Mark Kirk

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, today the House will consider legislation to kill the pensions of Members of Congress convicted of a felony. Amazingly, lawmakers who broke the law collect taxpayer-funded pensions after conviction. Rostenkowski collects after mail fraud; Traficant collects after corruption; Cunningham collects after bribery; and Ney collects after conspiracy. Today's bill is a step forward, but blocks pensions for only four felonies: bribery, being a foreign agent, conspiracy to defraud, and perjury. The key story is what is missing. Our House leadership presented a bill, but banned an amendment that would add 17 public corruption felonies to the list. Under today's unamended bill, Congressmen would still get a pension if convicted of income tax invasion, wire fraud, intimidation to secure contributions, and racketeering. Speaker Pelosi voted for these tougher reforms in 1996, but appears to have changed her mind. Mr. Speaker, I will support the bill before the House because it is the result of reform-minded Members like me who brought it to the floor, but it does fall 17 felonies short of the reforms needed to fully clean up this House.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, today Congressman Ney was sentenced to 30 months in jail after pleading guilty to two Federal felonies. Amazingly, under our law he will still collect a congressional pension funded by the U.S. taxpayer. In fact, other Members of Congress who pled guilty or were convicted of crimes collect. Congressman Rostenkowski collects. Congressman Traficant collects. Congressman Cunningham collects. All taxpayer-funded pensions. On Monday, we will take up a very limited bill to kill pensions for Members of Congress who commit only one of four felonies. The legislation we will consider misses 17 other public integrity felonies that the House already adopted with the support of Speaker Pelosi and Speaker Hastert in previous years. The legislation we consider on Monday has never been through a committee and the leadership will not allow any amendments to the legislation. There will be no vote permitted to add the other 17 public integrity felonies that should have been part of this needed reform. The legislation that we will consider on Monday will fall short of the potential that we had to reform this House.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, in today's Washington Post, former President Jimmy Carter defended his book, ``Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.'' President Carter wrote, `` . . . most critics have not seriously disputed or even mentioned the facts . . . '' But after reading the book, I have become a critic and today will only correct the facts that he purports in his book. Regarding our policy towards Israel, there is little room for mistakes, let alone outright misstatements of fact. For that reason, I want to present to the House eight factual inaccuracies found in President Carter's book. Error number one, on page 62, President Carter quotes Yasser Arafat as telling him, ``The Palestinian Liberation Organization has never advocated the annihilation of Israel.'' No evidence is provided, and the book does not contain a single footnote. Fact check, article 22 of the PLO's charter states, ``The liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence.'' Yasser Arafat supported this charter, and he directly lied to President Carter. Error number two, on page 57 President Carter writes, ``The 1947 armistice demarcation lines became the borders of the new nation of Israel, and were accepted by Israel and the United States, and recognized officially by the United Nations.'' Fact, the 1949 armistice lines were never accepted as the official borders of Israel, United States or the United Nations. The error reflects a very poor attention to detail in the book. Error number three, on page number 127, President Carter writes that there was ``a surprising exodus of Christians from the Holy Land.'' Fact, Israel is one of the only Middle Eastern nations where the Christian community has grown in the last half century. But Christian communities and other faith communities like Baha'is have dropped in size in many Muslim nations. Error number four, on page 152 President Carter writes, ``It was later claimed that the Palestinians rejected a `generous offer' put forward by Prime Minister Barak with Israel only keeping 5 percent of the West Bank. The fact is no such offers were made.'' Fact, according to President Clinton's lead negotiator, Ambassador Dennis Ross, Prime Minister Barak accepted President Clinton's proposal, offering to withdraw from 97 percent of the West Bank, to dismantle isolated settlements, and to accept the Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. Arafat rejected this proposal, and a quick call between President Carter and President Clinton would have corrected this error. Error number five, on page number 148 President Carter presents two maps he claims were considered at Camp David, one of them labeled ``Israel's interpretation of Clinton's proposal.'' Fact, there were no maps at Camp David. The map President Carter labeled as Israel's interpretation is a copy of a map that was created later by Dennis Ross for his book, ``The Missing Peace.'' Ambassador Ross's map is a representation of an offer agreed to by Prime Minister Barak and rejected by Arafat. President Carter violated Ambassador Ross's copyright of the map. Error six, on page 197 President Carter writes, ``Confessions extracted through torture are admissible in Israeli courts.'' Fact, the Israeli Supreme Court banned the use of torture in interrogations in a decision handed down by the court on September 6, 1999, by Supreme Court President Barak. Error number seven, on page 188 President Carter writes, ``Kadima had been expected to gain 43 seats based on its pledge of a unilateral expansion of the `great wall.' '' Fact, Israel's Kadima Party ran on Prime Minister Sharon's platform of disengagement, a pledge to dismantle settlements and unilaterally withdraw from territory. Error number eight, on page 215 President Carter writes that the one option for Israel is ``withdrawal from the 1967 border as specified in U.N. Resolution 242.'' Fact. The U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 does not define a border. Madam Speaker, these errors, in fact, diminish the credibility of President Carter's book. President Carter is entitled to his own opinions, but not to his own facts. The errors I present here are only a sampling of the other errors included in his book. Now, in the twilight of his career, with many at the Carter Center resigning from their posts, President Carter should recall the book and hire competent assistants to assure that his future work does not reflect such poor scholarship. I want to thank, especially, Dr. Mitchell Bard and the Committee for Accuracy in the Middle East Reporting in America for helping compile this list of errors.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, today, I am re-introducing a resolution with Congresswoman Nita Lowey (D-NY) calling on the Government of Bangladesh to drop sedition charges pending against Bangladeshi journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury. Mr. Choudhury faces these charges because of his belief in an interfaith dialogue between Jews and Muslims and articles he published critical of Islamic extremism. Under Bangladeshi law, sedition is a crime punishable by death. Mr. Choudhury is a journalist in Bangladesh known for his views on expanding dialogue between Muslims and Jews, developing ties with Israel, and criticizing the rise of Islamist parties in Bangladesh. Mr. Choudhury was detained in November 2003 at Zia International Airport in Dhaka, Bangladesh, on his way to board a flight bound for Tel Aviv, Israel, to participate in the annual Hebrew Writers Conference. Mr. Choudhury's passport was seized, along with considerable sums of money and several personal items. On that same day, police raided his home and newspaper, seizing files, computers, and other valuables. Since Bangladeshi law prohibits travel to Israel, Mr. Choudhury was first cited for a minor passport violation. He subsequently was charged with sedition, accused of espionage as an Israeli spy, and incarcerated for 17 months. He was subjected to harsh interrogation techniques, and received no treatment for a debilitating case of glaucoma. Despite public pledges from senior Bangladeshi Government officials that all pending legal action against Mr. Choudhury would be dropped, the government pressed forward on its prosecution of Choudhury for sedition. Mr. Choudhury won PEN USA's ``Freedom to Write Award,'' and was presented with the American Jewish Committee's prestigious ``Moral Courage Award'' in absentia in Washington, DC. Mr. Choudhury's newspaper offices were bombed by Islamic extremists in July, and he was attacked by a mob in his office on October 5. Then a judge with alleged ties to an Islamic extremist group ruled that Mr. Choudhury must stand trial for sedition. For his message of moderation and interfaith dialogue, Shoaib Choudhury is facing unjust criminal charges in an effort to silence him. Congress must send a clear message: we cannot allow moderate voices in the Muslim world to be silenced. The resolution I introduce today calls on the Government of Bangladesh to drop all charges against Shoaib Choudhury, return his passport and possessions, and end his harassment. I want to thank Congresswoman Nita Lowey for being the lead cosponsor of this legislation. I look forward to working with her and my other colleagues on this important human rights initiative.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 23 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Stated against:

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I am voting for H.R. 4 because I believe that the Medicare prescription drug program can be improved. And one improvement is allowing the Secretary an opportunity to negotiate lower drug prices. At the same time, my support for H.R. 4 is contingent upon the principle that this legislation will not allow restrictions imposed by the Federal Government on patients' access to medicines. I firmly believe that every patient must have access to the medicines their doctors prescribe, without government intervention. I interpret this legislation to mean Medicare beneficiaries are protected against all types of government-imposed restrictions on patients' access to the medicines they need, and that no such restrictions will be allowed under the Medicare Modernization Act as amended by H.R. 4. Seniors should pay less for prescription drugs, and Medicare should have more tools to achieve savings for our Nation's elderly. But these savings should not come at the expense of seniors ability to discuss with their doctors which drugs are best for their health and to have access to these drugs in the Medicare Part D program. I am disappointed that H.R. 4 was rushed to the floor today without any hearings or amendments allowed. I hope the Senate will take a more thoughtful approach when considering Medicare Part D reform to add more protections for our seniors.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Illinois and rise in strong support of Federal funding to accelerate stem cell research. In the last Congress, I helped craft the bipartisan consensus to back stem cell research here in the House, and our bipartisan coalition is even stronger today. America is home to more Nobel prizes in medicine than any other nation. Our record of medical achievement led the way to eliminating smallpox and saves half of all people diagnosed with cancer. This legislation will help us save the other half. It offers hope to anyone suffering from diabetes, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's. It represents the strong will of parents and patients who have banded together with effective voices, like the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, the American Heart Association, and the American Cancer Institute. This legislation offers a powerful message to both political parties, Republican and Democrat, that one of our American legacies is to lead the world in the freedom of intellectual inquiry, in scientific research, in medical science, and especially in that most quintessential American value, optimism and the expectation of better days for our children. Mr. Speaker, this legislation directly supports the research of Dr. John Kessler at Northwestern University and his work to treat spinal injuries, Dr. Mary Hindrix at Childrens and her work to prevent metastasis in cancer and Professor Robert Goodman of Northwestern for his research to explore a cure for ALS. We are going to pass this bipartisan bill with a thunderous bipartisan majority, sending to the Senate as an expression of the American people as pro-research, pro-science pro-American leadership and supporting hope for patients everywhere.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, today, along with my colleague Steven Rothman (D-NJ), I introduce a resolution charging Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This resolution urges the United Nations Security Council to use its power under international law to hold the Iranian leader accountable for his genocidal statements targeting the Israeli people. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was designed by the international community to outlaw genocide; to never again allow a massive crime similar to the Holocaust by Nazi Germany during World War II. But now we are faced with an Iranian leader whose public statements call for a second Jewish Holocaust. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide prohibits not only acts of genocide, but also prohibits ``direct and public incitement to commit genocide.'' This resolution urges the United Nations Security Council to examine the evidence of Ahmadinejad's incitement. In order to present the evidence in a clear and concise manner, I recently asked the Congressional Research Service to compile a list entitled ``Ahmadinejad in His Own Words,'' and I present it to the House today. On October 26, 2005, in advance of Iran's Jerusalem Day, established by Ayatollah Khomeini, Ahmadinejad spoke at a conference of the Society for the Defense of the Palestinian Nation, and members of the Islamic Students Union, and an audience of hundreds of students. In his speech, he described his vision of an age-old confrontation between the world of Islam and the ``World of Arrogance,'' that is the West; portraying Israel and Zionism as the spearhead of the West against the Islamic nation. He emphasized in that speech the need to eliminate Israel which, he said, was an attainable goal. He delivered this speech before several representatives of Hizbullah and its leader Hassan Nasrallah and Hamas leader Khaled Mash'al. Speaking to a student conference then, entitled ``World without Zionism,'' Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated: ``Very soon this stain of disgrace (i.e. Israel) will vanish from the center of the Islamic world--and this is attainable. . . The people who sit in closed rooms cannot decide on this matter. The Islamic people cannot allow this historic enemy to exist in the heart of the Islamic world. . . I hope that the Palestinians will maintain their wariness and intelligence, much as they have pursued their battles in the past ten years. This will be a short period, and if we pass though it successfully, the process of the elimination of the Zionist regime will be smooth and simple. . . Our dear Imam [Khomeini] ordered that the occupying regime in Jerusalem be wiped off the face of the earth. This was a very wise statement.'' On April 15, 2006, at the opening of a conference on supporting the Palestinians, he said: ``Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation.'' On April 27, 2006, he stated in a speech in the western Iranian town of Zanjan, carried on live national television. ``This regime (Israel) will one day vanish.'' On May 11, 2006, Ahmadinejad made a reference to Israel in a speech to students and instructors at University of Jakarta, he said: ``I advise them to pack up and move out of the region before being caught in the fire they have started in Lebanon.'' On July 8, 2006, speaking to regional officials at the opening of a two-day conference in Tehran on security in Iraq, he said: ``The basic problem in the Islamic world is the existence of the Zionist regime, and the Islamic world and the region must mobilize to remove this problem.'' On July 29, 2006, during an emergency meeting with Muslim leaders, he said: ``The real cure for the (Lebanon) conflict is elimination of the Zionist regime, but there should be first an immediate ceasefire.'' On August 3, 2006, in a speech before the Organization of the Islamic Conference, to presidents, prime ministers and policy-makers of 17 Muslim-majority nations in Malaysia, a major international conference, he said. ``The Zionist regime is fraudulent and illegitimate and cannot survive.'' On October 19, 2006, speaking to crowds of people in Islamshahr, southwest of Tehran, he said: ``This regime will be gone, definitely. You should know that any government that stands by the Zionist regime from now on will not see any result but the hatred of the people.'' On December 12, 2005, in a speech to thousands in the southeastern city of Zahedan in the southeastern Sistan va Baluchistan Province and this was carried on Iranian television, Ahmadinejad said: ``Today, they (Europeans) have created a myth in the name of Holocaust and consider it to be above God, religion and the prophets . . . If you committed this big crime, then why should the oppressed Palestinian nation pay the price? . . . This is our proposal: If you committed the crime, then give a part of your own land in Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to them so that the Jews can establish their country.'' On April 24, 2006 at a press conference in Tehran, he said: ``Every German-born is indebted to the arrogant and greedy Zionists. . . . Sixty years after the war, why do the Palestinian people have to burn in the crimes of Zionists under the pretext of the Second World War?'' And on December 8, 2005, speaking at a press conference on the sidelines of an Organization of the Islamic Conference anti-terrorism summit in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, he said: ``Today, they have created a myth in the name of Holocaust and consider it to be above God, religion and the prophets . . . If you (Europeans) committed this big crime, then why should the oppressed Palestinian nation pay the price? You have to pay the compensation yourself. This is our proposal: give a part of your own land in Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to them so that the Jews can establish their country.'' This is President Ahmadinejad in his own words that I place before the House--all accurately translated and provided in one place to present clearly a rising danger to our allies in Israel and to the West in general. I was looking briefly at a recently translated quote by another leader. He said: ``Why does the world shed crocodile's tears over the richly merited fate of a small Jewish minority? But what happened to the conscience of the world when millions in Germany were suffering from hunger and misery? I ask Roosevelt, I ask the American people: Are you prepared to receive in your midst these well-poisoners of the German people and the universal spirit of Christianity?'' It may sound like a recent speech from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It was actually the works of Adolf Hitler from the magazine Staatszeitung. Looking at these words we have an eerie echo of the past, and potentially a warning of the future. I lay them before the House today so that we see them all clearly, for who this leader is, what he has stated publicly, and where he would like to take his nation. Madam Speaker, we founded the United Nations out of the ashes of the Holocaust. How can we sit idly by today as a UN Member State openly speaks of bringing another one? The United Nations Security Council should charge President Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and increase international condemnation of this dangerous leader. I want to thank Congressman Rothman for leading with me on this issue and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to ensure the federal government fulfills an important obligation to the families of servicemen and women in my district. In 1950, President Harry Truman established the Impact Aid program to assist school districts and communities that lose their property tax base because of the presence of the federal government. Without this federal money, the burden would fall to the remaining residents whose property taxes would continue to rise while impacting the quality of education which can be provided. The Impact Aid program helps to alleviate this problem by directly reimbursing public school districts for the loss of traditional revenue sources. For years Impact Aid was fully funded and offered some of the strongest direct assistance to military families across the nation. Unfortunately, over the last decade we have fallen behind on this commitment, and it is time to reverse this trend. While I support fully funding the Impact Aid program, I believe the situation in my district warrants special attention. In order to ensure that our students most in need continue to receive necessary resources, I have introduced this bill to help North Chicago to continue to qualify for heavily impacted payments, and Glenview and Highland Park receive fair compensation. Due to a unique housing situation for the Great Lakes Naval Training Facility, Impact Aid funding should be higher in five of my school districts. This Naval base is located in North Chicago, one of the poorest school districts in my state. However, some service members and their families live in Navy housing obtained when Ft. Sheridan and Naval Air Station Glenview, located in other suburbs, were closed in the 1990's. These former bases are located within the boundaries of other school districts that now must bear the economic cost of educating children from a base, but receive none of the economic benefits a base provides. Thus, it is vitally important that we both ensure North Chicago continues to receive heavily impacted payments for the benefit of students living there, and that the surrounding communities are more fairly compensated for their loss of property taxes. By passing this bill, the federal government will be fulfilling its responsibility to these communities, and giving our military families the support they deserve.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Congressional Integrity and Pension Forfeiture Act, H.R. 14, which would deny Members of Congress their pension should they be convicted of a felony. I feel strongly that taxpayers should not be responsible for funding the pension of one of us if we have broken the law, broken the public's trust, and been convicted of a felony. I introduced the same bill in the 109th Congress and a portion of it was included in the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, H.R. 4975. Unfortunately, this bill was never considered by the Senate. So I am reintroducing it today. I based my bill almost exclusively after Congressman Randy Tate's bill from the 104th Congress, H.R. 4011. This bill, with 74 co- sponsors, passed the House of Representatives on September 26, 1996 by a vote of 391-32 and 1 Present. It was never considered by the Senate. The very first version of this bill was introduced by my predecessor, Congressman John Edward Porter, in 1990 during the 101st Congress. Congressman Porter had successfully passed a similar bill in the Illinois General Assembly prior to coming to the U.S. Congress. In the mid-1970s, two Members of the Illinois General Assembly were convicted of felonies, resigned, but were still allowed to receive their state pension. State Representative John Porter did not think that was right. Luckily, his bill passed the Illinois General Assembly and reform began. An elected official should not be permitted to draw a publicly funded pension after violating the very law he or she took an oath to uphold. We should be held to a higher standard than others. We swore to uphold the constitution and if we fail to do that, we should not receive anything back from the public. A breach of law by a Member of Congress is a very serious offense that should have very serious consequences.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, this House needs more ethics reforms, rather than less. And the package before the House makes a positive step, but falls short in several key areas. The most important ethics reform that is missing from this package concerns taxpayer-funded pensions for Members of Congress convicted of a felony. Under current law, both Congressmen Traficant of the Democratic Party and Cunningham of the Republican Party would still be eligible to collect a taxpayer-funded pension, even after being indicted and convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt by a jury of their peers of a felony. Stopping taxpayer funded pensions for lawmakers who break the law is not a new issue. My home State of Illinois, a State not known for its clean government, in that State, we, at least, kill pensions for lawmakers who break the law, and we have done so for 30 years. Ten years ago, Speaker Pelosi voted for H.R. 4011. That would have killed pensions for Congressmen for a conviction on any one of 21 separate felonies. She was right then, and it would be right now to terminate taxpayer-funded pensions for lawbreakers. Mr. Speaker, Democratic Congressman Brad Sherman and I joined to support these very reforms in the last Congress. And we, at least, passed limited reforms and allowed the Senate at least to consider them. But today, the 100 hours fails to take up this issue. None of these pension killing reforms are in the package or are currently scheduled. I take what the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) says very seriously, that he has made a commitment to bring up legislation to kill pensions for Members of Congress convicted of a felony. I have introduced legislation, H.R. 14, to do exactly that, modeled after the legislation supported by former Speaker Hastert as well as Speaker Pelosi. These are commonsense reforms, already part of the law of the land in the land of Lincoln, and long ago should be part of the ethics reforms of this House.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce to the House that Henry Hyde has made a major decision in his life. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the matter of my Special Order today.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. I thank the chairman. Pat Durante, who has worked for Henry Hyde since 1974, said that Henry is now in the Guinness Book of World Records as having done the most number of parades of any sitting Member of Congress at that time. To mark that service, I yield to my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), the chairman of the Small Business Committee.

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House, and also a next-door neighbor of Henry Hyde in his service.

Mr. KIRK. I yield to my colleague, Henry Hyde, a neighbor and colleague representing DuPage County, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. KIRK. I thank my colleague from Illinois. Madam Speaker, I would just note that the conference report on the bill that we just filed, H.R. 5692, is called the Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006. To mark that bipartisan spirit of Henry's leadership on our foreign policy, that partisanship should end at the water's edge, I recognize my colleague, Congressman Faleomavaega.

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, we meet here today to commemorate the service to the United States of our colleague Henry Hyde of Illinois. Henry Hyde, from our Sixth Congressional District, currently is retiring as the chairman of the House International Relations Committee and has become one of the most intellectual and respected Members of the House. Henry comes from Chicago Earth. Raised as a Catholic and a Democrat, he was an all-city basketball center when he went off to college in Georgetown and then enlisted in the Navy. Henry Hyde served our country in the United States Navy from 1944 to 1946, serving in the Lingayen Gulf and then the Reserves from 1946 to 1968, finally retiring from the Navy as a commander. After the war, he finished college and law school and practiced law in Chicago and in 1958 switched parties, convinced that Republicans were in line with his anti-communist beliefs. He ran for the House in 1962 and lost by a six-point margin. He then ran for the Illinois House in 1966. He served as the majority leader between 1971 and 1972. He ran for Speaker of the Illinois House, but didn't make it after a narrow battle. Henry was elected to the Congress in 1974, after originally planning to run as president of the Cook County Board until Congressman Harold Collier told Henry that he was not going to run for Congress again. Hyde's first campaign for Congress was against the Cook County State's Attorney, Edward Hanrahan, and in that race Henry won by a victory of 53 percent. It was a big Democratic year in 1974, but what a leader the people of the Sixth Congressional District elected when they chose Henry Hyde, not only as chairman of the International Relations Committee but also of the Judiciary Committee and someone who had a key role in expanding the fight for freedom and democracy in Central America. I first worked closely with Henry Hyde when I served in the United States State Department on behalf of the Central American Peace Process. It was Henry Hyde, his intellect and his voice, that saw the growing danger in Central America. It was Henry Hyde that helped lead this House on a bipartisan basis to back the democracy in El Salvador in its resistance against a communist-backed insurgency. It was Henry Hyde that worked with the Assistant Secretary of State Bernard Aaronson to back elections in Nicaragua where for the first time a communist dictatorship was lulled into an election and then defeated by the people there. It was Henry Hyde that really laid the groundwork in this House as a minority Member on behalf of a new pro-democracy strategy in Central America that ended all of those terrible wars in El Salvador and Nicaragua and in Guatemala, laying the groundwork for peace, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, and much greater prosperity and security. Today, we, his colleagues, mark his service, since 1974 in this House of Representatives, as an intellectual leader. I would now like to recognize Congressman Ray LaHood for his remarks on the service of Henry Hyde to our country.

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield now to my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize one of his subcommittee chairmen, Congressman Royce from California.

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, I would now like to yield to another admirer because Henry had so, so many admirers on both sides of the aisle and one of them was our colleague from Illinois (Mr. Davis). (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KIRK. I yield to the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, another Henry Hyde aficionado, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte). (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, we have a number of admirers of Henry Hyde. One who served with him longer than almost any other Member in the House of the Representatives is my colleague from California, Congressman Lungren.

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, Henry Hyde was known as a strong Republican partisan, but he also had a number of bipartisan achievements, one of them in backing the assault weapons ban, also in supporting Jesse Jackson, Jr. on his effort to build a third airport in Chicago at Piaton. And one of the men who have worked with Henry Hyde and seen his legacy is my colleague from Illinois, Congressman Lipinski, and I yield to him.

Mr. KIRK

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on S. 2370.