SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act of 2007

Floor Speech

SAFETEA-LU TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS ACT OF 2007 -- (House of Representatives - August 01, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time.

The trial lawyers have an uncanny way of making their living. Although the title of this legislation is a technical corrections bill, one glaring technical correction that needs to be made is left out.

As the ranking member said earlier tonight, the original SAFETEA-LU bill amended the definition of a commercial motor vehicle to exclude vehicles 10,000 pounds and less. The Department of Transportation had never issued regulations of this type of vehicle, which is essentially a small van or something smaller. It seemed to clear up the books and just make sense when it was done at the time. All too often what seems to be a simple idea ends up having much more significant consequences.

What was considered a cleaning up of the books turned out to be a dramatic shift in labor law. The Fair Labor Standards Act exempts drivers of vehicles that can be regulated by the Secretary of Transportation. The definitional change of a commercial vehicle unwittingly brought a whole new class of employee under that act.

In writing the provision, neither Congress nor the administration intended to fundamentally alter our national labor policies, but that is exactly what happened.

What are the consequences? As I said, the trial lawyers have an uncanny ability to find sources to make money off of. Companies across the country that believed that their business model was and is perfectly legal because it had been may get a knock on the door from their friendly neighborhood trial lawyer informing them that they are now liable for overtime wages dating back to August 15, 2005, when SAFETEA-LU was signed into law.

Congress didn't know what they had done. The administration didn't know they had done this. How can we expect a small delivery service or some satellite dish installer or plumber to know that their business model is no longer viable?

No one will argue that people aren't entitled to a fair and equitable, appropriate wage, but if we are going to significantly alter national labor law, we should have a full and open debate and we should do it intentionally, not by accident and not by trial lawyers. I think that is the one glaring omission from this act. If we would fix that, we would have a number of employers from around this country who would be safe from more trial lawyer, frivolous lawsuits.

Shouldn't we ensure that companies are held liable? Sure, but we should do it as a Congress in a knowing way, a way that is befitting of this body, not by accident. We should not make them pay for our Congress' mistakes.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source