Ray LaHood

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice congratulations to the Appraisal Institute on its 75th Anniversary and for its advancement of the real estate appraisal profession. Established in 1932 to bring clarity to the real estate appraisal and valuation process in those turbulent times, the Appraisal Institute, with its national office in Chicago, Illinois, is the largest professional association of real estate appraisers, representing more than 21,000 real estate appraisal practitioners in the United States and abroad. Serving as an impartial third party in real estate transactions, members of the Appraisal Institute play an important role in maintaining integrity in the real estate market. Their unbiased and professional opinions are used everyday by builders, developers and financiers of commercial, industrial and residential properties. Armed with extensive knowledge and expertise, members of the Appraisal Institute assist federal, state and local governmental agencies that acquire, manage and dispose of real property throughout the country. Founded on the premise that superior education and adherence to high ethical standards are central to the profession, the Appraisal Institute established professional designation programs to recognize achievement in these areas. Today more than 11,000 members of the Appraisal Institute hold its prestigious MAI, SRA and SRPA designations. They have demonstrated their knowledge, skill and ethical performance through a stringent program of examinations and work product review. Through its education, publishing and membership designation programs, the Appraisal Institute positions its members as the preferred choice for real estate solutions. The Appraisal Institute has a long history of supporting initiatives consistent with the public good that promote the use of competent appraisers, including the licensing and certification of appraisers. The organization was instrumental in the development of national uniform appraisal standards recognized by Congress in 1989. The Appraisal Institute continues to advocate for important public policy issues affecting consumers and homebuyers, including laws that would strengthen oversight and enforcement mechanisms designed to prevent mortgage fraud. The Appraisal Institute supports equal opportunity and nondiscrimination in the appraisal profession and is committed to promoting diversity within its membership and throughout the real estate profession. Through scholarships, training and advocacy the Appraisal Institute's diversity program seeks to enhance opportunities for minorities, women and those individuals new to the profession. For 75 years the Appraisal Institute has been a beacon of integrity for the real estate appraisal profession and for those it serves. In recognition of its theme for 2007, Celebrating Our Past, Valuing the Future, I congratulate the Appraisal Institute and its members for their years of service, and I wish them continued success in their mission.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Thank you, Congressman Kirk. I appreciate the fact that you were able to arrange the time for those of us here in the House that want to pay high honor to Henry Hyde for his service to our country and to the people of Illinois and to the people of the world. Certainly his service as chairman of the International Relations Committee has been service to not only Illinois and our great country but also to people all around the world, because he has become somebody who has been an advocate for those who have had little voice in their own countries and an advocate for those who have had little voice in their opportunities to share in the same kind of democracy that we have in this country. Illinois has a rich heritage of sending to Washington, DC, distinguished Americans, not the least of whom certainly was Abraham Lincoln, who served in this House for one term; not the least of whom was Everett Dirksen, who served in this House for several terms and then went over to the other body; not the least of whom was my predecessor, Bob Michel. So I have had the privilege of coming from a State that has sent to Washington, DC, men of great honor, great integrity, men and women who have served the country so well. And Henry will certainly go down in the annals of the history of Illinois, the history of our country, as being one of those men. A distinguished career here in the House. A career that, unlike probably almost any other Member, he has been able to chair two very significant committees, the Judiciary Committee for 6 years and because of the term limits on our side, he had to give up that chairmanship, but he served with great distinction on that committee and handled one of the most contentious issues ever to come before the House of Representatives in the history of the House, and that was the impeachment of a President. And he did it with great integrity, great honesty, and in a way that I think distinguished him and distinguished the Judiciary Committee and distinguished the House of Representatives. As the chairman of the International Relations Committee, he has served the House very well and served the Members very well. As he retires, tomorrow marks probably the last day for the 109th Congress and the last day for Mr. Hyde to have an opportunity to be a voting Member of this great deliberative body. I know that so many on both sides of the aisle have the highest regard and respect for his service here. In addition to serving in both important committees, as Chair of important committees, Judiciary and International Relations, the one thing that I think Congressman Hyde will be remembered for certainly is being the loudest and the strongest voice for the unborn, for those who have not had a voice, for those who have not had the opportunity to have their voice heard. He has been the strongest advocate for what has been commonly referred to as the ``Hyde amendment'' that restricts Federal funding for abortions. And that issue is an issue that he will long be remembered for, along with many other issues, but one that I know he is very, very proud of. His service to those who have not had a voice but he has given them voice in this House of Representatives. So as we say fond farewell to our friend from the northern part of Illinois, from the Sixth District of Illinois, we say God speed. We say job well done. We say what an honor it has been for those of us not only from Illinois but for the entire body to say that we have served with a giant, a giant in so many ways, a giant known as Henry J. Hyde, the Congressman from the Sixth District, the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the current chairman of the Committee on International Relations, someone who has made a mark in the history of the House, made a mark in the history of politics in Illinois, and will long be remembered for his distinguished career.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I recently traveled over the Labor Day Weekend to Lebanon and Israel. I traveled with two other Members of Congress. Our purpose was to assess the political and economic situation in both countries. We spent a full day on Saturday in Beirut. We were immediately struck by how few people were in the shops and cafes and very little traffic on the streets of Beirut. We visited the Jounie area which is north of Beirut to inspect a bridge that was destroyed. The neighborhood that we visited was a very peaceful residential area where there seemed to be no presence of Hezbollah. The bombing of the bridge completely cut off transportation for people from the north to travel to Beirut. It was estimated to take one year and $20 million to repair. This seemed to be an example of the extreme and uncalled bombing by Israel in a peaceful residential area. The outbreak of military hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah has had a profound negative impact on tourism and the overall economy of Lebanon. The internal Lebanese situation was problematic even before the current military crisis began. Prime Minister Siniora's government, elected last year, has been struggling to establish a new stable political order following the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafic al Hariri. The majority of Lebanon's Shia population is still pro Syrian. By contrast the Druze and Sunni, as well as much of the Christian communities are likely to maintain a broadly anti-Syrian stance. The President of Lebanon, Emile Lahoud is tied closely to Syria and unable to offer any strong leadership. The Speaker of the Parliament Nabih Berri is also close to the Hezbollah Leader Hassan Nasrallah. This leaves Prime Minister Siniora on his own in efforts to develop relationships with the world community to assist with funding. President Bush's $230 million commitment to Lebanon to assist with rebuilding plus Secretary Rice's visit to Lebanon has enabled Prime Minister Siniora to raise over $900 million for humanitarian and rebuilding funds. It is absolutely imperative that 15,000 Lebanese troops be deployed to Southern Lebanon. Also, the deployment of United Nations troops along the Syrian border is critical to prevent Iran and Syria from rearming Hezbollah. Our visit to Israel was highlighted with meetings with the American Ambassador, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Tzipi Livni, plus meetings with the Israeli government equivalent of our CIA and FBI. A new government under the Kadima party (forward) and headed by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was elected following the grave illness of Ariel Sharon. Prime Minister Olmert has been weakened and is falling in the polls for his handling of the attack on Hezbollah. Prime Minister Olmert is dealing with several internal issues including problems along the Gaza Strip and West Bank; a very weak Palestinian Authority; and fiscal and budget issues that affect the economy. In our meeting with Foreign Affairs Minister Livni she made it very clear that Israel will continue to do all it can to assist with the implementation of U.N. Resolution 1701. Minister Livni said that she believes that Lebanon is the one Arab country in the region that Israel had confidence could become partners in the war against terror and had the potential along with Israel to stabilize the region. She also stressed that much work had to be accomplished by Lebanon to reach this goal. My own view of the situation having been in the region for four days is that Prime Minister Siniora is doing all he can to stabilize Lebanon. He is a man of great confidence and integrity. I believe he will be successful in meeting many of his goals. I also believe Israel is committed to implementing U.N. Resolution 1701 and developing opportunities to work with Lebanon to secure the Lebanese and southern border. The lifting of the blockade against ships entering the Lebanese ports which was announced upon our return to Washington is an example of this commitment and will go a long way to solving some of the serious economic problems in Lebanon. These ships off the Lebanese shore will now be inspected by officials of the German, Italian, and French governments. These inspectors will prevent Iran from shipping arms through the Lebanese ports. Obviously Iran is creating much of the backdrop, encouragement and arms for what has taken place between Lebanon and Israel. However, between the shared goals of Lebanon and Israel to stop Iran's progress I feel this can be accomplished. It is a long road ahead but I sense an air of optimism from both sides.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Biggert and Congresswoman Bean for this opportunity to consider the bill on the floor today that I have been working on for about a year and a half. In a little more than 2 years, the United States will celebrate the 200th birthday of its greatest President, Abraham Lincoln. We are all familiar with this legendary man's story. He was born in poverty in Kentucky, educated himself while growing up in the wilds of southern Indiana, and after failing in business eventually established a thriving legal practice in Illinois. He overcame repeated obstacles in his personal, professional, and political life and rose to lead our country through the greatest crisis it has ever faced. The American political system was still a fragile experiment, just 85 years old, when Abraham Lincoln became President in 1861. Many Europeans at the time viewed America's democracy with distaste and skepticism, and Lincoln knew that government of the people, by the people, and for the people would be discredited forever if a disaffected minority could simply withdraw from the government. His faith in representative government allowed him not only to save the Union but to forge a Nation. As the Congressman who represents much of the same district he represented in the 30th Congress from 1847 to 1849, I am privileged to be involved in the work of the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission, on which I serve as one of the cochairs along with Senator Richard Durbin and Harold Halzer. For the last several years, we have been striving to plan a fitting and proper celebration of the bicentennial of Lincoln's birthday in 2009. Among our efforts is this legislation that comes before the House today, H.R. 2808, the Abraham Lincoln Commemorative Coin Act. This bill directs the Secretary of the Treasury to mint 500,000 one- dollar commemorative coins which would highlight the life and legacy of President Abraham Lincoln during the bicentennial year of 2009. Proceeds from the sale of the coin will help fund the celebration and the continued study of the life of President Lincoln. This legislation could not have come to the floor today without the extraordinary help and assistance of Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. In order to bring a bill like this to the floor, it requires 290 signatures of Members of the House in order to signal that the bill is prepared and ready to be considered by the House. Mr. Jackson was a great help in lining up and getting the signatures so that we could bring the bill to the House. I urge all to support the bill.

Mr. LaHOOD

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

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would say the resolution is not specific to the Lebanese innocent people. It mentions innocent people, but there is no specificity about those Lebanese people, particularly Lebanese Americans who are there visiting their families and the students that are there. The only road that was not bombed, the only road that was not closed, is the road that goes to Syria. And I know people and I have talked to them that have exited the country through Syria, and the Syrian Government is allowing them to go into Syria, go into Damascus, and take flights out to other parts in order to get back to the United States. I have served on the Intelligence Committee now for 8 years. There is something I think I know. Hezbollah is well armed. They have all the ammunition they need, and we need to shut them down. We need to eliminate them from the southern part of Lebanon. I do not buy this idea that they were going to be able to ship arms in through the airport. They have all they need. They have the kind of capability, and they have shown that. So I have heard that argument that the airport was bombed. I believe it was bombed so you could close off a way for people to get out of there. And I do not quite buy the argument that it was bombed so that they could be resupplied. They do not need to be resupplied. They have got all they need. Look, I have said pretty much what I wanted to. I know what the debate is going to be about. My obligation is to peace-loving people who live in Lebanon, who have made their homes there. My grandfather on my father's side came to this country in 1895 to Peoria, Illinois, from Lebanon. We have a large Lebanese population in Peoria. And I hope there are others, I think there will be, that will speak up for the common, ordinary, decent people of Lebanon who are suffering as a result. They want Hezbollah out of the country, and there is no argument with that, but they do not want to see their own neighborhoods, where there is no presence of Hezbollah, to be bombed and innocent people killed. If this were going on in Israel, which it is, the resolution stipulates that our hearts go out to those people. The innocent, peace- loving people of Lebanon in neighborhoods where Hezbollah does not exist, they get no recognition in this resolution. With all due respect, Mr. Lantos, they simply do not. They did in a resolution that was prepared earlier on, but that language was taken out. So I think the resolution is inadequate, and I want to stick up for the people of Lebanon. I want to also compliment the administration for waiving the fees that they were going to charge innocent people for getting outside of the country. Obviously, that was a no-brainer. For getting the cruise ships to come in, to allow helicopters to transport people from the embassy over to Cyprus, all of these things are good things. I have talked to the administration. I have asked Secretary Rice and her team to talk more about restraint, particularly in the parts of Lebanon that do not deserve to be bombed, where innocent people do not deserve to be killed. I am just going to wrap up. It is going to take millions of dollars to rebuild areas of Lebanon that have been damaged. I mean, it is going to take millions of dollars to rebuild bridges and roads and infrastructure that have been built over the last 10 years. Beirut was so well positioned. This year in the city of Beirut, they had more tourism. The economy was booming. And now when you see what is happening, not only the innocent life, but so much of the infrastructure has been destroyed. I hope our government is going to be willing to step up and provide some of the dollars to help rebuild the country. So my objection is that I think the resolution is inadequate, and I want to speak up for the people of Lebanon. I thank the gentleman from Texas very much for yielding me this time.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time. I would like to stipulate that in the 12 years I have been in the House, I have visited Lebanon on 10 occasions, and 2 years ago when I was there, I called upon the President of Lebanon, who has the same name as I do, although he is no relation, that he should not extend his term as President of the country, and that troops should be moved into the southern part of the country. I want to stipulate that now so people understand. I believe this resolution does not go far enough, and I believe the resolution should stipulate some humanitarian interest in the Lebanese people who are the ones that are being injured and killed by the attacks on the country. But I do not believe the current President should be in office. He has extended his term, and that should not have been. They should have moved troops into the southern part of the country and gone after Hezbollah, but that has not happened. But over the last 10 years, the country of Lebanon, in particular Beirut, has been rebuilt. It has been rebuilt primarily by the assassinated former Prime Minister, who did an extraordinary job and showed extraordinary leadership over the last several years in helping to rebuild the country and helping to rebuild, in particular, the city of Beirut. Late last week I decried the capture of two Israeli soldiers, and I decried the Hezbollah for doing that. But I also decry the idea that the attacks that are being made are well beyond the boundaries of where Hezbollah is at, well beyond the boundaries of the southern part of Lebanon, to completely shut down the airport, to bomb every road so there is no way for peace-loving people who have no fight in this battle at all to exit the country. Over 25,000 Americans are trapped in Lebanon, many students, many American students, who go to school at American University of Beirut. And also many peace-loving Americans who are there, many from my home community of Peoria, over 300, who traditionally go to the country in the summertime to visit their mothers and their fathers and their aunts and their uncles, are trapped there. Now, I give the administration credit for allowing these cruise ships now to come to the Mediterranean and help them exit. But the point that I want to make here is there is nothing in the resolution about the innocent people that are being killed. Over 300 people have been killed in the last 7 days who have no fight in this. They do not live in the southern part of the country. And there are many people that are trapped there. And I wish the resolution would have allowed for some idea that you can go into the southern part, you can go after Hezbollah, you can run them out of the country, and we are well within our right to do that, but not to shut down every way and every means of people to escape the country, not to kill innocent people, not to go into neighborhoods where there are absolutely no Hezbollah.

Mr. LaHOOD. I yield to the gentleman.

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

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I agree with everything you have said, Mr. Lantos. My only problem is, why not give the same kind of consideration in the resolution to the common, ordinary, decent people of Lebanon who are being hurt by these attacks? That is really all we were asking earlier on when we presented a resolution to the majority leader's office.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today also to honor Doug Tanner. Doug has done an extraordinary job of bringing House and Senate Members, both sides of the aisle, together. I have had the privilege, as have many Members, to be a part of the trips to Montgomery and to Selma; to be a part of the trip to South Africa to learn more about AIDS and more about apartheid and more about reconciliation. That really has been what Doug's life has been about here at the U.S. Capitol, bringing people together, getting people to work together, getting people to pray together; and he will be missed. So, on behalf of those that have had the experience of knowing Doug Tanner, Mr. Speaker, and knowing the great work that he has done, I will say that he will be missed. I know that his lovely wife Kathy and he will enjoy now future opportunities to bring people together, to pray together and to work together; and we wish you well. Mr. Speaker, I honor Doug Tanner today for helping those of us who work here to honor one another. Godspeed, Reverend Tanner.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, let me just say I am the longest-serving member of the Intelligence Committee. I am in my eighth year. I am the vice chairman of the committee. If it were disclosed, the answers that you want, it would be a violation of those who serve on the committee and those who have been briefed. They can't disclose that information. They will be thrown off the committee.

Mr. LaHOOD. I know you were. But this is highly classified information.

Mr. LaHOOD. This is highly classified information. What you all need to know is, the people that you have put your trust in, that the leadership have put their trust in, those that serve on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, those that serve on the Intelligence Committee have been briefed. Now you have to trust them that they know what is going on here. All 435 members can't be briefed. You know why they can't be briefed, because we all love to talk and it would get out. So what I am saying to you, the gentleman from California, the author of the amendment, you need to trust Mr. Murtha, you need to trust the chairman of the committee. You need to trust Mr. Hoekstra. You need to trust Jane Harman. These are people with the responsibility from your leadership to serve on these committees. They know what is going on.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I ask to have the opportunity to speak against the amendment. I wonder if the gentleman would take a question.

Mr. LaHOOD. Do you know who earmarked this money?

Mr. LaHOOD. And the answer to my question is?

Mr. LaHOOD. And so when you were told that, did you think that maybe you might look into the earmark to see if it had merit and to see if it was a set-aside that might merit further consideration?

Mr. LaHOOD. The Illinois Technology Transition Center is a public- private collaboration between academia, industry, and government. It collaborates with the Department of Defense, and it has identified innovative technology applications that meet DOD mission requirements and strives to take technology from the laboratory to use by DOD within 12 to 18 months. This is an extraordinary opportunity for the public and the private to come together. The lion's share of the money that funds this is private dollars. It is not Federal dollars. It comes from people who have businesses and people who want to invest in smart people and smart ideas. And the answer to your question about Iraq is that one of the technologies that is being developed is being developed in my hometown of Peoria by a company called Firefly. And they are developing a revolutionary battery that will have the opportunity to withstand huge amounts of heat and not become the kind of traditional batteries that are currently used. Now, this would not have been able to come about if it hadn't been the collaboration of a private business and the Federal Government coming together in a collaboration. So are some of the technologies that are being developed in this center being used in Iraq? The answer is yes, they are. So the point is that there are many innovative approaches that are being taken here. And this kind of collaboration really takes the smart ideas that people in the private sector are using and trying to develop them with the public sector. And some revolutionary things have really come about. And I could name at least six or eight of them, but this is an opportunity for the private sector to take the lion's share of the money and collaborate with the public sector. Many of these innovative approaches are being requested by the Defense Department. Try them out, test them out, see if they work, and then send them out to the private sector to be funded. And some of these could not come about without this center. They would not come about without this center. So I wish the gentleman would have looked into this a little bit further, and I wish he would appreciate the idea that what is being developed here could not be developed without the opportunity for the public and private sector to work together. This is an appropriate appropriation for the defense bill. That is why it is not in any other bill. And it is appropriate, because many of the things that are being tested, many of the innovative approaches will be used by the Defense Department. Now, I don't know if the Department of the Navy requested this or not. I don't know the answer to that. But I know that some of the innovative approaches have been requested. The company that I mentioned, Firefly, is in direct collaboration with the Defense Department on a regular basis. And they did ask for Firefly to help them develop this. Eventually Firefly will be spending all of the money, and hopefully, what will happen is that once the battery is in full development, it will create jobs in central Illinois, in my district. And when people say to me, Congressman, what are you going to do about the erosion of the industrial base? It is to think outside the box. It is to take smart people to get them to think outside the box to create opportunities that eventually will create jobs that no one ever thought could exist in central Illinois because in my district people worked at Caterpillar for years and worked in other industries for years. This is the kind of thing that creates opportunities and jobs and could not come about without a collaboration between the Defense Department and this company that exists in my district.

Mr. LaHOOD. This kind of collaboration could not come about, and these jobs, very few at this point, but an opportunity for expansion. And the truth is, the reason that the Speaker asked for this kind of set-aside is because it helps all of us in Illinois. It creates not only opportunities in central Illinois but all over the State, and it does give hope and opportunity to people that there are going to be innovative approaches and people can think outside the box and they can collaborate. I yield to the gentleman if he has a question; or if he would like to withdraw the amendment, I would certainly entertain that.

Mr. LaHOOD. I agree with that, Mr. Flake. And that is the reason that this opportunity exists. It is not a significant amount of money. When you look at the overall defense budget, this is an insignificant amount of money in terms of what it does in terms of the expansion of jobs, the expansion of ideas, the expansion of technology, and it does create hope and opportunity for people who really want to do business with the Federal Government and have opportunities for creating new opportunities for people. And listen to me, this is a no-brainer. And I hope that we can get the House, when we come back in to vote on this amendment, to vote down this amendment. This is a very, very good technology center and it has created lots of opportunities for many, many people. And I urge the House to vote against the Flake amendment.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time. I think this is not a carefully crafted bill. I think this is, as much as I respect the chairman and the ranking member, and I do respect the chairman, I have known the chairman for the 20 years I have been in politics, and I respect the ranking member, but I think the approach that is offered in this bill is what I would characterize as a meat-axe approach. This does not help common ordinary citizens. What it does is it hurts common ordinary citizens. There is no other way around it. You can protest as much as you want about Mrs. Capps and what she said, but she is right. Common ordinary citizens, common ordinary Palestinians are going to be hurt by this, because the funding is going to be cut off for educational services, for health services, for the services that these people need very badly. And what we have now, it looks to me like at least a couple hundred Secretaries of State, as reflected in this bill. Do you all know more than the Secretary of State? Do you know more than the President? Do you think your policy is better than the administration's policy? Yes, you do. Well, I don't happen to agree with that. I really don't. And I ask Members, I may be the only Republican to vote against this. I am obviously going to be the only Republican to speak against it, but I ask Members who representat large Arab populations in their districts to think about this. This hurts the Palestinian people. There is no other way to put it. And I do not know why you are doing this. In the name of protecting Israel? I just think this is a bad idea, and I don't understand why it is being done. I would say this: The new prime minister of Israel is in this country. In a day or two, he will be walking down this middle aisle. And if he were able to vote and have a card that would allow him to vote as he walks down, he would vote against this bill. He has recognized that it is a bad bill. And if he had the opportunity to put his voting card as he walks down, he would vote against it, as would a large part of this administration. Why? Because it hurts common ordinary people. That is why. If you are going after Hamas, go after them, but don't restrict the funding that helps people. The reason that Hamas won the election is the Palestinians didn't have the right people on the ballot and didn't work the ballot in order to do it. And Hamas has gone out into those communities and provided services, and they have endeared themselves to the Palestinian people while the leadership of Palestine has been pocketing a lot of money. That's the reason they won the elections. They ran better elections. But why fault the people for that? And why take this kind of funding away from common ordinary citizens? Now, for all of you that come out on this floor all the time and talk about what we should be doing and what we are cutting and what we are not cutting, this is an opportunity to say to common ordinary citizens in Palestine: We care about you. We care about your health care. We care about education. We care about your opportunity for jobs and to really be able to do the things you want to do. But if you vote for this, we say: The heck with you. We care more about sending a message to Hamas leadership than we do about the people of Palestine. I think that is what the message is. This will not hurt the leadership of Hamas. It will not. Because they are going to have the money and the resources that they need, and they will say what they want, but it will hurt common ordinary people. Vote ``no'' on this resolution.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I want to stipulate, Mr. Chairman, I do not have any projects in this bill. I also want to stipulate that the gentlemen that have been out here on the floor for the last 2 hours, talking about the fact that they support our troops, they support the idea that we should be funding our troops and funding the war, almost all of them voted against the rule that would have funded all of the money for the last supplemental for the war. You all voted against the rule. So please do not come out here and lecture us on the idea that you are for supporting the troops when you voted against the rule. Every project that you had stricken today was authorized by the last Armed Services bill that was on the floor about 10 days ago. When I last checked the vote on that, only three people voted against that bill. None of you. So please do not come out here and lecture us. You picked the wrong bill to have your earmark fight. Please do not tell us you support the troops. Please do not tell us you support the war. When you came out here and X'd out all of these important projects that help our troops, help us win the war, help the administration fight the war on terror. Pick another bill, not this one, and then try to lecture all of us on the idea that you support all of this. You voted for it in the authorization bill; however, you did vote against it in the rule in the last supplemental, which would have funded the supplemental. So you cannot have it both ways. I know you would love to, but you cannot. And I just want the record to show what happened here.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Bob Larson of WMBD-TV in Peoria, Illinois. Next Tuesday, May 23, Bob will celebrate 35 years at this television station. Over that time, Bob has become an icon in Central Illinois. Every evening many citizens of my district tune in to the newscasts of Channel 31 to get the day's news from the familiar, friendly face of Bob Larson. Bob started his broadcasting career at the age of 16 in his hometown of Morris, Illinois, and has served over the years on both radio and television as a reporter, weatherman, and anchor. He delivers the news in a straightforward, Midwestern style, sprinkled with humor and modesty. Through years of advancing technology and ever-changing news partners, Bob has remained a part of everyday life for Peorians and a bedrock part of WMBD. The Associated Press has honored Bob for Best Downstate Illinois Radio Newscast and Best Downstate Illinois TV Newscast. ``I take the responsibility of giving Central Illinois the most comprehensive newscast we can very seriously,'' Bob has said. Not only is a Bob an accomplished newsman, he has spent his career interacting with the public and being a tireless volunteer for many community activities. Bob is often seen riding in his convertible at the many parades throughout our area. He has hosted the Muscular Dystrophy Association telethon for more than 25 years. He has also served as host for the Easter Seals Telethon and Peoria's annual Santa Claus parade. Bob takes community service seriously, and he set a wonderful example for our community. Today I congratulate Bob for his 35 years of service to WMBD. I count him as a friend and I look forward to watching his newscasts and working with him in the community for many years to come.