Ray LaHood

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to vacate the 5- minute special order granted today to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 82) and I ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise, today, to congratulate Mr. Jon ware, a constituent of mine, on his recent election to the post of senior vice president of the Petroleum Marketers Association of America [PMAA]. It is, indeed, an honor for me to be able to offer my compliments and best wishes to Mr. Ware. This recent election only serves to highlight his exemplary career and service to his community. His depth and breadth of experience in the oil and petroleum business will undoubtedly serve his organization well as he assumes the post of senior vice president. Jon has been a petroleum marketer since 1959, and over the years he has served in a variety of jobs and capacities within the petroleum industry, including past president of the Illinois Petroleum Marketers Association [IPMA], director of the IPMA to the PMAA, and a regional vice president of the PMAA. In addition to Jon's outstanding record in his profession, he has been actively involved in serving his community of Jacksonville, IL. His civic services have included involvement in community youth sports leagues, service as past president of a local YMCA, chairman of the Jacksonville Airport Authority, and a member of the Advisory Council of the Illinois Department of Agriculture. Again, Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to be able to offer my sincerest congratulations to Jon Ware on his latest achievement. I wish him good luck as he assumes his new responsibilities.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, last year I introduced H.R. 1137, a bill that ends the most pervasive abuse of the frank--sending out unsolicited, self-promotional mass mailings. My bill specifically targets this abuse. it would crack down on mass mailings harder than any other legislation currently under consideration. The current, increased interest in reforming the way campaigns are conducted only increases the relevance and importance of this bill. Title 39 of the U.S. Code defines the types of mailings that are frankable. Included in this definition are the ``usual and customary'' congressional newsletter, press release, or questionnaire. The legislation I am reintroducing would simply strike mailings of this type from the code, thereby disallowing future use of the frank for these purposes. Other franking reform proposals have centered around dangerous numbers games that leave open the possibility of abuse. Rather than try to settle on some arbitrary formula, my legislation will get to the heart of the problem. Reducing the definition of mass from 500 to 100, or debating whether the franking allowance should be reduced by 50 percent or 33 percent misses the mark. The problem that needs to be addressed is use of the frank as a campaign tool whose real information purpose is to make constituents aware of how deserving we are of reelection. I urge my colleagues to consider cosponsoring this important piece of legislation.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, Today, I am proud to introduce, along with Congressman Wise from West Virginia, a constitutional amendment that seeks to end the arcane and obsolete institution known as the electoral college. It is no accident that this bill is being introduced today, the day that the electoral ballots are opened and counted in the presence of the House and Senate. I hope that the timing of this bill's introduction will only underscore the fact that the time has come to put an end to this archaic practice that we must endure every 4 years. Only the President and the Vice President of the United States are currently elected indirectly by the electoral college--and not by the voting citizens of this country. All other elected officials, from the local officeholder up to U.S. Senator, are elected directly by the people. Our bill will replace the complicated electoral college system with the simple method of using the popular vote to decide the winner of a Presidential election. By switching to a direct voting system, we can avoid the result of electing a President who failed to win the popular vote. This out come has, in fact, occurred three times in our history and resulted in the elections of John Quincy Adams, 1824, Rutherford B. Hayes, 1876, and Benjamin Harrison, 1888. In addition to the problem of electing a President who failed to receive the popular vote, the electoral college system also allows for the peculiar possibility of having Congress decide the outcome should a Presidential ticket fail to receive a majority of the electoral college votes. Should this happen, the 12th amendment requires the House of Representatives to elect a President and the Senate to elect a Vice President. Such an occurrence would clearly not be in the best interest of the people, for they would be denied the ability to directly elect those who serve in our highest offices. This bill will put to rest the electoral college and its potential for creating contrary and singular election results. And, it is introduced not without historical precedent. In 1969, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a bill calling for the abolition of the electoral college and putting a system of direct election in its place. Despite passing the House by a vote of 338 to 70, the bill got bogged down in the Senate where a filibuster blocked its progress. So, it is in the spirit of this previous action that we introduce legislation to end the electoral college. I am hopeful that our fellow members on both sides of the aisle will stand with us by cosponsoring this important piece of legislation.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3153 which, through the hard work of Congressmen Tom Ewing and Steve Buyer, has been amended to provide relief for farmers and agricultural drivers from the Department of Transportation's rulemaking of the transportation of hazardous materials. I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing], the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Poshard], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] for spearheading this important effort that will help protect farmers from unnecessary regulation. Unfortunately, neither could be present today due to long-standing prior commitments, but I believe they deserve our sincere thanks for moving this forward. I also want to thank Congressman Oberstar for being so helpful to the agricultural community. Their leadership on this issue has been extremely valuable. Absent substantial modifications, the HM-200 rulemaking presently being proposed by the U.S. DOT/Research and Special Programs Administration would supersede every State exception granted to the agriculture industry for transfer of agricultural production materials, such as fertilizers, and fuel from retail-to-farm and from farm-to-farm. The agreement contained in section 4 of H.R. 3143 would provide relief for farmers and retailers, and allow States to do exactly what they are now doing, until after Congress has had a chance to review, and correct if necessary, DOT's final rule. The agreement in the bill today would continue the current practice regarding the transportation of agricultural products until after Congress passes a reauthorization of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety Act, or through the 1998 planting season. All of the congressional supporters of H.R. 3799 and H.R. 4102, the Farm Transportation Regulatory Relief Act, realize that agriculture has unique needs and operates under critical seasonal time pressures. Burdening farmers with unnecessary bureaucratic requirements such as having to placard their trucks, carry shipping documents, and provide a 24-hour emergency response phone number will only impede farmers' ability to efficiently plant and care for their crops. These regulations, Madam Speaker, will not improve rural highway safety--they will only hurt our Nation's farmers.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

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 rise today to pay tribute to MacMurray College of Jacksonville, IL. MacMurray College is celebrating its sesquicentennial anniversary and will be closing out its year-long celebration on October 12 and 13, 1996, in conjunction with its homecoming weekend. MacMurray College was founded in 1846 as a small, liberal arts school. At that time, it was an all women's college; a brother school was formed in 1955. The two were merged in 1969, making MacMurray the coeducational school that it is today. For the past 150 years, it has given all of its students a broad-based and well-rounded education and has done a tremendous job preparing our children for the rigors of the real world. MacMurray's small size and its 13-to-1 student-faculty ratio have given its students an opportunity to receive a highly personalized education, and to really form a close and lasting bond with their instructors. This is especially meaningful to me because of my teaching background. I understand how much students can benefit from forming close relationships with their instructors, an opportunity which is readily available at MacMurray. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be able to say that I represent this college and its students as a Member of Congress. It is institutions like MacMurray that help our children learn, grow, and become leaders, both in our own communities and throughout the country and the world. I hope that all of you will join me in congratulating the faculty, students, employees, and graduates of MacMurray College for all of their accomplishments and milestones reached during their first 150 years of existence, and I know you will all join me in wishing them well during the next 150.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and commend the Big Brothers-Big Sisters of Metropolitan Chicago. This organization is one of the most important charities serving the children of Chicago. Congress has long been committed to Big Brothers-Big Sisters by providing needed funding and volunteer support. This support has been essential to the organization because Big Brothers-Big Sisters relies on significant support from individual donors, philanthropic organizations and the business community. One important source of funding for the organization has been the Big Brothers-Big Sisters Pro-Celebrity Golf Classic. This golf tournament has raised over $250,000 over the past 5 years and is exclusively supported by generous donations from individual donors and corporations. I, therefore, ask that August 19, 1996 be proclaimed as the Big Brothers-Big Sisters of Metropolitan Chicago Day, and I urge all citizens to recognize this organization for the many contributions it has made to provide services to needy children. Congress of The United States--Proclamation Whereas, the Big Brothers-Big Sisters of Metropolitan Chicago is one of the most important charities serving the children of Chicago; and Whereas, the Congress of the United States has been committed to Big Brothers-Big Sisters by providing needed funding and volunteer support; and Whereas, Big Brothers-Big Sisters of Metropolitan Chicago cannot adequately serve the needs of children without significant support from individual donors, philanthropic organizations and the business community; and Whereas, the Big Brothers-Big Sisters Pro-Celebrity Golf Classic is an important source of funding for the agency having raised over $250,000 for the agency over the past five (5) years and is exclusively supported by generous donations from individual donors and corporations: Now, Therefore, the Congress of the United States, do hereby proclaim August 19, 1996, to be Big Brothers-Big Sisters of Metropolitan Chicago Day, and urge all citizens to recognize this organization for the many contributions it has made to provide services to needy children. Dated this 24th day of July 1996.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say that I regret very much that I was not able to be on the floor when a number of Members rose to pay tribute to Bill Emerson, and I urge all Members today, as we have a very spirited debate, to keep in our thoughts and prayers Bill Emerson and the work that he did on behalf of his constituents. As we meet here at this hour, there is a service being conducted for him in Cape Girardeau, MO, and I urge all Members to remember Bill and in the days and months ahead to remember Jo Ann Emerson and Bill Emerson's family.

Mr. LaHOOD

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

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, if the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin does not prevail, would the gentleman then be prepared to support the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois?

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

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I would just make this point. If this decision were made on the merits, we would not be standing here. This administration has politicized the Eximbank by sending them a memo saying ``Do not fund this.'' So it is not us coming over here trying to exert influence. This agency has been politicized by the Clinton administration. There is no question about it. If they had not done that, if Exim would have done what they are supposed to have done, been professional, done it on the merits, it would be different. That is why we are here, because we are irritated about the fact that it has been so politicized. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Mr. Manzullo's amendment to H.R. 3540, the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1997, and want to personally commend the chairman of the Subcommittee on Procurement Exports, and Business Opportunities for his efforts to assist U.S. businesses in their endeavor to compete in the world market. Mr. Chairman, this amendment specifically addresses the fiscal year 1997 appropriation for the Export-Import Bank and seeks to reduce their administrative costs by 2.5 percent, in proportion to the amount of reduction in subsidies, rather than increasing administrative costs by 4.2 percent as set forth in this legislation. My reasons for supporting this amendment are many, but I would like to take this time to discuss only one example that has prompted me to support this reduction in administrative costs. This concerns the recent announcement by Martin Kamarck, president and chairman of the Eximbank, in which he stated that the Board concluded that the Eximbank cannot issue a letter of interest for the Three Gorges Dam project in China, the largest hydroelectric project in the world, and one in which I have had considerable interest because of the effect it would have on a company in my district, and the people it employs. Even though this particular project was found financially credit worthy and technically sound by the Board, it concluded that a letter of interest could not be provided to U.S. companies seeking to do business with China because of a lack of information from the Chinese relative to environmental concerns. Mr. Kamarck went on to further comment that this decision does not limit U.S. companies from privately participating in the Three Gorges project. First, it seems to me that if the staff of the Eximbank were not able to provide enough information on the environmental concerns to the Board, then the Board should not have voted until this information had been obtained. On this particular point, my office staff, as well as numerous others, inquired from time-to-time throughout the review process as to whether or not additional information was needed, and we were told repeatedly that they had enough information to make a recommendation. Second, if the Eximbank is not going to assist U.S. companies, but suggests that they participate privately, then maybe we should be thinking about whether or not we need the Eximbank at all. I do not think we need to be rewarding an organization that does not seem to be following the process as it was intended by Congress and changes the goalposts in the process, thereby hurting U.S. businesses in their efforts to compete with other countries who are now involved in selling equipment to China for this project. Officials at Caterpillar, a large supplier of Earth moving equipment in my district, have suggested to me that what we should be doing is to increase the administrative appropriation at Eximbank, rather than reducing it, so they can hire more environmentalists to do the obviously needed staff work on projects such as this, but I disagree. the Eximbank has been touted by the administration as one of the brightest stars in their campaign to promote U.S. exports, but I believe their reputation has suffered as a result of the delay on this matter of providing export-finance assistance for the sale of United States goods to China for use in building that country's massive project. Mr. Chairman, I believe we should vote to reduce the administrative costs for the Eximbank by the same amount that we have reduced the subsidy, and I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Manzullo's amendment.

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

Mr. LaHOOD. I just want to make one point, Mr. Chairman. I respect the gentleman's point of view on this.

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

Mr. LaHOOD. If the gentleman would further yield, I wonder, if the gentleman's own amendment goes down, if he would be willing to support ours, then, since then he would be accomplishing what he is trying to accomplish here. He would reduce by an amount of money the ability of them to do what he wants.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman recognize the inconsistency that I tried to point out here, though, with trying to portray the thing in two different lights by the administration?

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

Mr. LaHOOD. Then how can the administration run up here on Capitol Hill, then, and try to persuade all of us to vote for MFN? Where are their environmental and humanitarian concerns when it comes to that issue?

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Texas, it is very clear why they made this decision, because the Clinton administration told them to make it. They told them how to direct this money and they told them not to direct it onto the Three Gorges project.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude by saying this. If the Members who are in their offices watching this debate on this amendment want to be consistent on MFN, what they ought to do is vote for this amendment and continue to send a strong signal that we cannot have it both ways. This is the classic Clinton attempt to have it both ways. It is nonsense, and we should not stand by and let it happen. That will send a strong message. I encourage Members who care about American business and care about companies doing business abroad to do this.

Mr. LaHOOD. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.