Ray LaHood

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Of course.

Mr. LaHOOD. Would you be doing this, would you be supporting this if it was Vice President Lieberman? Of course, you would not. You know that. Nobody on your side would be doing this. We would not be having this debate. This is a way to embarrass this administration. That is what it is. You do not have any other way to embarrass him, so you trot out this stupid amendment. Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. LaHOOD. How much time do I have, Mr. Chairman?

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

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 36, legislation which proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States allowing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. I am a proud cosponsor of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, our flag is not just cloth; it is a potent symbol of our history and the march of freedom. Our flag has flown over the battlefields of the Revolutionary War, inspired our national anthem as it remained aloft over Fort McHenry, stood for national unity in the Civil War, served as a clarion call to freedom in two world wars, and even stands on the moon as a symbol of peaceful exploration on behalf of mankind. For millions of people around the world, the American flag represents a commitment to democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights. It is a living representation of mankind's aspiration for freedom. Millions of veterans have rallied to our flag in time of crisis. These men and women have fought and died under the Stars and Stripes to defend our nation and to liberate people overseas who have been caught in the web of tyranny. The blood of our veterans has been shed to protect our flag and all that it stands for. Many of our veterans have sacrificed their lives so that our flag could continue to fly. To allow our flag, which represents all Americans--which holds out to the world the promise of liberty--to be desecrated, would be an affront to the people of this country and others around the world who are stirred by this symbol of democracy. Freedom of speech is an important American right. But freedom of speech is not a license to desecrate the fabric of our freedom. It is proper, and it is time, to protect our cherished flag from abuse with a Constitutional amendment. Mr. Speaker, the American flag stands not for one political party or one ideology. The flag represents all Americans, regardless of their race, color, or creed. Desecrating the flag is an insult to all Americans, and a slur upon all those who have sacrificed for the United States. It is with pride that I vote today to protect our flag from violence and to enshrine this protection in the Constitution.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the time. Madam Speaker, I want to pay my compliments to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and his staff and also to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and the staff on the Democratic side for putting together a good bill. I think there is no doubt that every Member that is on the subcommittee, of which I am the newest Member, believes that this is a good bill. Even though there are some who believe that the rule did not allow for some consideration of opportunities to solve some problems, many of those problems were discussed in the subcommittee and many amendments were offered. As many amendments as people wanted to offer were able to be offered, thanks to the chairman. I know that the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) offered many amendments, some of which were adopted, some of which were not. Other Members had the same opportunity. So this notion that this is not a good rule because some people do not have the opportunity, those opportunities were provided to the subcommittee Members, and there was a full debate on many of these issues. Although I am a new member of the subcommittee, I am certainly not new to the issues of agriculture. During the last 6 years, and I have been a member of the agricultural authorization committee and I have worked very hard with many Members, including some who are in the Chamber today, on agricultural issues, in trying to solve agricultural problems. Agriculture is in a recession. This bill helps agriculture in solving many of the problems that we have with respect to the recession that currently exists. A big piece of this bill has to do with research. I agree with the gentleman from Iowa when he says that research is about the future of agriculture. It is also about the future of how we get agriculture out of the recession that agriculture is currently in. I have an agriculture research lab in my hometown of Peoria. They do marvelous work. The people there are very professional chemists and professional people who do the work that really helps us plan for the future uses of commodities and other fruits and vegetables and specialty crops that we grow in this country. So the emphasis on research in this bill is extraordinary. The amount of money dedicated to research in this bill is extraordinary. It makes an awful lot of sense, I think, to pass the rule and certainly pass the bill. There will be some opportunities for some people to make modifications or offer amendments, and then there will be additional time, obviously later on, when there is a conference. But today I think is the day to pass the rule, pass this good bill, keep things moving, and really assist those in agriculture who need the kind of assistance and help and research funds that this bill provides.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I only do so in order to ask the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) a question. Mr. Speaker, can the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) assure me that the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, having to do with Lebanon is not a part of the en bloc amendment, and that that will be considered as a separate amendment?

Mr. LaHOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I wonder if the gentleman would allow just an additional 10 minutes on top. There are a number of Members that would like to speak on this amendment and I know that the gentleman did that earlier on with the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). If the gentleman could extend it by an additional 10 minutes in addition to what he has, we would be grateful to him for that.

Mr. LaHOOD. So the total time would be?

Mr. LaHOOD. So I am asking the ranking member if he would do an additional 5 minutes on each side. I have many Members. It is obviously strictly up to the gentleman from California, but I know for the Hyde amendment, when he had many Members over there, he extended it. I do not think that I am asking for too much.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 40 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the House. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the House.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the distinguished Democratic whip.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) close on this amendment?

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is far from a simple amendment. The idea that this is a simple amendment is simply not true. This is a slap at the face of the people of Lebanon, the Government of Lebanon. The gentleman met with the prime minister when he was here, and the gentleman heard him say that they are trying to forge a peace in Lebanon. The prime minister met with the President of the United States; the Vice President; the Secretary of State; Condoleeza Rice, the National Security Advisor; the Secretary of Defense. This is no way to treat Lebanon, and I guarantee my colleagues, this House would never pass an amendment like this against Israel, against Palestine, against Jordan, against any of the countries in the Middle East. We would not do this. This is a slap in the face to not only the peace process, but a small country who is trying to get its act together, and they are trying to get their act together economically, they are trying to get their act together as a democracy. They work very hard at it. When the prime minister was here, he said they are working very hard to get their act together. Is it perfect? Of course not. It is an intolerable situation in the region with many people getting killed. This amendment does not help anyone. It does not send the signal that the gentleman wants it to send. It really hurts the process. It really hurts our government's ability to be in that region and get the people to work together. Now, this amendment is opposed by the administration. The Secretary of State spoke out against it at the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations; and the chairman of this committee, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), is also opposed to this amendment, as well as the Dean of the House. The gentleman is not accomplishing what he wants to do here; and I wish, and this in no way diminishes my respect for the gentleman, the gentleman knows that I respect him. And I know the gentleman visited the region, and I know the gentleman has been to Lebanon. This hurts the country that the gentleman is trying to send a message to. I ask the gentleman, really, the gentleman still has time here to ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment, because the gentleman is sending the wrong message, not only to our government, but all over this region. This simply is wrong. It is wrong-headed, and it does not help. The money that we are allocating here is walking-around change in this House, compared to what we give to so many other countries in that region, including Egypt and Jordan and so many other countries in that region. This helps people get an education. It helps rebuild the country. Gosh darn it, it is about time we help a country like this. This is our way of doing it. This is our way of encouraging peace. I would encourage the gentleman, to ask to withdraw the amendment, because it is hurtful and it does not help the process. All this talk around here about Hezbollah and trying to create some kind of a one-headed monster out of Lebanon is wrong; it is nonsense. We should not be doing that. We should not be doing it to a country like Lebanon. It just does not make any sense to do it. Mr. Chairman, I urge every Member of the House who has people of Lebanese descent in their districts, and I know there are people watching this on C-SPAN, and I know there are staff people; this is an amendment that hurts the process. If my colleagues have people that they are representing of Lebanese descent and of Arab descent, vote against this amendment and send a message that the United States is for peace. We are for bringing people together. We do not want to hurt the country of Lebanon. We want to bring the process together. This pittance amount of money absolutely is a drop in the bucket compared to all of the other resources that we are spending there. But it is the message that is being sent. So I urge Members to look carefully at this. This is not about Israel. This is about what we can do for Lebanon and the peace process. So I urge the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) to give consideration to withdrawing this amendment. The gentleman will send a message that he is for peace; he will send a message that he cares about Lebanon. If the gentleman cannot do that, then I ask all Members to defeat this amendment and send a message that we are for peace, true peace, and that Lebanon is a country that we can count on.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to salute three outstanding young women who have been honored with the Girl Scout Gold Award by Girl Scouts-Kickapoo Council in Peoria, Illinois. They are Valerie Knapp, Rachel Kennedy, and Amanda Handrich. They are being honored on May 6, 2001 for earning the highest achievement in U.S. Girl Scouting. The Girl Scout Gold Award symbolizes outstanding accomplishments in the areas of leadership, community service, career planning, and personal development. The award can be earned by girls aged 14-17, or in grades 9-12. Girl Scouts of the U.S.A., an organization serving over 2.5 million girls, has awarded more than 20,000 Girl Scout Gold Awards to Senior Girl Scouts since the inception of the program in 1980. To receive the award, a Girl Scout must earn four interest project patches, the Career Exploration Pin, the Senior Girl Scout Leadership Award, and the Senior Girl Scout Challenge, as well as design and implement a Girl Scout Gold Award project. A plan for fulfilling these requirements is created by the Senior Girl Scout and is carried out through close cooperation between the girls and an adult Girl Scout volunteer. Valerie Knapp began working toward the Girl Scout Gold Award in 1999. She completed her project by planning and implementing a campout for 5th and 6th grade girls. Rachel Kennedy began working toward the Girl Scout Gold Award in 2000. She completed her project by helping her youth group plan and implement a Vacation Bible School for children in Houston, Texas. Amanda Handrich began working toward the Girl Scout Gold Award in 1997. She completed her project by providing clothing and toys for Christmas for less fortunate children. Mr. Speaker, I believe these three young women should be given the public recognition due them for their significant service to their communities and their country.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the past 2\1/2\ years I have had the privilege of serving on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Someone mentioned that Norm sat in the back row on the Committee on Armed Services. He sat in the back row next to the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and he was an extraordinarily knowledgeable individual, contributed so much to the Intelligence Community, and was so well respected by all of the people in the Intelligence Community, whether it was the CIA Director or the folks from the Intelligence Community at the Department of Defense. He was, if not the most respected, one of the most respected people on that committee. It is kind of ironic that we stand here today to honor Norm, and a few months ago we honored another member of that committee, our friend Julian Dixon from California, both outstanding individuals. We do not really get to know somebody like Norm until one serves on a committee with him and really understands his depth of knowledge, his intelligence, and his humor. When I think of Norm, I think of two things: probably the most dapperly-dressed Member of this House, Norm was a dapper fellow; and someone who really cared about the institution, cared about the committees that he served on, particularly the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; and somebody who is just a decent fellow and probably, more than anything else, a true Southern gentleman in the truest sense of the word, with respect for everyone on both sides, respect for the job, a high degree of integrity. He will be missed greatly on both sides of the aisle for so much he has contributed to the people of his district, to the State, to the country, and to so many other things he was involved in. So to the gentlemen from Virginia, Mr. Wolf and Mr. Moran, I thank them for devoting this time to a wonderful Member of this institution.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to come to the floor during this Special Order time to also pay special tribute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis). My wife and I have had the privilege of attending two trips to Selma; and even though we did not attend the one this year, we were there last year and the year before last and had the extraordinary opportunity to experience a sort of living history of what took place during that period of time. I know it must have been a thrill to go back to Selma this year and to maybe hug or greet the new mayor of Selma. I know the gentleman has been going back there for many years, but to have somebody like the new mayor just elected in Selma must have been an extraordinary opportunity and thrill for the gentleman after so many years of fighting for voting rights. I think part of what we learned on the trip is that voting is a precious right that we have in America, and it really comes home when you go to Selma and go to Montgomery and experience the opportunity to travel across the roads that the gentleman traveled and others traveled to gain that right for so many people. As we all lived out the election last November, it also I think gives us the idea that the right to vote is precious, and when people do not have that right and perhaps are denied that right, we can experience what the gentleman did back 35 or 36 years ago to try to win it for a whole group of people that did not have it. I think it is a good message for all of us, to continue our efforts to make sure that when people go to the polls, the right is carried out in an accurate way and a way that reflects the will of the people. So it has been a great experience and a good lesson for all of us, that there are many things that we do when we are elected to these jobs in terms of introducing bills and coming on the floor and debating, but the opportunity to step outside of that role and to experience what people like the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) have experienced and others have experienced I think is a good lesson for all of us in terms of what we can bring back to the House in terms of reforms that may be made as a result of that experience. So I congratulate the gentleman. As one who has tried to practice bipartisanship and support bipartisanship, I think the trip to Selma and Montgomery is one of the extraordinary bipartisan efforts; and I congratulate the gentleman, and Faith and Politics, and Doug Tanner and the work that he does and his organization. Doug works mighty hard around here to try to bring people together, and I know that there are grand plans to do something extraordinary next year, and I hope that Members of the House will look on the opportunities we have had at Selma to build on that for other opportunities with Faith and Politics and with the gentleman. Again, I thank the gentleman for giving all of us an opportunity to know him, know his experience, share his experience, and to really imbue in all of us the importance of how precious the right to vote really is for all of us. I thank the gentleman for this Special Order and the chance to say a few words.