a priority. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I am informed by the staff that the national estuary program formed for the specific purpose of protection across State lines is not affected by this. We have the national estuary program, we have the nonpoint source program, and then we have an additional coastal thing. We are just saying we do not really need three programs to accomplish what the gentleman is trying to do. Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman is saying is absolutely right, we do need to have comprehensive watershed based approaches that follow the real world, rather than political jurisdiction of lines, and we have it, and it is not affected by this amendment. It is the national estuary program.