Ray LaHood

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the resolution.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Traficant amendment.

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

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, immediately following this series of votes, there is a reception for all retiring Members in Statuary Hall, and I hope that all Members will come over there and join us in saluting our retiring Members. Please join us over there.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to the frequent flyer program that is currently being run down at the Federal Aviation Administration. But unlike other frequent flyer programs, you don't have to earn your free flight in this program--all you have to do is sign up. What I am referring to, of course, is the FAA's Liaison and Familiarization Training Program (FAM), a program that was originally created to give air traffic controllers an awareness of, and familiarization with, cockpit and pilot procedures by allowing them to ride in the cockpit's jump seat. This program, while laudable in purpose, has unfortunately turned into a ``popular perk'' for FAA employees who are more interested in getting free air travel for vacations and personal reasons than they are in observing and learning about cockpit and safety procedures. The abuses of this program were so bad, in fact, that the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation recently recommended a number of reforms be made to the program. It is, in the words of one airline's slogan, becoming obvious that FAA employees love to fly, and it shows. Today, I am introducing a bill that will implement the Inspector General's reforms in order to curb the rampant and widespread abuse of the FAM program by FAA employees. In an August, 3, 1998 memo to Jane Garvey, the FAA Administrator, Kenneth Mead, the DOT's Inspector General (IG), reiterated his concern over the ``serious continuing, and widespread lapse of ethics in the Liaison and Familiarization program (FAM).'' This program, which dates back to the 1940's, was originally created in order to allow FAA employees, particularly air traffic controllers, to ride in an airline cockpit's jump seat in order to become familiar with the environment in which pilots operate. However, over the past two decades this program has been increasingly misused by employees. And, I don't think I need to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that accepting gifts of free travel is in direct contravention to a host of laws, regulations, and executive orders. Among the rampant abuses that were detailed in a February 20, 1996 IG report were the following: an employee that took 12 weekend trips in a 15-month period to visit his family in Tampa, Florida; an employee that took 10 weekend trips in a 9-month period to visit the city where he ultimately retired; an employee that took 7 trips to Fort Myers or Tampa, Florida, and 2 trips to Las Vegas, Nevada, utilizing weekends and regular days off to travel; travel by an employee that utilized annual leave or regular days off to take 7 trips to Los Angeles, California, and 1 trip to Munich, Germany; and employee that took 17 trips to his military reserve duty stations; and 7 couples that took 21 flights for extended weekends and vacations. And, according to an article published in the Washington Post, 247,840 authorizations for travel under the auspices of this program were issued by the FAA between January 1993 and April 1994. Unfortunately, the FAA failed to act on this 1996 report, and that is why I am introducing legislation that will reform this program so that these abuses and ethical violations will not occur in the future. The Inspector General's August 3 memo makes several recommendations for reform. I believe these recommendations are valid, reasonable, and absolutely necessary in order to curb the ethical lapses that have occurred, while still preserving the program's valuable training and safety benefits. My bill simply adopts the recommendations of the Inspector General and requires the FAA to transmit a report to Congress on the implementation of these reforms. Specifically, the IG's report makes the following recommendations precluding FAM travel that ``(1) involve travel on leave days or days off; (2) involve scheduled leave of days off between the outgoing flight and the return flight when management makes an affirmative documented determination that such is for legitimate purposes and will not create an appearance of impropriety; or (3) involve foreign overseas travel for an employee in a facility that does not work oceanic airspace.'' In addition, the IG report makes the further recommendation that ``appropriate controls must require preapproval of FAM flights by supervisory personnel and only then when the supervisor determines that the specific flight meets official training needs of the FAA.'' It is time that we reform this program. The abuses have gone on for too long, so long, in fact, that the program is considered an entitlement by air traffic controllers in their contract negotiations with the FAA. This program has, according to the IG, become ``what is widely understood to be a popular `perk' for many FAA employees''--a perk that I believe needs to end.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join you and Chairman Smith in support of S. 2344 and ask for its unanimous consideration by the House. As a cosponsor of its House companions S. 2344 would allow farmers the option of receiving all the Agriculture Market Transition Act (AMTA) contract payments for fiscal year 1999 immediately after the beginning of the fiscal year. Mr. Speaker, the bill would make $5.5 billion available as much as one year early to help farmers cope with the cash shortage they are now experiencing due to low prices. For the State of Illinois, the changes will mean an extra $500 million into the hands of farmers who choose the advance payment schedule. The bill also increases the flexibility we gave farmers with the 1996 farm bill. It will let them, not the government, decide if receiving payments early is the best thing for their farms. Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, because the AMTA payments occur in the same fiscal year, there is no Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scored cost to this proposal. Congress has the opportunity to address the current cash shortage on the farm without incurring any budget cost and give U.S. farmers the opportunity to solve cash shortage problems immediately. Finally, Mr. Speaker, S. 2344 does not lessen the urgency for Congress and the Administration to use important trade tools. The Administration promised farmers that it would use the Export Enhancement Program (EEP) to its maximum to secure foreign markets for U.S. Agricultural products. The 1996 Farm Bill made over $1.5 billion available for EEP in 1996-99. To date, the Administration's use of EEP has been anemic. Also, Congress needs to pass Fast Track and fully fund the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Without these tools, America, and American farmers will continue to lag behind in the international trade arena. Let's stop the erosion in farm exports. S. 2344 is a good start.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 311, I move that the House do now adjourn in memory of the late Detective John Michael Gibson and Private First Class Jacob Joseph Chestnut.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a House Concurrent Resolution calling for heightened Congressional oversight over the implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). As you know, Mr. Speaker, FQPA was unanimously enacted in the 104th Congress with bipartisan support. By its enactment, congress intended to ensure the use of sound science in federal regulation of pesticides, replace the ``Delaney Clause'' with a unified standard, and institute workable protections of infants and children. FQPA's enactment was hailed, by Republicans and Democrats alike, as a remarkable bipartisan effort, after more than a decade of effort. The implementation of FQPAs goal ensures that the proper use of safe pesticides is a critical element in protecting public health and making for a safe, abundant, and affordable supply of food. Conclusively, FQPA provided the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with wide latitude to adapt its regulatory system to incorporate constantly improving scientific information as it becomes available. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, EPA's interpretation of Congressional intent has many in production agriculture calling for increased oversight of EPA actions. Congress never intended nor expected FQPA to result in major disruptions to U.S. agriculture or other activities which require pest control tools. EPA's actions have also led many to conclude that EPA was proceeding with unilateral cancellations of some pesticides which could harm the production of certain crops on millions of acres of U.S. crophand. As grower concerns heightened, the Administration responded with a Memorandum to both the EPA and the USDA. The ``Memo'' outlined four principals which would guide EPA and USDA as they work together on FQPA implementation. The four principals are: Sound Science in Protecting Public Health: Transparency: Reasonable Transition for Agriculture; and Consultation with the Public and Other Agencies. While the effort is laudable and has produced new dialogue, Mr. Speaker, it is time, once again, for Congress to make its wishes known on this truly historic legislative achievement. Consequently, I am introducing a House Concurrent Resolution (H. Con. Res.) incorporating the goals of the ``Memo'', along with other guiding principals. The Resolution is meant to re-affirm Congress' commitment to a fair FQPA implementation. Mr. Speaker, I ask for the support of my colleagues and for its eventual adoption.

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 USA Gold Award by the Kickapoo Council of Girl Scouts in Peoria, Illinois. The following four girls received this award: Robin Fuller of Troop 438; Diane Hegwood of Troop 1000; and Miranda Hoyle and Tracy Potter, both individuals of the council. The Gold Award is the highest achievement award in the Girl Scouts. It symbolizes outstanding accomplishments in the areas of leadership, community service, career planning, and personal development. The Girl Scout Award can be earned by girls age 14-17 or by girls 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 Scouts Gold Awards to Senior Girl Scouts since the inception of the program in 1980. To receive the award, a Girl Scout must fulfill the following requirements: (1) earn four interest project patches; (2) earn the Career Exploration Pin; (3) earn the Senior Girl Scout Leadership Award; and (4) 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. Robin Fuller began work on her Girl Scout Gold Award in 1996. She completed her project by training the local library staff on how to use the Internet. The remainder of her project was to train patrons of the library with the skills needed to use the Internet. Diana Hegwood began to work on her Girl Scout Gold Award in 1995. She completed her project by creating a story time for young children at the public library. The goal of the project is to encourage literacy by reading to the children. In addition to reading, Diana also created fun and educational activities for children. Miranda Hoyle and Tracy Potter began working on their Gold Scout Gold Award in 1996. Miranda and Tracy completed their project by creating a video about all aspects of Girl Scouting. This video will be used as a recruitment tool to present the world of Girl Scouting to girls who are currently not involved. 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 service to the community and to the country.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the assault two weeks in a row by the chairman of the Committee on Rules, I am glad that we are finally at the point where we can pass in a very bipartisan way this bill. I think some of us who have worked for the last year and a half in many ways dislike the tactics that were used to assault a bill that was passed in a very bipartisan way. I am glad that we are at the point now that I am sure it will pass overwhelmingly. I give a good amount of credit to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) for the many hearings that they held, for wanting to reach out to every Member that had any interest in agriculture to say, give us good information and we will put a bill together. And they did that. And to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), our thanks to them, too. For me personally, I have one of the four ag research labs in my home town of Peoria. This bill means an awful lot. For agriculture it is just not growing corn and soybeans. Research is the future of agriculture well into the 21st century. That is why this bill is important, because what happens in these ag research labs and what happens at the University of Illinois in Champaign, Illinois as a result of this bill means that corn farmers and soybean farmers and people that grow commodities and crops all over this country will have the advantage of the best research anywhere in the world. I am delighted to have played a very small part in that. In addition, this bill contains an opportunity for those of us who live in States where these megahog farm operations are beginning to crop up all over to really do some swine odor research over the next four or five years, to really try and go after the problem that has been created by megahog operations not just in Illinois but in other parts of the country. I know that Members grin and smile when we talk about swine odor research but if they have one of these megahog operations crop up in one of their communities, they know it is a very serious problem. This bill also helps address that. So for the future of agriculture, for the future of research in agriculture, I ask everyone in the House to support the bill.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing a bill that will help restore integrity and equity to the process of the collection and payment of motor fuel taxes on Native American lands. I am pleased to be able to introduce this bill with the support of 8 bipartisan cosponsors: Representative Sandlin (D-TX), Representative Istook (R- OK), Representative Danner (D-MO), Representative Blunt (R-MO), Representative Coburn (R-OK), Representative Bill Barrett (R-NE), Representative Doc Hastings (R-WA), and Representative Ehler (R-MI). Taxes placed on the sale of motor fuels directly supports the efforts of state and federal governments in building and repairing our nation's roads and bridges. In order for our states to play their role in our transportation system, they need to be sure that they are collecting all of their motor fuel taxes. Unfortunately, that is not currently the case. Currently, some Native American tribes do not always collect and remit gas tax receipts to the appropriate government. This practice has cost the states a significant amount of revenue that could have been used to improve roads and bridges. Lost revenue estimates for some states are in the millions. It is estimated that Oklahoma, alone, lost roughly $13 million in motor fuel tax receipts for FY '96. Many other states are also adversely affected, for example: Washington State, Oregon, Idaho, New Mexico, Kansas, Michigan, and New York. The bill that I am introducing seeks to address this problem. It will prohibit the Secretary of Transportation from allocating funds for public lands highways on Indian lands and reservations unless either (a) the Indian tribe has entered into a written agreement with the state in which the highway is located that provides procedures for the payment and collection of motor fuel taxes that are sold to a non- Native American by a retail establishment that is located on such land, or (b) the Indian tribe refuses to enter into a written agreement and/ but the allocation of funds is essential to the construction or maintenance of a highway or road that is a critical component of the National Highway System. The primary aim of this plan is to ensure that non-Native Americans pay and are assessed the gas tax. This plan is not intended to infringe on tribal sovereignty, rather, it is meant to encourage the tribes to work cooperatively with the states in order to formulate a mutually-agreeable compact on the subject of motor fuel taxation. In addition, this bill does not address the issues of gambling or cigarette taxes--it focuses only on the collection and remission of motor fuel taxes. This bill will yield numerous benefits. First, it would help ensure that states have adequate funds for road maintenance and construction. Second, it would end an inherent unfairness posed by the sale of tax- free fuel on Native American lands. And, third, it would preserve jobs and keep businesses open. Many purchasers of motor fuel, both gasoline and diesel, are likely to travel to Indian lands, because they know they can avoid paying state motor fuel taxes. And, the motive to do this can be great for many drivers. In fact, in some states, the tax on gasoline can be as high as 34 cent per gallon and 28 cents per gallon for diesel. The sale of tax-free fuel poses serious concerns for retailers who must pay the tax and who are located within a reasonable distance of the Indian reservation, because the Native American retail establishments, by selling gas at a lower price (i.e., without the tax) have the potential to put countless numbers of establishments out of business. For example, avoiding the tax on diesel fuel for a typical truck with a 250 gallon tank could mean a savings of $70--a sufficiently large amount to justify a trucker traveling to Native American lands to refuel his or her truck. At the very least, a trucker could plan or time his, or her, routes to ensure that they purchase tax-free fuel on Native American lands. I urge Members to consider the impacts caused by the non-collection and remission of motor fuel taxes on Native American lands and to cosponsor this legislation.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, funding levels: $217 billion total over the next six years; $181 million for highways and highway safety; and $36 billion for transit. Illinois will receive nearly 36 percent more per year under BESTEA. Illinois received $684 million per year under ISTEA and will now receive over $1 billion per year under BESTEA. Illinois needs: According to IDOT, more than 98 percent of highway and bridge funding will have to be allocated to the repair of existing roads and bridges over the next five years. For the first time in 14 years, the number of road miles considered to be in poor condition will increase from 2,300 miles to 4,300 miles. 10,681 miles are considered to be in poor or mediocre condition--this is roughly \1/3\ of the total federal aid miles for Illinois (i.e., \1/ 3\ of Illinois' federal aid highway miles are in poor or mediocre condition). Illinois Citizens for Better Highways released a report that concluded that rural road repairs, upgrades and bridge replacements are underfunded b7 $227 million annually. For example, Tazewell County, alone, will need $8.3 million over the next five years for highway and bridge rehabilitation. IDOT estimates that 42 percent of county roads and 51 percent of township roads are substandard. Special additional federal funding is needed so that Illinois can restore and maintain such important roadways as the Stevenson Expressway and I-74 running through Peoria. Stevenson Expressway repairs are expected to cost $567 million; I-74 rehabilitation and reconstruction is expected to cost $193.6 million. National needs: The demand for high cost interstate highway reconstruction funds has outpaced the money available by more than 9 to 1. In FY '96 alone, 18 states requested $687 million in project work, while only six states were awarded a total of $66 million in funding. Limited funds meant that $621 million in requests went unfunded in 1996. The current ISTEA I-4R (reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing and repair program) level is averaging only $63 million per year. In 1993, almost 32 percent of the Interstate pavement was in poor or mediocre condition, and 60% of the nation's major roads are considered by the federal government to be substandard and in need of repair. The FHWA estimated that $202.6 billion ($10.1 billion annually) is needed over the next 20 years to maintain the 1993 conditions and performance of the Interstate system. Of that amount, 40 percent would be needed just for system preservation. In order to preserve today's pavement quality, 100,000 miles of roads would have to be restored every year. Safety hazards caused by poor roads and highways: According to the Keep America Moving Coalition, ``Substandard designs, outdated safety features, poor pavement quality and other road conditions are a factor in 30% of all fatal highway accidents.'' FHWA has found that converting two-lane roads to four-lane roads with a median decreased traffic deaths by 71%. Widening a two-lane road by just two feet reduces accidents by 23%. Economic costs to motorists caused by poor roads and highways: American motorists suffer expenses of $21.5 billion annually in vehicle operating and maintenance costs due to damage caused by driving on poor roads. This translates to costs of $122 per driver. General economic benefits of road and highway investments: FHWA estimates that for every $1 billion in highway investment, 42,100 jobs are created. Every dollar invested in the Interstate Highway System generates $6 in economic returns. BESTEA solutions to poor quality roads: Section 113 of BESTEA provides a formula and discretionary grant program that will provide significant amounts of money over the next 6 years to repair and resurface high cost interstate highways: $165 million for FY '98; $412.5 million for FY '99; $670 million for FY '2000 through 2003. These funds would be available to fund ``major reconstruction or improvement projects on the Interstate system. In order to be eligible, a project must cost over $200 million or cost more than 50% of a State's Federal-aid highway apportionments.'' The project must also be ready to go to construction.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing the attached four bills at the request of a chemical manufacturer in my Congressional District. Enactment will increase this company's ability to compete in a highly competitive U.S. agricultural market. These bills will also improve the health of our environment, because the products involved are used in lower concentrations than chemicals used today, and they break down quicker in the environment than the older generation of products. Suspension of the duty on these products will have a positive effect on U.S. companies, because they are not currently manufactured in the United States. A BILL To provide for reductions in duty for the chemical DPX-E9260 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to address the issue of whether, in fact, the airport is named after George Washington. The current official name of the airport is Washington National Airport, not George Washington National Airport. The Washington is in the name to indicate the market in the airport service. The name in the bill, Ronald Reagan National Airport, is consistent with the approach taken by other airports named after Presidents. For example, there is the John F. Kennedy, JFK, International Airport in New York. I wonder what the public outcry was when that airport was renamed. It would be interesting to check that. Also, there is the George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston. Nobody thinks that name change slighted Sam Houston. I wonder what the public outcry was when that airport was renamed. Concerns that the name chosen for this airport would somehow denigrate the memory of George Washington are, quite frankly, without foundation. The term ``Washington'' was included in the 1940 name of the airport to indicate the market the airport served; that is, Washington, D.C. The term ``Washington'' included in the name of the other two local airports was not to honor the man but to indicate the market. For example, Public Law 98-510 in 1984 named Dulles International Airport the Washington Dulles International Airport. I do not believe there was a big outcry when that airport was named, but it would be interesting to check the record. The purpose of this renaming was not to minimize the contribution of John Foster Dulles but to indicate to passengers that Dulles serves the Washington market. And I know it is going to be hard to refute this, because I am sure my colleague does not have the evidence to go back and look at the record to see what kind of public outcry there was, but in any event the gentleman may use his time when I am finished. Similarly Baltimore Washington International Airport, BWI, was given that name not to honor Lord Baltimore and George Washington but, rather, to indicate to passengers that that airport served both Baltimore and Washington, D.C. The Reagan International Airport, with its close proximity to Washington, D.C., is now so closely associated with the Nation's capital that there is no real need to continue to include ``Washington'' in the title. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LaHOOD. If we could name it after Mayor Daley or Governor Thompson or somebody like that, I certainly think the people of Illinois would----

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn).

Mr. LaHOOD. It is not a Federal facility.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).

Mr. LaHOOD. Dulles was.

Mr. LaHOOD. Dulles was.

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

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I stand in the well today to encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 2534, the Research and Extension Reauthorization Act. The bill fulfills a commitment the Republican Congress made over 2 years ago to our Nation's farmers and ranchers. In return for a more market-oriented Federal farm policy, Congress would enact a more farmer-friendly Tax Code and increase our investment in agriculture research as we head into the 21st century. The Federal Government must continue to lead the way in market developments and in finding new ways to utilize America's grown products. Mr. Speaker, upon passage today, we will have delivered on our promises. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Combest], the chairman of the subcommittee, who I know was here earlier, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley], the ranking member, who I also see in the Chamber, for their leadership on this important issue, and also the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith], the chairman of the committee,. Strong agricultural research programs have enabled America's farmers and ranchers to produce the highest quality food and fiber in the world at competitive prices. H.R. 2534 updates and modernizes our research programs so that American farmers will maintain their competitive edge in an increasingly global market. From the start, I was committed to passing an agricultural research bill that does more with our research dollars in an ever-increasing tight budget environment. This country has for many years been referred to as the ``breadbasket'' to the world. We could not talk about America and her greatness without first acknowledging the role that the family farm has played, and we are the most productive country in the world. The family farm is largely responsible for these unprecedented accomplishments. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important bill. We had the good fortune of having folks from our community in the agriculture research lab testify and offer testimony, and our home community of Peoria has an agriculture research lab and benefits immensely, as well as the University of Illinois, and I encourage all Members to support this important legislation.