Ray LaHood

Mr. LaHOOD

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

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, let me just see if I can sketch out here what is really happening. There are two things in play here. No. 1, we have this administration running all over Capitol Hill trying to persuade those of us in the House and Senate to vote for MFN, most-favored-nation status. I support that. I think it is good, and I hope that it will pass. So on the one hand they want us, as a Congress, to support MFN. On the other hand this administration sends a memo to the Eximbank and says do not fund any of the loans for the Three Gorges project in China, and the reason they give in their memo is for humanitarian and environmental reasons. So this is the classic Clinton way of doing things. On the one hand they want to portray themselves as being for the environment and being for humanitarian efforts. On the other hand they want to come up here and ignore that on MFN. So they sent this memo to the Eximbank snubbing their nose at American business. The Three Gorges project is going to proceed, it is going to move ahead. China has decided that they want this project. So the administration wants to say, ``Oh, we're for humanitarian environmental issues,'' on the one hand, and yet come up here and ignore them on MFN. So they have totally politicized the Eximbank on this issue. Their memo has scared the Exim people to the extent that they will not allow these loans to proceed, and American business gets snubbed, and the projects, the money for this equipment, will go to our foreign competitors. So they want to be able to tell American business, ``Yes, we're supporting you because we're for MFN, but on the other hand we can't support this particular issue.'' Mr. Chairman, this agency has been politicized by this administration. This amendment will send a strong shot across the bow of the Eximbank that Congress knows what the administration and Exim is up to. Hand in glove, they are working together so the administration can have what they want, on the one hand with MFN, and they can also then go out and portray themselves as being environmentalists, and also for humanitarian concerns.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Science.

Mr. LaHOOD. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing legislation today that will offer regulatory relief for utility vehicle operators and drivers. This bill will help reduce the cost and increase the safety of utilities throughout America, and particularly in rural America. In the past few years, natural disasters have devastated virtually all parts of our country. And, while efforts to rebuild and restore basic utility services to the victims have been gallant, these very efforts have been severely hampered by ridiculous, costly and burdensome regulations that hinder utility service drivers from performing emergency repairs and maintenance on utility lines in rural areas thereby affecting vital services. Last fall, the National Highway System Designation Act included relief from Federal motor carrier regulations that were designed mainly for long-haul, cross-country drivers. While these laws did provide relief for certain agricultural drivers, water well drillers, snowplow operators, and medium-sized commercial motor vehicles from burdensome hours of service regulations, they, unfortunately, did not provide the same kind of relief for drivers of vehicles for utility companies--for example, electric, water, telephone, sewer, natural gas, etc.). Under current Department of Transportation rules and regulations, utility vehicle drivers are limited in the number of hours that they can drive and be on duty. The practical effect of these regulations is to limit the size of the area that utility drivers can effectively service. This limitation not only increases the utility costs that consumers must pay; but it also creates health and safety risks for the public, because utility service may be interrupted due to the inability of utility drivers to reach the problem area and make the appropriate repairs within their hours of service. The onerous effect of these regulations is particularly acute in those parts of rural America in which the service area of utility companies generally covers vast distances. Drivers often spend more time driving to the problem area then actually making repairs. The bureaucrats, however, do not distinguish driving time from repair time, choosing, instead, to count both in the overall calculation of allowable hours of service. This bill will help ensure the public's safe access to utility service and save between $300 and $400 million in compliance costs that would otherwise be passed on to consumers. I urge passage of this important bill.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to salute a group of outstanding young women from my district who have been honored with the Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. Gold Award by the Kickapoo Council of Girl Scouts in Peoria, IL. The seven girls who received this award are the following: Jennifer Baker of Troop 47; Jennifer Grafelman of Troop 22; Nora Hegwood of Troop 1000; Aria Hoekstra of Troop 581; Lee Ann Kroppel of Troop 22; Jordan Maricle of Troop 144; and Jennifer Roth of Troop 345. The Gold Award is the highest achievement award in Girl Scouting. It symbolizes outstanding accomplishments in the areas of leadership, community service, career planning, and personal development. The Girl Scout Gold 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 3.3 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 fulfill five requirements: earn four interest project patches; earn the Career Exploration Pin; earn the Senior Girl Scout Leadership Award; earn the Senior Girl Scout Challenge; and design and implement a Girl Scout Gold Award project. A plan for fulfilling the requirements of the award is created by the Senior Girl Scout and is carried out through close cooperation between the girl and an adult Girl Scout volunteer. Jennifer Baker began working on the Girl Scout Gold Award in early 1994. Her project was completed by making presentations to high school students regarding the importance of making and keeping family values a priority in their life. She worked on this with the guidance and supervision of the Fulton County Health and Child Services Department. Jennifer Grafelman began working on her Girl Scout Gold Award requirements in 1994. She completed her project by presenting a Children's Safety Awareness With Strangers Program for a local elementary school, grades K-3. This program not only gave valuable information to the students, but also provided parents with a photo of their child, fingerprints and video tapes of the children. The local school board was very supportive of this project. Nora Hegwood started work on the Girl Scout Gold Award in 1993. Her project involved working with an Early Childhood Education Center to assess the abilities of children who do not have minimal playing skills and then to work with each of them in play therapy/play intervention to improve their level of play with other children. This involved an average of 2-hour-long play sessions several times over a 3-month period. Aria Hoekstra began work on the Gold Award in 1993. She completed her project by making and gathering toys, games, and books and making a toy box for these items, then donating them to the children's ward of a local hospital. In addition, she visited the hospital on several occasions and read, played games, and became friends to the children. Lee Ann Kroppel started her work on the Girl Scout Gold Award in 1994. She completed her project by presenting a Children's Safety Awareness With Strangers program for a local elementary school, grades K-3. Working with the local school board, she provided valuable information to students and parents, including a photo and video tape of the child, as well as fingerprints. Jordan Maricle initiated work on her Gold Award in 1994. Her project was completed by teaching French in an elementary school where there are no classes in French. The school has cooperated in allowing this to be done with interested children. This project helps expand the horizons of children to another culture different from their own. Jennifer Roth began work on the Gold Award in 1994. She completed her project by cleaning, recording, and setting up a database for all of the band trophies and awards in her high school. They have received over 450 honors. This project will be one that can continue and will be of historical value to the school. The earning of the Girl Scout Gold Award is a major accomplishment for all of these young women, and I believe they should all receive the public recognition due to them for their significant service to the community and to the country.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I would make the comment to the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee and others who have been promoting a balanced budget that if we take these off-budget and use them for their purpose, we would actually be saving money, that we would not be spending in excess. That would answer their question. But I rise in strong support of this. I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman, and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] for the leadership that they have exhibited over the last several months and years, I would add. This bill is a product of their tremendous efforts to restore fairness and accountability and we must have accountability in the transportation budgeting. In 1994 in my home State of Illinois, the gas tax amounted to $663 million. It is imperative that these trust funds be used for essential improvements and repairs to our infrastructure. Mr. Chairman, it is time that our highways and airports receive the funding they deserve and this can only be done by moving the trust funds off-budget. Keeping the trust funds as part of the unified budget has had a severe impact on my home State of Illinois and the other States in the country. I urge my colleagues to support honesty and fairness in the budgeting process and support this bill.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I just want to emphasize what the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure said. If my colleagues vote for the Smith amendment, they kill the bill. This is a killer amendment. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] does not like this bill. So in the option that he has been given he has offered his amendment to simply kill the bill. We know the purpose of the bill is to take trust funds off budget and permit Congress to set whatever levels of spending it deems appropriate. In the Truth in Budgeting Act this amendment would not allow Congress to determine what trust funds support the aviation and highway system needed. So I want to support what the ranking member said and advise Members to defeat this amendment because it, in fact, will kill the bill.

Mr. LaHOOD

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

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, it is a thrill for me to come down on this floor and speak on this bill because I think it is a very good bill. A lot of hard work has gone into it. Before I say anything further, I want to pay special compliments to the chairman of the committee. This will be his last farm bill in this House. I know that he will be working on many more farm bills in the other body when he goes over there, but you have done great work, Chairman Roberts, in cobbling together all of the different interests. I also want to pay my respects to the ranking member, who has added so much to farm policy in America over a long period of time, who is also retiring, not to the other body but back to Texas. And you have contributed mightily to farm policy in America, and I think I speak for Members on both sides who say we are in your debt to both of you for what you have done. We have a good bill. This bill was not put together on the spur of the moment. There were 19 hearings held around the country, one in central Illinois, where we had 500 people show up and talked to us about what they thought was important about farm policy; 60,000 miles were traveled. This committee has worked hard to put together a farm bill. The Agricultural Market Transition Act, formerly known as Freedom to Farm, is a very, very good bill. It will save the taxpayers of America, in round numbers, $13 billion over 7 years. It will cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $40-plus billion, but it will save an enormous amount, and it will make the reform that is necessary and is needed in farm country and also with relationship to food policy. This bill has the support of every major farm organization in America, and that is something that I think is also very, very important, because when you look at the diverse group of farm organizations in this country, they represent many different points of view. This bill has bipartisan support. Three Democrats on our committee voted for this bill, as well as all of the Republicans. In the Senate, a similar bill was passed with 20 Democrats. It is not identical, but it is similar to. It makes the reform that is needed. When we talk about reforming everything else in Government, we are also talking about reforming agriculture, decoupling agriculture from Government, getting the rules and regulations off the backs of farmers, giving them the flexibility to do what they know how to do best, which is plant and grow crops and provide the food and fiber for our country and for the world. It makes an awful lot of sense for every Member of this Chamber to support this bill, and for those who had heartburn about certain provisions, they have been allowed to offer their amendments and will offer amendments later on. I think that the Committee on Rules has been very fair in allowing many different points of view to be offered in their amendments. So in the final analysis, I think it is incumbent upon all Members of this Chamber, both Republicans and Democrats, to support this bill. It is a good bill. It makes sense. For those who think we have taken all too long, at one time you were saying we have not taken enough time. Some say we have taken too much time. The time is now for foreign policy to be set so our farmers and ranchers across the country will know what the policy will be. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. The gentleman from Kansas, Chairman Roberts, deserves a lot of credit for the work he has done. I congratulate the gentleman, and encourage all Members in this body to support this bill. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2854, the Agricultural Market Transition Act. But, first, Mr. Chairman, I want to personally commend the distinguished chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Pat Roberts. Pat, you have done a remarkable job. Your efforts are monumental and revolutionary. I wish you well in the future. Kansas will certainly benefit from your wisdom and tireless efforts for many years to come. Mr. Chairman, the Agriculture Market Transition Act is a culmination of voices from around the country. Chairman Roberts took the committee on the road to gather input from real farmers. The committee traveled over 10,000 miles and heard from 300 witnesses on what farmers and ranchers wanted in Federal farm policy. The central Illinois men and women, who testified, all first, second, and third generation family farmers, were unanimous in their call for less regulation from Washington and a more market-oriented program, which allows producers to grow according to market signals, and not edicts from Washington. The message was clear, Mr. Chairman: give the family farmer a break. ``Let us decide what to plant, rather than bureaucrats in Washington''. The Agriculture Market Transition Act, with its 7-year guaranteed payments, does just that. It removes burdensome regulation and allows producers to get more of their income from the marketplace. It frees production agriculture to meet the food demands of emerging economies around the world, as more and more countries embrace democratic ideas and principles. This bill, Mr. Chairman, takes American agriculture into the 21st century to meet those demands. Mr. Chairman, the American public will not stand for the status quo. They want reform. This bill is reform. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would also add, and I appreciate very much the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn] participating in this commemoration of the 100th birthday of Senator Everett Dirksen, who was, as I said, from Pekin, IL. I would also add that in the last 1960s, when Senator Dirksen was the minority leader in the U.S. Senate, that was the end of the decade when we had balanced budgets around here. Since that time we have had a very difficult time balancing our budget. As I said, the quote that has been used so often I think really deserves to be attributed to Senator Dirksen. I appreciate the opportunity to commemorate his 100th birthday today. [From the Peoria Journal Star, Jan. 4, 1996] Dirksen Brought Sense of Reality Wherever He Went One hundred years ago, fathers might have dreamed that a son born in a log cabin could become president. But no way could Johann Dirksen have imagined Jan. 4, 1896, that his baby boy's birthday celebrations one day would launch the social season in the nation's capitol. Yet, Sen. Everett McKinley Dirksen's birthday bash, usually at the Mayflower hotel ballroom, was the opening ``must go'' event of the social season each year in Washington, D.C., even before he became minority leader of the Senate and a national figure beyond the Beltway. Everybody who was anybody, as the saying goes, attended from both political parties and from the administration and the congress. Those glittering parties were a long way from the neighborhood in Pekin known as ``Beantown.'' Yet, growing up in Beantown may have been an important part of ``Ev'' Dirksen being the toast of the town in the nation's capitol. Actually, the residents, themselves named it that--or rather in their own language, ``Bohnchefiddle.'' They were German immigrants who didn't indulge in euphemisms. They had a strong sense of reality. And the reality was that rich folks had flower gardens in their yards; immigrants grew beans. They were who they were, and saw nothing wrong with it. Beantown was just their American starting place. In fact, most residents in Pekin, and millions more across America, gardened their yards. Even a narrow small-town lot was 50 feet front, 150 deep, and provided space for people who didn't own a horse and didn't need a barn. There was space for berry bushes along the lot line, half a dozen fruit trees set wide apart, orderly squares of garden vegetables, and a grape arbor. There was a lot more than beans, and it all required care. Many folks kept a small flock of chickens by the back porch as well. At one time, in fact, the Dirksens raised a pig. The bigger boys spaded the gardens and raked them smooth. Before he was old enough for school, the youngest son, Ev, could help punch holes in the prepared ground with the wooden split pegs used as clothespins keeping a straight line along the board on which he knelt. Keeping clothes as clean as possible was important when washing them was a major weekly chore. As the produce grew, ripening in sequence, much of it had to be ``put up'' for the winter in fruit jars and glasses, sealed with hot paraffin or special lids, after being well cooked. Cabbage was chopped and salted and then pounded and pounded until it was soaked in its own brine to be kept for winter--sauerkraut. The Dirksen boys took part, and it was the boys who peddled surplus vegetables door to door. The basics of life to the German families were food, clothes, shelter from the cold and cleanliness. So, before he learned to read and write, Everett Dirksen became part of a family team, doing his share in providing those basics, and grew up knowing from whence came the necessities of life. Somebody had to do the work to produce it. Their father had a stroke in 1901 when Ev, the youngest, was only 5. By the time Ev was 9, Dad was dead. The boys were raised by their mother, and the team game of survival that they played put a solid foundation under his whole life. In those circumstances and in the absence of radio, television, telephones or computers, he found school and learning downright fun. Learning was an adventure and a kind of game. He loved reading. He loved to discover a new big word and roll it off his tongue. In books, he could explore the far reaches of this world and of the world of ideas. Thus in his youth, and progressively thereafter, Everett Dirksen combined those wonderful opposites, the contradictions of idealist and a realist. It fit the Lincoln tradition of central Illinois. With his older brothers grown and earning money, the family could let young Everett go off to college. He worked nights while schooling at the University of Minnesota, until World War I interrupted. Three years of ROTC there gave him a leg up on a lieutenant's bars. In France, he was an artilleryman. His job was to ride a wicker basket under a rough, hydrogen-filled balloon, held by a cable and linked by a primitive telephone to the gun batteries, overlooking the battlefield. There, he observed the fall of the artillery shells his battery mates were firing and tell them how to adjust their fire to bring it on target. Of course, such balloons like his were sitting ducks, even for the primitive planes of the time. When the war ended, the army found his ability to speak German useful and kept him in Europe. He remained overseas for 18 months in all, much of the time interpreting for others or dealing directly with the local German population. He also knew Paris, Berlin, other German cities, and visited England and Ireland. In Rome, the ambassador asked him to join his staff, but Ev was homesick for Pekin. Thus, young Lt. Dirksen returned to Pekin and Bohnchefiddle at age 24, with an extraordinary range of experiences. He was now a college man, a combat veteran and an ex-officer who had traveled, often in very sophisticated circles, in postwar Europe. Back home, he married a Pekin girl and launched his remarkable political career as the youngest person ever elected to the Pekin City Council. As city councilman, he was a young man dealing with a rapidly changing world. Streets needed to be paved for the growing number of those new motor cars. The fire department needed trucks to replace the horse-drawn rigs. The aging streetcar, one car running back and forth on a single track, needed replacement with bus service. Power plant were under construction bringing electricity. The Edison resolution was on, and radio was waiting in the wings. These were not hypothetical or abstract problems to be solved abstractly for the young councilman. He was intimately involved with the reality of finance for technology and the even tougher reality of the effects and demands new technology and dramatic change made on the city workers and the public. When he grappled with these problems as a councilman, he also worked delivering his brothers' bread to 50 small groceries scattered about town. Everybody knew his route, and at many a stop he confronted people with problems to take to their councilman. Before he went to the national macrocosm, this man had a thorough and heavy dose of the microcosm. Thus, the nature of the man was well-founded long before he became one of that city's best-loved figures, before he crafted the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 and brought over the votes to pass it with him, before he won a Grammy for recording ``Gallant Men,'' before he was the confidante of presidents both Republican and Democrat, and before he became a darling of the once-skeptical Washington press corps. He brought to Washington the prestige of being the Congress' best orator, a skill founded and practiced in Pekin and which largely won for him his original seat in the House of Representatives in the first place. He also brought the attention to detail, the realism, of Bohnchefiddle, and was, undoubtedly, the most skilled parliamentarian in the Senate of his time. He knew how the system worked in every detail, and he knew who was the person that counted, the person to talk to, not only in the Senate, but in every department of the national administration. Finally, he made many friends and no enemies in the best tradition of the small town where he grew up, and where some of his local political foes were also lifelong personal friends. When Everett Dirksen died, the President of the United States gave the eulogy--proclaiming that Sen. Everett McKinley Dirksen had more impact on history than many presidents. That he was, and he didn't learn that in Washington. That was the boy from Bohnchefiddle.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston].

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, and I would have done this earlier had I not been in the Chair most of the day, to insert into the Record an article that appeared in my hometown newspaper, the Peoria Journal Star. Today commemorates the 100th birthday of one of the greatest leaders of the U.S. Senate, Senator Everett Dirksen. I do not think it could be really more fitting for me to be inserting this article and commemorating the 100th birthday of Senator Dirksen, because many people have used the quote that he said, ``A million here, a million there. Pretty soon it adds up to real dollars.'' This is what we have been talking about for so long around here, the idea of a balanced budget. Senator Dirksen lived in the district that I represent, and at one time he was the Congressman from the district that I now represent. He hailed from Pekin, IL, and when he died in 1969 was the minority leader of the Senate; and, actually, prior to being elected to the Senate, was the Congressman who became ill, retired from the House, was cured of his illness, which was an eye problem, and then returned as a U.S. Senator, and had a distinguished career serving under President Johnson, who was a very close friend of his. Nobody knew more about trying to balance budgets, working with Members on both sides, trying to reach agreement and compromise than Senator Dirksen, and I do want to insert this article in the Record. Mr. Speaker, I also want to yield to my friend from California, who was actually a staffer in the Senate during the time that Senator Dirksen was the minority leader, and I would ask if the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn] would have any comments with respect to Senator Dirksen.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman about the point, I think there are probably a lot of people out there eating dinner and probably some of them watching C-Span, and I doubt if very few of them understand all the scoring. But I will tell you one thing the American people understand. I think it is reflected in votes that have been made on this floor throughout the year. The fact that we passed a balanced budget amendment with 300 votes, it included a lot of Democrats, and maybe some of the people who are sitting here this evening. We passed a balanced budget resolution with the vast majority of Democrats voting with us. The reason is that our people who are elected to these jobs, whether they be Republicans or Democrats, know that the American people want a balanced budget. The reason is because of the fact they balance their budget year in and year out, they know how to do it, they look at their ledgers, they see how much money is coming in, and they say, ``Why can't you do this in Washington? What is the problem? Why do we have a $5 trillion debt?'' Because we have overspent. So the average person watching television out there, eating dinner, for those people that are, they understand how this works.

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

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House passed in a very bipartisan fashion, with many Democrats, a sense of the Congress resolution to balance the budget. Earlier this year, we passed a balanced budget amendment with 300 votes. Now, apparently, Democrats too want a balanced budget. If there is one thing that the American people understand, it is balancing the budget, because they balance their budget year in and year out. They cannot understand why we cannot get our act together. Mr. Speaker, there is really only one person standing in the way of all of this. It is not the Democrats, because they are with us. It is not the Republicans, because we have got a balanced budget that we sent to the President. So, we ask the President to join with us; join with his Democrat colleagues; join with us and do what all Americans do. Balance the budget. Balance the Federal budget. End waste. Do what all Americans do. Make the ledger sheet balanced, and then we can move on to other important issues.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas, distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, a friend of Ed Madigan's.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for allowing me this time. It is a very proud moment in my very short legislative career here to say that the first bill that I have introduced and will be passed is a bill in honor of a dear friend of so many Members on both sides of the aisle, former Congressman Ed Madigan. The Madigan family resides in my congressional district in Lincoln, IL. I am proud to call a number of members of his family my constituents. I know that the people of Lincoln, IL are going to be very proud to see his name emblazoned above the post office in Lincoln, IL, because he is Lincoln. He represented Lincoln, IL so well. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support today of H.R. 1880, the Edward Madigan Post Office Designation Act of 1995. It is, indeed, a privilege to be on the floor speaking on behalf of this measure commemorating Edward Madigan, a Congressman, a Cabinet Secretary, and above all, a respected citizen of the State of Illinois. This bill honors not only a great legislator--one that made significant contributions to this institution and this country--but, this bill, also honors the citizens of Edward Madigan's hometown, Lincoln, IL. Mr. Madigan's career in public service is impressive: He served in the U.S. House of Representatives for 18 years. And, during those 18 years, he rose to the rank of chief deputy whip and ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture. His expertise in agricultural issues was duly recognized in January 1991 when he was appointed by President Bush to the post of Secretary of Agriculture. Throughout his career, Mr. Madigan conducted himself with integrity and with decency, and I urge all Members to support H.R. 1880 so that we may rightfully honor Edward Madigan, his family, and his hometown. This bill is but a small tribute to one of Illinois' finest public servants. The legacy of leadership and service that Edward Madigan left to Illinois, and to this Nation, will not be soon forgotten. And, if one takes a look at Mr. Madigan's career, it is easy to see why; his achievements were eminently impressive. Mr. Madigan's public service career spanned nearly 30 years, with service to both the State of Illinois and the U.S. Government. He began in 1966 as a member of the Illinois State House of Representatives, where he served with distinction for 6 years. Carrying forward his experience and knowledge that he gained in the State House, Mr. Madigan moved on to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1973, where he served for 18 years. During his tenure in Congress, Mr. Madigan ascended to various leadership positions, including ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture and chief deputy whip. Mr. Madigan's accomplishments as a member of Congress were also impressive. In 1985 and 1990, as the ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture, he was instrumental in shepherding two farm bills through the House of Representatives. He also led the effort to protect farm income and expand export markets. In 1990, as part of the Clean Air Act amendments, Mr. Madigan, as a senior member of the energy and Commerce Committee, put forth legislation that would encourage the use of alternative fuels, such as ethanol. Other accomplishments of Mr. Madigan include legislation that helped deregulate the railroad freight industry, as well as legislation that helped bring stability to the Rural Electrification Administration revolving fund. He also worked hard to improve health care in rural areas and was instrumental in creating a nursing research center at the National Institutes of Health. These, and many other legislative initiatives, owe their success, in no small part, to Mr. Madigan's relentless determination and exceptional leadership. Just as Mr. Madigan's experiences in the Illinois State House served him well in the House of Representatives, his experiences gained in Congress proved to be a tremendous asset when he was appointed in January 1991 to be the Secretary of Agriculture under former President George Bush. Confirmed by the Senate on March 8, 1991, by a vote of 99 to 0, Mr. Madigan served with great regard as a member of the Cabinet. During Mr. Madigan's tenure as Secretary of Agriculture, he lead the agricultural negotiations during the discussions on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and he was responsible for overseeing agricultural aid to the Republics of the former Soviet Union. And, as with his service in Congress, Mr. Madigan always placed the needs of the public first. Perhaps, the former House minority leader Bob Michel, best summed up Mr. Madigan's legacy when he remarked at Mr. Madigan's funeral that ``Ed Madigan's life is the answer to give to those who doubt that a genuine sense of public service still lives in this country.'' Mr. Speaker, I urge support for H.R. 1880. Passage of this bill will bring great honor to the Madigan family and the citizens of Lincoln, IL, and will help preserve the legacy of Edward Madigan's distinguished public service.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the president's plan to deploy United States troops to Bosnia. While I am opposed to sending troops to enforce a fragile peace in a region plagued by war and mired in ethnic conflict, I do want to be clear that I am fully supportive of the troops that will be on the ground. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the troops on the ground need and deserve our full support, so that as they head into harm's way they will have the assurance that the thoughts of those at home are with them. Offering support for the troops, however, does not mean that Congress has no role in the troop deployment or is relinquishing its role in the area of foreign policy.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to insert into the extension of remarks of the Congressional Record a sermon that my constituent, Dr. Randall Lee Saxon, pastor of the First Presbyterian Church, Peoria, IL, made to his congregation on November 19, 1995, in preparation for Thanksgiving. Mr. Speaker, I read the sermon and was so moved by Dr. Saxon's words and insightful thought that I wanted to insert it in the Congressional Record for the benefit of all my colleagues. At a time when Congress, and the country, is wrestling with devolution of a Federal Government and personal responsibility, Dr. Saxon's words leapt from the pages as I read them. A Better Country--A Thanksgiving Sermon (By Rev. Dr. Randall Lee Saxon) hebrews 11: 8, 12-16 By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to set out for a place that he was to receive as an inheritance; and he set out, not knowing where he was going. Therefore from one person, and this one as good as dead, descendants were born, ``as many as the stars of heaven and as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore''. All of these died in faith without having received the promises, but from a distance they saw and greeted them. They confessed that they were strangers and foreigners on the earth, for people who speak in this way make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. If they had been thinking of the land that they had left behind, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; indeed, he has prepared a city for them. a better country Christians are always in search of a better country. Those who take their faith seriously endeavor to move beyond a feel-good religion to a follow-Jesus faith. Such a faith demands that we continue on our journey of discovery, to build upon the good that was present before us, to bring down the walls that divide us, to bridge chasms--real or imagined--that separate us. Christians are always in search of a better country. As with the people of the early Christian Church and as with the people who followed the patriarchs of early Judaism, the way of the Christian is the way of the Pilgrim. Those who have the good fortune to visit the Old Town of Rotterdam, in The Netherlands, may visit still the Pilgrim Fathers' Church--as it is yet called--in which the Scrooby Pilgrims and the Leyden Pilgrims held their last service prior to entering on their incredible journey to discover a better country. Those staunch and visionary forebears of ours worshipped together, then made their way down to the water where they boarded the Speedwell to begin their westward journey. Written bold upon a plaque secured to a warehouse on that Rotterdam waterfront is a commemoration to the departure of the Pilgrims. From The Netherlands, the little ship bearing the Pilgrim band sailed to Plymouth, England. In the English port, after a period of time, the pilgrims boarded a larger ship, the Mayflower, and set sail for the brave new world awaiting them across the dark and brooding Atlantic waters. As in Rotterdam, so in Plymouth one may today read of this bold departure of the Pilgrims, commemorating in words writ upon the grand Mayflower Monument the extraordinary event of the journey to discover a better country and thus a better life. We can imagine that these pious people reflected on the words of Hebrews 11 in the Holy Scripture: People who speak in this way make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. If they had been thinking of the land that they had left behind, they would have had opportunity to return. But, as it is, they desired a better country . . . We know that many factors figured in the Pilgrims' decision to leave home and cross the great sea in search of a new land, a better country. As children in public and private schools across America, we are given [[Page E 2286]] opportunity to re-examine the religious and political persecutions and deep yearning of the human spirit which emboldened the Pilgrims to set sail for America. They sought an opportunity to worship as they thought fitting, to engage themselves in self-determination and the utilization of individual gifts for the common purpose of building community. They yearned for a government which would be best described by an American president 243 years after they sailed from Plymouth, a government in which the common people were involved; a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. Yet, strange-seeming upon first consideration, these same Pilgrims who were willing to leave hearth and homeland for a wild and distant country viewed themselves as strangers and foreigners on the earth. As people of God, they sought with great diligence to live as people of faith in an often faithless world. These Pilgrims held values which transcended the simple ``be a good person, be nice to your neighbor'' values in human relationships. These values demanded much more of the individual and of society than simply ``being nice''; these values demanded one''s life commitment to the upbuilding of the kingdom of God. It is no wonder historians who trace the Euro-American pilgrimage from its inception to the present day call the experiment of the Pilgrims by the name ``Zion in the Wilderness''. There was purpose and commitment in what the Pilgrims set out to accomplish. Their journey was to a better country! The Church today is called to remember it is still on that same journey that set sail the Pilgrims so long ago. The Church exists today as resident aliens, an adventurous colony in a society of unbelief. As a society of unbelief, Western culture is devoid of a sense of journey, of adventure, because it lacks belief in much more than the cultivation of an ever-shrinking horizon of self-preservation and self-expression. The ancient Hebrew patriarchs, the disciples of Jesus of Nazareth, the Pilgrims of the seventeenth century, the visionaries who held ``these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness'', the founders of this visionary congregation--First Presbyterian Church of Peoria, IL--160 years ago, all were traveling the road to a better country. They had, as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King has said, ``a dream.'' To tell the truth, that dream, those visions, have taken on the fearful characteristics of a nightmare. The nation--the better country--the Pilgrim people sought to discover and build upon has drifted loose from it moral moorings into a sea of self-centeredness, a Devil's Triangle of you-do-your- thing-and-I'll-do-mine-and-that's-all-that-matters-anyway boorishness that shakes the very foundation of our society. The home of the brave and land of the free in the 1990s-- fifteen generations after the Pilgrims landed on the Massachusetts shore--has become the home of the fearful and the land of the imprisoned. America today has more citizens in prison, per capita, than any other nation in the free world. The experience of being ``free'' is what many do not experience! We have winked at the discord in our nation. We have turned away from taking personal responsibility to become change agents involved in the creation of a better country. We have come to blame the three branches of our federal government for our troubles, making scapegoats of the very people we have elected to lead us. It is hard to hear and harder again to admit, but many of us do not experience freedom as the Pilgrims sought to create to. We are fearful instead. Our everyday lives point to this truth. Consider our overstocked medicine cabinets, burglar alarms, vast ghettos, and drug culture. Eighteen-hundred New Yorkers are murdered every year by their fellow citizens in a city whose police department is larger than the standing army of many nations. We have become fearful of one another. We seem to have lost our way on that journey to a better country. Where is the vision of the Pilgrim people? Why do we cower in fear and confusion, choosing to attempt to outrun the darkness rather than turn and say with conviction, ``Enough!''. Those people of varied races and religious tradition and ages who have taken such a stand against corruption in their individual communities have made a difference, they have shined a light into the darkness and recaptured a vision of a better country. May God bless them, and our native land! The time has come again for the people of God to become a Pilgrim people! The time has come again for the people of God to say what they believe, and to set sail on a journey that will lead us all to a better country. What am I saying? Leave America for another place? Not at all! Despite her flaws, America is yet the greatest nation on earth, for people still risk their lives to make this land their home. Hear me now! I am calling us to recapture the vision of a better country. And to lift up that vision. I am calling us to work together, beginning right here in our own community, to shape a better country so that the little children around us can grow up in a better world. I am calling us to be done with the idiocy of self-centered pettiness that only desecrates, divides, and denigrates the World of God. I am calling us to catch the vision of a better country, and to lift it high in the name of our blessed Lord, Jesus Christ, who has already journeyed ahead of us, calling. ``Follow me!''. How do we do this? How do we answer this call? We begin by doing away with the habit of blaming others for our troubles. We become more proactive and less reactive. I say this to you in response to the challenge before us: 1. Pray without ceasing that God will use you and this congregation to build a better country. Every great change in the nation began in the minds and hearts and spirits of the people who helped make this country great. Change may be facilitated ``out there'', but it must begin in here, in the mind and heart and spirit of the individual. And in the home towns of America. 2. Pray to forgive those who divide and deride; counsel them to repent and turn to the Lord, so their vision may be outward and upward rather than inward and downward. Remember John Kennedy's words: ``Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country!''. Then do it. 3. Open your eyes and your mind to see where your unique, personal gifts can be used to help make life better. For example, offer to ring a bell at a Salvation Army kettle, join hands with others at work in one of our city soup kitchens or other missions, assist as a hospital volunteer, give blood: one pint of that vital fluid may save a life, sign on the line on the back of your driver's license and commit yourself to becoming an organ donor (hundred of thousands of lives could be saved annually if more of us would do this), visit the hospitalized, run an errand for one who is ill, comfort the afflicted, challenge the comfortable, teach in our Sunday School. You get the idea. The need is great; open your eyes and minds and respond. 4. Contact our elected representatives and urge them to remember and act on the words of our sixteenth president, that our government may be of, by and for the people. Rather than deride the people you elected to represent you, work with them to shape a brighter, better future for all who call America home. 5. Live each day as if it were your last, devoting energy to those profoundly simple acts of discipleship we discover by lifting up faith, hope and love. And, in that instant, make a difference for good and to God's glory in the life of someone else. Do you begin to realize what a radical difference you can initiate simply by lifting up the values and mores which helped build this country, those aspects of national character which begin on our hearths and in our hearts as we teach our children about God and goodness and grace? Yes, Christians are always in search of a better country. Those who take their faith seriously endeavor to move beyond a feel-good religion to a follow-Jesus faith. The choice, really, is up to you. You can sit morosely by, captured by a culture of complaint and compliance, or you can let the living God fill your sails with the wind of His Spirit, empowering you to move forward on that journey to a better country. The America of tomorrow awaits your decision to act. Decide wisely, pilgrim, for you touch the trembling, fragile future with your individual hands and hearts. May God bless America. May God bless you. Amen.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. And I assume you probably had as your patients senior citizens.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield further, I want to make a point here for the people that happen to be watching our discussion. For those people who do not know it, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon] is a doctor. He is a freshman Member of the 104th Congress. I guess, what, he was a family practitioner, is that correct?

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I think this. I think when people are presented with the facts, not a 30-second commercial, because if you tell people a lie often enough, they will believe it, so when people are not told the facts they begin to believe that that is the truth. But when people are presented with the facts, which you have just presented, that we want to preserve and protect, and that their benefit is not going to be cut, it is not going to be decreased, they begin to get the correct information and begin to know that we are trying to strengthen, to preserve, to protect a program that has worked well.