Ray LaHood

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, if you want to save the family farm, I suggest that you vote for this rule and vote for this bill. This bill helps family farms. I represent one of the largest agricultural districts in the country, 14 counties in central Illinois, hog producers, corn producers, soybean producers, people who have made their living for years and years and years on the good black soil of central Illinois. What I have been doing is traveling around my district throughout the summer and the fall, and what I found is there are two economies in America. There is the booming economy, where you drive around your district and every fast-food restaurant says ``hiring for all positions.'' Americans are doing well; they are investing in the stock market. That is the one economy. The other economy is the agriculture economy, which is in a recession; and if you are a hog producer, you are in a depression. Many of the hog producers in my districts have gone out of business, and many of the corn and soybean producers in my district are hurting very badly. This bill helps them. Just because you feel you were shut out or you were not a part of the final negotiations, why should we sell short then those people who badly need this assistance? I say to all of you who represent agriculture, all of you who represent hard-hit farmers, this is the time to step up and vote for a bill that provides the needed assistance. Now, you can say all you want about Freedom to Farm. You can criticize it. Many people have. I have not heard any criticism of Freedom to Farm for the first 3 years that it was in existence. Not one word have I heard. This year we have. You know why? Because we got lousy markets. The Asia market is lousy, Russia is a mess, we never passed Fast Track. That is the reason behind Freedom to Farm. One of the successes of Freedom to Farm is you have to have markets. We do not have the markets. Every time I have met with Secretary Glickman, Secretary Bill Daley, they ask, when are we going to pass Fast Track to open up the South American market? We need trade. We need markets in order for our farmers to survive. So I say to the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), thank you for agreeing to hold hearings next year on Freedom to Farm. We are going to have a debate on that. But because you do not like Freedom to Farm, do not vote against the rule, do not vote against the bill. We have farmers all over America, either because of a drought, which we have not experienced in central Illinois, or because of lousy prices because we do not have the markets which are in a recession, and this bill helps them. So if you want to help hard-hit farmers, this is your opportunity today to do it. Vote for the rule, vote for the bill, and we will help them get out of this recessionary period. This is an opportunity for Congress and the government to step up and help those who need the help. I say vote for the rule, vote for the bill, and we will help our hard-hit farmers.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this very important bill and to congratulate the two distinguished Members from Texas who have worked so well together in a bipartisan way to help hard-hit farmers solve some very important problems. There are two things in the bill that I want to point out. One is an amendment that was adopted by the committee during consideration which allows for electronic availability for producers and agents to file electronically crop insurance paperwork. It is a shorter version or a revised version of a bill that I have been pushing to allow for electronic filing for any number of forms and programs within the department of USDA. And I am glad this provision was included as an amendment. I think it is a good first step, and I hope it will allow us in the future to pass the entire bill that we have held hearings on in our subcommittee. I also will be offering an amendment, along with the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), to set up a couple of pilot projects for livestock producers around the country. And in particular I think it is interesting to note that these pilot projects are very timely, given the disasters that have taken place as a result of hurricanes, particularly in the Carolinas. I believe these pilot projects will go a long way to helping livestock producers. I appreciate the fact that the chairman has agreed to accept our amendment and look forward to working with him as we go to conference on this bill so that these important provisions can be a part of a final bill that passes the Senate and, hopefully, turns into a conference report that both the House and Senate will pass and that the President will sign. This is important legislation for hard-hit agriculture; and, again, I compliment both of the gentlemen from Texas for the work that they do on behalf of farmers all over America.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today, along with the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), to offer an amendment to the bill that, in keeping with the spirit of this bill, creates an equal partnership between farmers, ranchers, and the Federal Government by closing a giant gap in the farm income safety net, a gap created by the consequences of unforeseen, uncontrollable, and unforgiving natural events. Our amendment would create, as I indicated earlier, a pilot project for two or three places around the country that would include livestock producers. I believe that farmers and ranchers want to do the right thing. We need to help them. My amendment allows us to live up to our commitment to our country's food producers by giving them the risk management tools to cope with disasters, weather shifts, and other natural acts beyond their control without fear that the cost of doing the right thing will put them out of business.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a sponsor of the bill, H.R. 850.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte). General Leave

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 2056.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 17, Selective Agricultural Embargoes Act of 1999, as introduced by my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing). To put it very simply, embargoes can be the death knell for agriculture. We have seen it many, many times. This bill is simple and straightforward. It simply requires the approval of both Houses of Congress if the President ever decides to impose an agriculture-specific embargo on a foreign country. However, Mr. Speaker, the bill in no way impedes the President's authority to impose cross-sector embargoes, it only attempts to single out agriculture. With the enactment of Freedom to Farm, our farmers and ranchers have become increasingly reliant on foreign markets for a significant percentage of their income. In our global marketplace, the importance of being a reliable supplier of food and fiber cannot be overstated. The U.S. agricultural economy is more than twice as reliant on exports as the overall economy. Congress should have input when the President decides to use American agriculture as a foreign policy tool. For American farmers and ranchers, trade is an essential part of their livelihood. Currently exports account for 30 percent of U.S. farm cash receipts, and nearly 40 percent of all agricultural production is exported. Past experience has shown the weakness in using sanctions as an instrument of foreign policy. Unfortunately, it may be politically impossible to entirely eliminate the use of economic sanctions. The President needs to be able to waive those impositions when he believes sanctions will have a negative impact on U.S. interests, especially on American agriculture. Rather than continue policies that withhold sales of U.S. food and fiber as punishment, H.R. 17 would urge that food and agricultural trade be encompassed in U.S. diplomacy. Such a move would contribute to world security, help feed the engine of economic growth, and build the lines of communication that allow engagement with these countries with whom we have disagreements. Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of this important legislation.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the anniversary of former President Abraham Lincoln's death to celebrate his life. Today, I am introducing the Abraham Lincoln bicentennial Commission Act of 1999. This bill will establish a commission, the purpose of which would be to make recommendations to Congress for a national program to honor former President Abraham Lincoln in the year 2009, the bicentennial celebration of his birth. Abraham Lincoln has gone down in history as one of our country's greatest Presidents. As our sixteenth President, Abraham Lincoln served the country during a most precarious era. While most of the country looked to divide, President Lincoln fought for unity and eventually saved the Union. With the belief that all men where created equal, President Lincoln led the charge to free all slaves in America. Without the determination and vision of President Lincoln, the country, as we know it, may not exist today. President Lincoln also serves as a national symbol of the ``American Dream.'' Born of humble roots in Hardin County, Kentucky on February 12, 1809, Abraham Lincoln rose to the Presidency though a legacy of honesty, integrity, intelligence and commitment to the United States of America. In 1909, America celebrated the centennial of President Lincoln's birth in a manner deserving of his accomplishments. Congress approved placing the image of President Lincoln on a first-class stamp for the first time, made President Lincoln's birth a national holiday, and passed legislation leading to the construction of the Lincoln Memorial here in Washington, D.C. Further, President Roosevelt approved placing the image of President Lincoln on the penny. As in 1909, the Congress should again honor President Lincoln in 2009, by establishing the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission. Through this Commission, Congress will be able to demonstrate its appreciation for Abraham Lincoln's accomplishments and ultimate sacrifice for our country. This Commission will identify and recommend to Congress appropriate actions to carry out this mission and, through the recommendations of this Commission and subsequent acts of Congress, the American people will benefit by learning about the life of President Lincoln. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of President Lincoln by supporting the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission Act of 1999.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained for rollcall votes 84 and 85. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote 84, H. Res. 137, and ``yes'' on rollcall 85, H. Con. Res. 68.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Madam Speaker, it was obviously a real treat for me to participate. I think of all of the activities, actually being in Selma and being with John Lewis and the reenactment of the crossing of the Edmund Pettis Bridge is something that I will never forget. I think that was for me the highlight of the trip. Then also I think recognizing that we serve in the House with so many different personalities and different people. And even though I have known John Lewis for a period of time, I guess I did not really recognize the kind of hero that he is to so many people in the movement in really striving for better race relations and improving civil rights. To have the opportunity to be with him that weekend and to have him really walk us through what happened during that period I think sensitizes all of us to the importance of those events in terms of really standing on the shoulders of people who were there and sensitizing us to the importance of better race relations and what happened there in terms of the movement. Then having the opportunity to hear from Mrs. Martin Luther King, who joined us on that Sunday morning, and hearing from her was just an extraordinary experience. Madam Speaker, I have taken the occasion to actually go back to my own district earlier this week. As a matter of fact, a few days ago I met with the African-American leaders in my own community, the head of the NAACP, the head of a couple of other African-American organizations. I talked to them about our experience and talked to them about what we can do as leaders in our community in Peoria to improve race relations. So I am really trying to build on the experience that we had, that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) provided to us, and that all of the folks at Faith and Politics provided. I think I want to conclude by saying a special thanks to Doug Tanner for really helping to organize these activities. Doug is here in the Chamber with us tonight and has done just an extraordinary job of helping to organize all of us around people like the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and others to make this happen. Madam Speaker, it is something I will never forget. I hope to build on it in my own community, and I hope we can build it as Members here in the House. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his leadership and for the ability of all of us to join him and share the experience that he shared with us. And a special thanks to Doug Tanner for all that he does to sort of enlighten all of us and give us an experience that I know many of us will never forget.

Mr. LaHOOD. Madam Speaker, I just want to say I know there are a lot of Members who are sitting in their offices reading mail and probably signing mail and doing all kinds of work, and what I would say: The invitation has been extended to Members for next year to go to Selma to celebrate the 35th anniversary, and if there are Members who care about race relations in America, and if there are Members who care about improving race relations in America, and if there are Members who care about really improving race relations in their own State, in their own district, I hope they will talk to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) or any of the rest of us about the opportunity to go to Selma next year and celebrate, commemorate, the 35th anniversary. It is a great opportunity, and it is a great learning experience.

Mr. LaHOOD. There are actually two Members from Ohio, too, just to make sure.

Mr. LaHOOD. It has something to do with being from Arkansas. I think that is what he was getting at.

Mr. LaHOOD. We only have 1 minute left, and I am afraid that it would not be enough time for me to explain what I think about Southerners.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to reintroduce, 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 four 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 United States 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 outcome 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 338-70, 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. Mr. Speaker, last year I introduced H.R. 642, a bill that ends the most pervasive abuse of the frank--sending out unsolicited, self-promotional mass mailings. Today, I am reintroducing this bill. My bill specifically targets franking abuse by cracking down on the use of mass mailings. 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% or 33% misses the mark. The problem that needs to be addressed is the use of the frank as a campaign tool whose real ``informational'' purpose is to make constituents aware of how deserving we are of reelection. I urge all members who are interested in real campaign finance reform to carefully consider cosponsoring this bill.

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; an employee that took 17 trips to travel 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 except 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 far 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 today to recognize the positive contributions that my fellow Illinois colleague, Glenn Poshard, made to the State of Illinois, Congress, and the Nation. After 10 years of congressional service, Glenn Poshard is retiring. His principled and pragmatic presence will be missed, not only by the people of the 19th District of Illinois, but also by those of us in Congress who worked with him on important issues. First elected to the House of Representatives in 1988, Glenn Poshard pledged to serve only 10 years in Congress. Now, ten years later, he is keeping his word. He will be leaving behind a reputation for bipartisan and hard work, forged while working on such issues as campaign reform, improving rural health care, deficit-cutting, and preserving the American coal-mining industry. During his work on these issues and others, Glenn Poshard always stood his ground and fought for what he believed in, and for what was good for his constituents and for the State of Illinois. Throughout his congressional service, Glenn Poshard was able to benefit from, and draw on, his background. As a holder of a doctorate in education from Southern Illinois University and as a former teacher, Glenn Poshard brought a valuable perspective to Capitol Hill. This perspective was further enhanced by his experiences that he gained while growing up in a small, rural town in Illinois. He never forgot his roots, and they helped him maintain his down-to-earth style that was, in many ways, Glenn Poshard's best attribute. As a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I had the occasion to work on a number of issues with my fellow committee member, Glenn Poshard. He was always approachable and willing to work together on issues that were of vital interest to the State of Illinois. Whether it was aviation or highways, Glenn Poshard was always knowledgeable and ready to do what was best for Illinois. I am proud to have served in the House with Glenn Poshard. He leaves this House with many friends and many good memories. I wish him all the best in whatever endeavor he chooses to participate.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. I rise in support of House Resolution 612, a resolution of support for the men and women in uniform. They have been called upon to once again ``check'' Saddam Hussein's refusal to comply with world demands that he stop the mass production of chemical weapons. Mr. Speaker, after learning that the U.S. military forces had engaged enemy forces, my prayers and undeniable support went out to them and their families. For years, they have selflessly defended America's national security interests in the Persian Gulf at great personal sacrifice. All Americans can be proud of the way our troops have performed. They are a credit to our nation and an inspiration to us all. Regardless of the questions raised by the unique circumstances, Mr. Speaker, it is important that our troops know that Congress and the nation are behind them. The challenges to U.S. security posed by Saddam's actions in Iraq is stark. Simply put, the United States cannot allow Saddam to continue to frustrate the efforts of the international community and to rebuild his weapons capabilities. Doing so would again allow him to threaten his neighbors, U.S. friends and allies in the region, and direct U.S. interest. Whatever one thinks of the timing of these latest U.S. military strikes against Iraq, we are all unified in support of our service men and women. We are proud of each and every one of them. I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution and urge all Americans to pray for the safety of our sons and daughters, and husbands and wives who are currently in harm's way in the Gulf. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues for their unanimous support.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Madam 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 to address the issue of naming VA facilities. This has been a very frustrating problem for me and my constituents, particularly in Springfield, Illinois. On April 8 of this year, VA's Secretary Togo West issued a press release naming the cemetery-in-progress near Joliet, Illinois the ``Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery.'' In my opinion, Mr. West's office moved unilaterally without any congressional or Committee on Veterans' Affairs input whatsoever, disregarding VA's own policy on naming facilities. Many of my colleagues from down-State Illinois were completely unaware of this. Congress has well-established procedures for naming facilities of all kinds in honor of individuals. The VA chose to step outside its legal authority, ignoring procedures and precedent. VA's own policy clearly states that the naming of VA facilities in honor of individuals can be done only by congressional mandate. This situation has me very concerned about the VA's apparent lack of regard for procedures. I am pleased that this legislation we are considering today provides a solution. The VA will no longer be able to sidestep proper procedures in naming facilities. Congress' authority to naming facilities in honor of individuals will be codified and, hopefully, no more confusion will exist. Springfield, Illinois, is the home of Abraham Lincoln. He represented that city in Congress and was buried after his assassination in Springfield. Naming a cemetery in northern Illinois will lead to much confusion. In an effort to smooth over this mistake, the VA promised, and Togo West personally promised me, that they would try to avoid the confusion by printing statements in their brochures that Abraham Lincoln is not buried at the cemetery in Joliet, and by placing signs along the interstate highways specifically saying that Abraham Lincoln is not buried at that cemetery. I hope the VA will maintain the commitment that they have made to all the citizens of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman so much and the ranking member for their support in my effort.

Mr. LaHOOD

Mr. LaHOOD. Madam 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 thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for setting aside this time to pay tribute and honor one of the most distinguished and longest-serving Members of this House of Representatives. Even though I have only been here for two terms, I remember Sid Yates very findly because of the mark that he left on Illinois, because of the mark that he made in Illinois politics. He was in the House and actually ran for the United States Senate against a very distinguished Senator by the name of Senator Everett Dirksen. I think back in the days when Sid ran for that position, he actually thought that he could beat Senator Dirksen. But given the kind of record that Sid had even back then, he waged a very, very vigorous campaign and represented really, I think, the best of Illinois politics, because I know that he cares very deeply about issues that face Illinois and has been very strong on trying to solve problems on behalf of the State of Illinois. He represents, I think, one of the prettiest parts of Illinois and one of the prettiest parts of the Chicago land area along the coast of Lake Shore Drive and commonly referred to as part of the Gold Coast of Chicago. I think that for the people that Sid has represented, he will be long remembered, probably, as the Congressman for the arts. Of all of the things that I think Sid has accomplished here in the House, I think he will always be remembered for his very, very strong advocacy for the arts, for the humanities, and really trying to promote and encourage people in those areas, whether they be the arts or the humanities. I think in reality that is what his moniker will be. He also is someone that any Member of our delegation could go to and speak to about any particular project or opportunity for funding for the State of Illinois. Whether it be in Central Illinois, which I represent, or Southern Illinois, it did not make any difference whether the Member was a Republican or a Democrat, Sid would listen attentively, would pay attention, and then do his homework and do his work to accomplish whatever the Member needed for their part of the State, because as much as I know he loved his own district, he also loved the State of Illinois and would do anything he could to improve that part of Illinois that the Member had come to him and asked him about. He will be sorely missed for our State on the Committee on Appropriations. He will be sorely missed by the people who represent the arts and humanities for his advocacy, and he will be missed by all of the House for his intelligence and his ability to really come to the floor and make a case for the important issues of the day or the important issues before the Committee on Appropriations. I am sorry Sid is not here tonight, but in the remaining days that we have, I know that many of us will have an opportunity to bid him a fond farewell and thank him for the many, many things he has contributed to his own district, one of the most beautiful parts of Chicago, to the beautiful State of Illinois, and to our wonderful country. And on behalf of, I think, those in Illinois that are not represented by Sid, in central or southern Illinois, we say, ``Thank you for your stewardship and your service.'' And I thank the gentleman for setting aside this time to honor a great American, a great Member of this body, Sid Yates.