Patrick McHenry

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, scientific discovery should never compromise our moral integrity. Embryonic stem cell research, which they call hope, which some call hope, destroys human life. What they do, in essence, is they create a new human life. They fertilize an embryo, the essence of life. Then they take that embryo and destroy it, the essence of human life. It is a destructive concept for our society. And government has no business funding research that creates life in order to destroy it. And at its essence, that is what embryonic stem cell research does. It is not progress. It is a breakdown in medical ethics, and government should not support it or endorse it. Additionally, embryonic stem cell research has not produced a single medical treatment, whereas ethical adult stem cell research has produced 27, at least, disease and condition recoveries for cerebral palsy and spinal cord injuries. We need to actually encourage human life, not destroy it. And I urge the President to veto this unethical research.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, we must defend traditional marriage. Marriage, family and community are not catch phrases. They are the backbone of our American society. Sadly, however, there is an organized effort by judicial activists and the radical left in this country to destroy our traditional American culture. The Federal Marriage Amendment provides a national definition of marriage and leaves marriage laws to the State legislatures. It adds a layer of protection against court-imposed arrangements other than marriage and protects States from being forced to recognize same-sex unions created by other States. Years of social science evidence confirms that children respond best when their mom and dad are married and live in the home. That is why it is important that we defend traditional marriage and this traditional notion of family law that emphasizes the importance of the foundational principle of family and to address the needs of children in the most positive and effective way. We must defend what is sacred in our Nation against reckless actions of a dangerous few who seek to impose their liberal lunacy on our society. That is why we must fight for families, and this is a war worth fighting.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, while America marked the anniversary of our independence, North Korea demonstrated the danger of oppressive regimes. International threats are often distressing, but the silver lining in there is that there is a galvanizing effect. Threats test our mettle and express not our weaknesses but our strengths as a Nation. And make no mistake about it, this Republican majority in the House stands strongly in defending our Nation while Democrats have waged a two-decade-long campaign to undermine our national defense capabilities. In May, just May, 117 Democrats voted to cut more than half the funding, $4.7 billion, from our missile defense program in the national defense authorization bill. In other words, the Democrats are applying their national defense strategy in Iraq to North Korea. It is called ``ostrich'': you stick your head in the sand and ignore the threats. Well, at least there is consistency in their policy, Mr. Speaker. Maybe they will propose to cut and run from Alaska and Hawaii too because they could be attacked by North Korea with their missiles.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I first want to begin by thanking my colleague from Pennsylvania for offering this substitute. I think it is important that on large issues coming before Congress that both sides are heard. We dealt with this issue in committee. This bill, sponsored by my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick) was voted out of committee by a voice vote, certainly not a very controversial piece of legislation. Mr. Kanjorski's amendment, offered in the nature of a substitute as well in the committee, which is substantially the same as he is offering here today, was voted down. So we have already dealt with this and wrestled with this issue in committee. I also want to talk about the substance of his amendment today. What it does is retain the status quo. In essence, the SEC has endorsed an anticompetitive model for credit rating agencies. There are two dominating credit rating agencies that control 80 percent of the marketplace, and this is because of SEC regulation. What Mr. Fitzpatrick's bill does is enable the private sector to come forward and actually increase the number of credit rating agencies in the marketplace so investors can decide. So it is a free market piece of legislation. What Mr. Kanjorski's bill does is retain the status quo that is anticompetitive, and beyond that, it has no accountability. It is a voluntary regime which Mr. Kanjorski endorses, without any real mechanism of enforcement, and beyond that, it codifies this chicken and egg problem within the credit rating agencies today. You have to be a nationally recognized credit rating rated agency in order to be a national recognized credit agency. Now here is the deal. You can operate all you want and call yourself a nationally recognized credit rating rated agency, but unless you are recognized by the SEC you cannot operate. So, therefore, you are codifying in law a very complicated procedure that the SEC has put in place. It says you cannot actually function in the marketplace without the SEC endorsing it, but in order to get the SEC to endorse you, you have to be in the marketplace and operating. So, in essence, we have a very complicated piece of procedure that the SEC's put in place that is anticompetitive. Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would say that what the gentleman from Pennsylvania is offering in the nature of a substitute is a question of who, not what. This is truly about politics today. I think it is a question of who is sponsoring the legislation, who is moving the legislation, not what the underlying legislation does. I would ask my colleague to vote with us on final passage, to move forward past this substitute and let us do the business of the House and the business of the people and endorse a free market solution.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following as an extension of my remarks regarding the series of votes for Thursday, June 29, 2006. I was detained from votes due to a scheduled event in my district. Rollcall votes: No. 350, vote ``aye'', Previous question on the Rule for H. Res. 895; No. 351, vote ``aye'', Adoption of the Rule for H. Res. 895; No. 352, vote ``aye'', Previous question on the Rule for H.R. 4761; No. 353, vote ``aye'', H. Res. __ Providing for the adjournment of the House Information Resources; No. 354, vote ``no'', Markey Amendment; No. 355, vote ``no'', Bilirakis Amendment; No. 356, vote ``aye'', Final Passage of H.R. 4761, Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act; and No. 357, vote ``aye'', Adoption of H. Res. 895, Supporting Terrorist Finance Tracking Program.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, the Washington Times reported today that a Senate immigration bill, the Kennedy bill, would prohibit State and local police from helping Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials combat illegal immigration. The Senate bill bars State and local police from detaining aliens simply for being in the U.S. illegally. Police could arrest the aliens only if they commit certain additional violations of Federal immigration law. So the Senate bill wants to base our national security on get-out-of- jail-free cards and second chances? Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, that four of the September 11 hijackers committed immigration violations and had been stopped by State and local police before the attacks on our Nation. Just 2 days before September 11, one hijacker, who had overstayed his visa, was stopped and given a $270 speeding ticket. That was later found in his rented car in the Newark airport just a couple of days after September 11. Mr. Speaker, those who don't learn from their mistakes are destined to repeat them. The Kennedy bill in the Senate does just that.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome home Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force Gerald Murray, who is returning this fall to Boiling Springs, North Carolina, after 29 years of dedicated service to our Nation. Chief Murray grew up in Boiling Springs, a town in my district, and entered the Air Force in October of 1977. He was stationed in Florida, South Carolina, Washington and Georgia, and also served overseas in Turkey and Japan, before being deployed to support Desert Storm and Southern Watch. As the 14th chief master sergeant, the highest noncommissioned officer in the Air Force, his many years of devoted service to our Nation deserve the highest praise. Chief Murray's numerous tours and operations clearly demonstrate his drive and determination to protect our country and ensure our freedoms. Chief Murray answered the call to protect our country and to serve with valor, class and integrity; and he represented Western North Carolina and America well. He deserves the highest phrase; and we are happy to have you home, Chief Murray.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, Islamic extremists from the group Hamas attacked an Israeli army post on Sunday, killing two Israeli soldiers and holding hostage a 19-year-old corporal. Hamas militants called for the release of Palestinians from Israeli prisons in exchange for information on the soldier. Mr. Speaker, Hamas's attempt at life-or-death blackmail once again shows its true colors. They are not a legitimate party promoting the democratic process. They are a terrorist organization, plain and simple. The American taxpayers must never be asked to fund this terrorist organization that seeks to destroy the very existence of its democratic neighbor, Israel. We are in the business of eliminating terrorist funding, not authorizing it. Our mission is to promote the spread of democracy in the Middle East. We must stand beside Israel, our most trusted ally in the Middle East, as they face down this terrorist organization in government clothing. Mr. Speaker, democracy and terrorism cannot coexist, and I am putting my money on democracy.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida for yielding this time to me. This is a very important bill offered by my colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan). The legislative line item veto is something that is necessary for us to get our fiscal house in order. What this will do is enable Congress to work with the executive branch to root out special- interest projects. Case in point. We just passed an emergency spending bill not 2, 3 weeks ago on this House floor. It included $38 million for funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to fund ``activities involving oysters.'' This is an emergency spending bill. Certainly something that is not reasonable. I like oysters, I like them baked, I like them fried, I like them raw. They all really taste great, but does that mean that we should spend $38 million for this? That is a great case in point for the President to be able to use a legislative line item veto and for us to act to root out this wasteful spending. Washington big government has an infinite appetite for more, more programs, more spending, more taxes. We have to take a principled stand to reform this, to fix this problem, to root out that waste, and this will put us on a diet if we pass this legislative line item veto. I encourage the House to approve the rule today and to vote for the underlying bill.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Doomsday. That is what the Democrats have to offer. But, actually, we have been waiting for weeks, months, actually over a year now for the Democrats to offer an agenda, and they did that last week, although agenda may be a little too strong of a word. It should be more appropriately called the Cliff Notes for Liberal Lunacy. Case in point. They say they need to require fiscal discipline. Is this some kind of joke coming from the Dems? This is the same party that has proposed $45 billion in new spending on this House floor to appropriations bills over and above what we as Republicans want to fund. Where do Democrats propose eliminating the deficit, by cutting the size of growth? Do they do that? No. They actually just want to go back to raising your taxes for all hardworking Americans. The Democrats are calling from the same old playbook: Promise, tax, spend. Promise, tax, spend. And what we have with their agenda is more of the same.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats gave the Republicans a gift last Friday. Let me give you a drum roll here. It is a wonderful gift given by the left to the conservatives here in Washington, D.C. Let me tell you what that gift was. It was the Democrat agenda. They call it the new direction. Someone said after they released this agenda that it was a new direction. When you are going in circles, you are constantly going in a different direction every time you go around that circle. And that is what the opposition party here in this Chamber is doing, they keep going in circles. It is the same old ideas. They call it an agenda, but it is more like the Cliff Notes for Liberal Lunacy, Mr. Speaker. The theme of their agenda is best described as, well, promise, tax, spend. Promise, tax, spend. It is what they do best. And it is encouraging to see, and it shows a stark difference between the two parties and where we want to take our country, Mr. Speaker. They say fiscal responsibility. That is one of their agenda items. Well, that is a wonderful thing to advocate, but it is laughable coming from Democrats. Here on this House floor, just this year, the opposition party has asked for $45 billion in new spending; $45 billion. And they call that fiscal responsibility. That is just amazing. And do you know what? They want to have all these new spending programs and call it fiscally responsible. Well, how are they going to do that? How are they going to pay for it? By raising every American's taxes. That is how they will do it. They say roll back the Bush tax cuts. What that means is every American will pay more next year if the Democrats are in control than if Republicans are in control. That is what it means. Energy policy. Energy policy. They want to lower gas prices and achieve energy independence. It sounds good. It is very good. Their voting record is far different from that. As we proposed ways of exploring for new energy sources, oil and gas, renewable energy, putting forward bold ideas here on the House floor, they just vote ``no.'' We want to put out tax incentives for new innovation and new ideas for energy production. They say ``no.'' We want to drill and explore for energy in Alaska. They say ``no.'' One hundred eighty-four Democrats voted against exploration of ANWR; 196 Democrats voted against the passage of the Gas Act to relieve high fuel prices for every American; 124 Democrats voted against the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which provided tax incentives and energy production improvements. Look, the Democrats' rhetoric is far removed from the reality of their voting here on the House floor. But let us talk about what they have done to energy. When you constrict the supply of energy and the demand goes up, costs go up for the consumers. As demand rises and supply is constricted, prices go up. It is very simple, basic economics. Well, the Democrats are in favor of constricting that supply and making the costs go up. That is the policies they have advocated. But let us move on to taxes. As I said, they have all these new spending proposals, but what are they going to do? Let us talk about the tax cuts the President has implemented in the last 5 years. One hundred eleven million American taxpayers have seen their taxes decline by an average of $1,800. That is a wonderful thing for the American people. Over 5 million individuals and families will see their income tax liabilities completely eliminated because the President cut taxes across the board. So if you pay taxes, you have received a tax cut, Mr. Speaker, but those that don't pay any taxes didn't receive a tax cut. That is who the Democrats are saying are left behind by tax cuts. Well, it is a basic notion of fairness, Mr. Speaker. If you pay taxes, we have cut your taxes. But if you don't pay taxes, how can we cut your taxes? So I think the American people should remember that when the Democrats talk about Republicans not cutting everyone's taxes. Let us talk about the economic growth that we have implemented as a conservative party here in the House and the Senate with a good President working hard. We have had real per capita disposal income growth of 8.5 percent increase since 1999.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, House Republicans understand that fiscal restraint is not an option. It is a necessity. Since 1991, Federal spending on special-interest projects has increased by 900 percent. It is interesting just in the last emergency spending bill we passed out of this Congress, there is $38 million in oyster research money. Now, I certainly like oysters. I think they are great whether they are raw or steamed or even fried. I am Southern, so fried oysters are great. But I do not think the Federal Government should be spending $38 million. That is why I support the Presidential line item veto, and I think it is important that the President have the authority to root out those wasteful spending projects and make sure that pork-barrel spending does not continue to grow. Mr. Speaker, this initiative will make Congress more accountable and help us eliminate the government gluttony that plagues our current budget process.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, resolve, untested, is only an idea. Today we are fighting a war against Islamic extremists. Make no mistake about it, this is a generational challenge. It was my grandparents' generation that fought the Nazis. It was my parents' generation that fought the communists. It is our generation that is fighting Islamic extremists wherever they are. The left in this country have a policy that they are advocating here today, and they are advocating a policy called cut and run. They are advocating a policy of waving the white flag to our enemies. It is a policy, make no mistake about it, that the left in this country are advocating. But we are fighting a war. We are fighting a war against Islamic extremists that hate the very fiber of our being as Americans. They hate our freedoms and they hate the fact that we embrace equality here in this country, although imperfect. They hate the fact that we have religious freedom and freedom of speech in this country. Make no mistake about it, these are important things to Americans, and our enemy hates those important things. We are having a great debate here, 10 hours of debate here in this Congress on this war policy, and I am proud that the majority in this House will stand to fight and win this war. It is not about status quo, it is about victory.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, there is an ongoing joke here in Washington that the Democrats have no agenda. It is a joke, Mr. Speaker, and it would be very funny if it were not so true. There are ongoing press reports, just this week there is a press report that the Democrats planned to roll out their agenda this week. Well, it is funny because they decided not to. Well, it is also funny because this is a press report that goes back since November of last year. They keep having these press reports that say we are going to roll out our agenda next week. The next week comes and goes, and no Democrat agenda. It is an amazing thing that such a formerly great party with such high ideals and strong agenda can't even get together an election-year agenda. It is an amazing thing to me as a conservative who has an agenda, who is a member of a party who has an agenda. It is a wonderful thing that the party leadership won't come together. The party leadership won't come together and issue an agenda. Now I know there are some on the other side of the aisle that have high ideals and have an agenda, but the Democratic leadership in Washington won't come together and issue an agenda. I am hopeful they will because I think what their agenda will show, when they do issue their agenda, it will show two things: Waving the white flag on the war against Islamic extremists and raising taxes. It is a two-part agenda, and I am going to boil it down to those two things. They are going to wave the white flag and say this war is not worth fighting, let's bring all of our servicemen home. Let's just work with terrorist attacks on our home soil rather than taking the fight to the enemy wherever they are. The second part of that is big government. How do you have big government, Mr. Speaker? You have big government by having big taxes, by taking more out of the economy and bring it here to Washington, D.C., by taxing people more wherever they are in this Nation, Mr. Speaker, by taxing them more, and bringing that money here to Washington and running programs out of Washington. Big government liberalism is still at the heart of the Democratic Party, and that is something that is very out of step with what the American people want. Let's talk about what the Republicans have done and what our conservative leadership here in Washington has done. Just in the last 33 months, we have had wonderful job growth across this Nation. Within the last 3 years, we have had 5.3 million new jobs. Why? Because we have restrained spending in Washington. Well, not as much as I would like as a conservative, but we have been able to restrain spending here in Washington, and excessive growth of government. And we have been able to pass tax cuts that let Americans keep more of what they earn. Those two things have led to this wonderful job creation, and that is why this House continued to pass tax cuts every year since we have taken the majority as Republicans. Every year we have passed tax cuts since 1995. And those results that we have shown the American people have led to the economy expanding. Moreover, when the economy expands and people have jobs through these lower taxes, through conservative fiscal policy, you know what happens? As they make more money, they pay more taxes. The Federal Government gets more revenue when people are working, Mr. Speaker. These things work, and the American people know it and they are benefiting from the prosperity that through conservative fiscal policy, we have helped lead the Nation in this right direction. So, Mr. Speaker, there is a very severe contrast between the two ideologies that underpin the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. They are two disparate views of the world and how we defend our Nation. Mr. Speaker, we should have this great debate, not just on the war, which we have had for the last 10 hours on the House floor, but we should also have a debate about fiscal policy. As a conservative, I don't believe we have done enough in terms of fiscal policy, but we are making progress and that progress is getting real results. That is a wonderful agenda for a conservative party to stand for. Now we look forward to our opposition on the other side of the aisle to one day to come up with an agenda.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, we do have an important debate coming before this House tomorrow discussing what we are doing to defend America through what the President calls the war on terror; what I refer to as the war against Islamic extremists. I had a colleague earlier refer to the big lie. Well, there is a big lie propagated by the left in this country that we have no enemies abroad; and beyond that, we should not fight those enemies where they are. We are making progress in this war against Islamic extremists. Make no mistake about it, this is a generational fight. While my grandparents fought the Nazis and my parents fought the Communists, very harsh ideologies that sought to destroy our way of life, that sought to destroy who we are as Americans, we too have a generational fight in this war against Islamic extremists. And I will say in the last week we have seen some very positive prospects coming from Iraq. There are those who want to deny that we are making progress, and they have every right and ability to do that because we have freedom of speech here in the United States because of our constitutional freedoms. We are trying to bring that same level of freedom to those that are living in repressive regimes, which those repressive regimes are the ones that are propagating terror against us in the United States. So if we spread peace and freedom and democracy around the world, we will have fewer enemies that seek to destroy us and to kill Americans. Now, in the last week we saw the destruction of Zarqawi, a militant extremist in Iraq, a terrorist mastermind, who was seeking to destroy our troops, to hurt our men and women in Iraq and to destroy the progress they are making for themselves in Iraq. But we did root him out. That was a wonderful, positive step. We should be proud of that action. Beyond that, we saw progress with the government of Iraq taking shape and form with the security ministers being put into place and the final government being put into place. We are making progress there in Iraq and we should be proud of that. Beyond that, there are extremists in Israel. There are extremists in Afghanistan and throughout the Middle East and some in this country that seek to destroy us. This is the reality of the day. Some would say we should deal with them with a legal strategy. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would say that is really removed from the realities of the war that we are fighting. Our enemy hates our values. Our enemy hates our freedoms. Our enemy hates our capitalism that we embrace in this country. So we must fight them wherever they are and by any means possible. But the left in this country, Mr. Speaker, don't want to fight this war. They know it is hard. They know it is difficult. But I would say to the left in this country, Mr. Speaker, that if we do not fight them, the values which they cherish, the freedom of speech and the freedom of dissent which we have in this country, the right to vote, the actual equality that we strive for in this country, although imperfect, the equality that we strive for, whether it be females having a place in society which we embrace here in this country, those extremists would not want that to happen. They want burqas worn by women. They don't want their participation. They don't want them to own property or have freedom of speech, wholly removed from what is our reality here in this country, although imperfect. But we strive for those values, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, our enemy will fight us in any way possible. We must have a debate on this House floor on what means we are going to use, what direction we should take in this war on terror. This is a generational fight, and we as Americans must step up to the challenge and embrace the fight or they will destroy us.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My amendment is very simple. I certainly appreciate Chairman Knollenberg and his able staff working with me to craft this amendment and make this possible. I want to commend the chairman for his hard work and dedication each year on this House floor and in committee to pass a strong budget that restrains spending but funds our major priorities. Thank you and your staff. My amendment is very simple. It prohibits funds from demolishing a current interchange on interstate I-40. This is something requested by local officials and by the North Carolina Department of Transportation. This buys us 1 year.

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

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, the Washington Times reported last week that while firearms sales in the United States remained on the rise, gun-related crime and gun accidents are on the decline. Figures released by the Treasury Department show that retail sales of firearms and ammunition rose by almost 3 percent in 2005. All told, 4.7 million new guns were sold during this past year. Yet government figures and independent statistics revealed that firearm crimes and accidental fatalities, including among youth, all trend downward. A recent assault on the Mall, ironically involving one of the Capitol Police chief's children who was one of the victims, underscores the importance of making guns available to law-abiding citizens in Washington, DC. Residents here deserve the same self-defense measures that we do in our individual States. The second amendment applies to all Americans, not just some. It does not take a constitutional scholar to figure that out. Mr. Speaker, anti-gun activists attacking our second amendment rights are perpetuating a myth of more guns equals more violence. It is not true.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 269 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Amendment Offered by Ms. Harris

Mr. McHENRY

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

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to commend Chairman Kolbe for his dedication and steadfast leadership here in the United States House of Representatives, and in particular his leadership on this very important appropriations subcommittee. Chairman, you are going to be sorely missed here in Congress, but we know that you are going to continue to fight the good fight for the right issues and the right values going forward. Thank you for your service to your constituents and your Nation. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak today and I offer an amendment to this end to speak to a growing problem in our Nation where criminals who commit violent crimes, including murdering law enforcement officers, these criminals are illegal immigrants, some of them. Some are immigrants. These folks sometimes flee the Nation and they flee to nations that refuse to extradite them back to the United States of America so they can be dealt with in our justice system, and those nations have been refusing to extradite these criminals because of our tough laws on criminals, including life imprisonment. There is language in this bill that addresses these concerns, but there is one big problem: it gives the State Department the power to issue waivers to foreign countries which allow these countries to continue receiving taxpayer funding even if they refuse to extradite these criminals to the United States. My amendment strikes the State Department's ability to issue waivers to foreign countries that refuse to extradite cop killers so they will stand trial here in the United States where their crime was committed or allegedly committed. I offered the original amendment last year with Congressman Beauprez of Colorado without this waiver provision. It passed by a vote of 327- 98 on this House floor. The amendment would return section 581 to its original intent: no funds should go to a foreign country refusing to extradite to the United States any individual accused in the United States of killing a law enforcement officer. In 2002, Mr. Chairman, a convicted felon who had been deported three times allegedly shot and killed a Los Angeles County sheriff following a routine traffic stop before fleeing to Mexico, where he remains today. That police officer was murdered, and that criminal, that man accused, is free today in Mexico. The U.S. should not be forced to plea bargain with other countries in order to try criminals, especially cop killers, in our courts. As a good neighbor and a country built on respect for law, Mexico should fully understand and comply with their obligations to return cop killers to the United States to stand trial. Killing a police officer is one of the most egregious crimes, and we should have the right to seek justice for the families of the slain officers. Mr. Chairman, when countries do not extradite violent criminals, it actually creates a perverse and twisted incentive to even commit greater violent crimes here and run back to their countries. The more violent the crime, the tougher the sentence here in the United States, which is right, that is good; and the tougher the sentence, the less likely they are going to be extradited. That is a very perverse and twisted incentive for violent crimes. So the U.S. should not be obliged to give foreign aid to these countries refusing to extradite these violent criminals back to the United States where they justly should be given the trial they deserve, and foreign aid money should not go to these countries that will not abide by reasonable laws that we have on the books. I ask my colleagues to vote for this amendment. It is a commonsense amendment that puts teeth back into the original legislation and will put pressure on countries who gladly take our money while protecting the most vile criminals from prosecution. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, sometimes a person's mere existence causes death and destruction in this world. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al Qaeda's leader in Iraq who has led a bloody, bloody campaign of suicide bombings and kidnappings, was killed yesterday by our U.S. forces in an air raid north of Baghdad. The death of this terrorist breathes new life into our efforts to implement democracy in a region desperate for freedom and hungry for peace. Mr. Speaker, the Iraqi Parliament, as well, made a major breakthrough today by appointing officials to lead the country's top security ministries, giving Iraq a complete government for the first time since their elections in December of 2005. Victory in Iraq is not only possible, Mr. Speaker, it is approaching. I want to tell my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, our troops are putting their lives on the line every day and making the sacrifices necessary to ensure safety, security, and a democratic Iraq, which will provide a model for a free and representative government in the Middle East. Mr. Speaker, peace is a product of strength and democracy. We are showing strength by eliminating the terrorists and implementing democracy which will help root out Islamic extremists in the Middle East.

Mr. McHENRY

Mr. McHENRY. Tonight, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we address our agenda as Republicans, and what we have done as a majority in this House. We have controlled both the House, the Senate, and the White House. Mr. Speaker, the American people and my constituents, in particular, have been asking, what have you done? What have you achieved for us? And I want to tell you tonight the center of what we have achieved as Republicans, Mr. Speaker, is an economic growth that has been unrivaled in our Nation's history, and at the center of that economic growth are tax cuts. Those tax cuts have fueled our economic recovery over the last 6 years. Mr. Speaker, Republican tax cuts have made an enormous difference. And let us talk about this. One hundred eleven million American taxpayers have seen their taxes decline by an average of $1,877, and for the average family that is real money. Here in Washington, D.C. they spend that in a minute, but at home in my district, in Cherryville, North Carolina, that is real money. That is real money for an American family, a family in Cherryville or in Hickory or in Morrisville, to spend on textbooks, clothes, maybe even a vacation, Mr. Speaker. That has fueled our economic recovery, the fact that the American people have more in their own pocket now than they did 6 years ago. I will also say that a family of four earning $40,000 received a tax relief because of President Bush's tax cuts and Republican leadership in the House, they have received a tax cut of $2,010 per year, Mr. Speaker. That is for a family of four making $40,000 a year. That is a wonderful, wonderful thing that we have allowed the American people to keep more of what they earned. Well, what we are trying to do now, what this Republican Congress is trying to do with the help of our President is not only extend the tax cuts, which I am very proud that we were able to enact just a few weeks ago; we extended the President's tax cuts for 2 more years, but to make it permanent. And what would making those tax cuts permanent do for the American people? Well, in my State of North Carolina, between now and 2014 we would produce 22,000 new jobs because of extending and making permanent the President's tax cuts. Our annual GDP would grow by over $111 billion higher, after inflation, if we make the President's tax cuts permanent. Personal savings will grow by $163 billion per year on average over the next decade if we make the President's tax cuts permanent. And personal income will grow in the State of North Carolina on average by $4,000 a year. Disposable income, that is, Mr. Speaker. And beyond that, we are going to see the economy continue to grow if we are able to extend these tax cuts, and a strong economy will spread prosperity more evenly throughout our economy, and that is very important. The American people having more money in their pocket is a very vital thing. That is a very vital thing. Now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been four square against this. Why? They think of government solutions as the only alternative, Mr. Speaker. And I would say that it is important that we come together as a body and say that reducing the size and scope of government is a good thing. Now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have stood in the way of progress in terms of tax cuts. Most of them, a majority, have opposed tax cuts here on this House floor, not just for the last 5 or 6 years during the President's term, but over the course of the Republican majority for the last 12 years. Why Mr. Speaker? Because they want more revenue for government. They want government to expand. Beyond that, Republicans have worked very hard at growing this economy in other ways. Not only have we cut taxes which has led to greater economic growth, but we are trying to increase the supply of oil, gasoline, and natural gas for all Americans, and look at alternative energies. And the Democrats have stood in our way in terms of energy policies as well. And I would encourage them to join with the Republican majority and do what is right, expand our energy supply and continue to cut taxes.