Disapproving the manner in which Representative Sensenbrenner has responded to the minority party's request under rule XI of the House of Representatives for an additional day of oversight hearings on the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act and the manner in which such hearing was conducted.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 324) as to a question of the privileges of the House and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that I must rise again to invoke the privileges of the House and to defend the rules and the spirit of simple courtesy and cooperation. I do not enjoy taking the time of this House away from our important business to do so; but recent events, the willful and repeated disregard for the rules of the House, the persistent abuse of power by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and the flagrant abuse of the rights of the minority make this resolution necessary.

As I said the last time I came to the floor for this purpose, it is my fervent hope that this will be the last time it will ever be necessary for me or any other Member to offer such a resolution or to rise on a question of personal privilege. We should be spending our time dealing with the problems and concerns of the American people; but when a chairman abuses his power to stifle debate, Members of this House, both Republicans and Democrats, have a duty to defend the honor of this institution and the integrity of its proceedings. So long as power is abused, rules are ignored and broken and the rights of Members who represent millions of Americans are violated, this House cannot do its job properly. The American people are cheated of their right to an honest, open, fair, and democratic debate on issues affecting the future of our Nation. That is why we are here again today.

These are the facts: the minority is entitled by the rules to a day of hearings. It is a right rarely exercised, but it guards against the majority abusing its power to exclude competing views. Call it the fair and balanced rule. It is not the chairman's right to determine whether we deserve, in quotes, a hearing. It is not the chairman's right to decide whether his prior hearings were sufficient. It is not the chairman's right to decide whether what we say or think is acceptable or relevant. And it is certainly never the chairman's right to violate the rules in order to interfere with our right to conduct the hearing guaranteed to us by the rules.

The chairman is entitled to his opinions. He is not entitled to break the rules, to abuse his power and to impose his will. The chairman as a general rule permits only one minority witness in each committee or subcommittee hearing of the Judiciary Committee. I know of no other committee with this sort of restrictive rule. No matter what the issue, no matter how complex, no matter how many perspectives there might be, the chairman does not allow more than one minority witness.

On that basis alone, we have every right to insist on a day of hearings every time, a day of minority hearings, but we do not. Of course, that is when he allows hearings at all. In this Congress alone, the chairman has decided that we do not need hearings on such important issues as amendments to the Constitution, alleged mistreatment of detainees, and a rewrite of our bankruptcy code. These are hardly isolated cases. Is that the way we are supposed to do our job? No need for a hearing, the chairman wants to do it, so let's just do it. We do not need a hearing to look at the facts.

Members under the rules have the right to question each witness for 5 minutes apiece. We checked with the Parliamentarian. That is 5 minutes for each member for each witness. Yet the chairman repeatedly refused to recognize members. He consistently and abusively cut off members and witnesses in mid-sentence. It is the chairman's custom, to which we have not objected, to be fairly strict and after the 5 minutes are over to say, finish your thought or make your answer brief. That is fine.

In this hearing, because it was a minority-called hearing, he consistently cut off members and witnesses in mid-sentence, and rather rudely. In one case, when a member of the majority accused a witness of endangering American lives, the chairman refused the witness the opportunity to respond. Of course, the chairman did not limit himself to 5 minutes. He recognized himself for an additional 5 minutes toward the end of the hearing in order to deride the witnesses and the minority members of the committee without allowing any response.

Every Member of this House, Mr. Speaker, serves on committees and every Member of this House knows that this kind of abusive behavior is virtually unheard of. Witnesses should be treated with respect. So should colleagues. I thought we all knew that. The chairman refused to recognize members who were seeking recognition. He refused to recognize members who were attempting to raise points of order. Unacceptable. A clear violation of the rules. A plain abuse of power.

The chairman simply ended the hearing unilaterally. While members were seeking recognition and attempting to raise points of order, he simply ignored

them and banged the gavel and got up from his seat. The rules require a motion to adjourn because hearings are not normally ended unilaterally by a chairman. We consulted with the House Parliamentarian who confirmed that an adjournment motion must be approved by the members of the committee unless there is unanimous consent. The fact that adjournment is not normally contested because it is not necessary because everybody agrees does not change the rules.

After the chairman unilaterally adjourned the hearing, while members were seeking recognition, while he refused to recognize those members seeking to raise points of order, the committee staff, either on the chairman's instructions or acting on their own accord, switched off members' microphones while we were attempting to speak, instructed the stenographer to stop recording the hearing and turned off the electronic transmission of the hearing. Again, the hearing was still proceeding because it had not been legally adjourned because there had been no vote and no unanimous consent. Thanks to C-SPAN, the rest of the hearing was recorded and broadcast so the chairman was unable to censor the minority and hide our thoughts from the American people, although he tried.

Can any Member recall a time when a member's microphone was turned off while he or she was speaking in a committee meeting? Mr. Speaker, it is fair to ask, why should a member of the majority or the public care about adherence to the rules in these respects or about the rights of the minority? The answer is simple. Every Member represents more than half a million American citizens. Every one of those Americans is entitled to a voice in our government. No one should ever be allowed to abuse the power of his office to silence opposing views or to disenfranchise millions of Americans from having their views represented simply because they chose representatives of the minority party.

The greatness of our Nation is our freedom to stand up for what we believe and to have everyone's voice heard in the halls of government. The arrogance of power, the abuse of power, the silencing of minority voices, is a direct threat not only to our rules but to our democracy and to our freedom. The rules of this House exist to protect our democracy. Every Member of this House, regardless of party, must stand up for this institution, for its rules, and for the democracy it represents.

That is why I urge the adoption of this resolution and why I hope such a resolution will never again be necessary in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we are not here discussing the substance or the merits of the PATRIOT Act or the manner in which it was adopted 4 years ago or the sufficiency of the oversight of the PATRIOT Act by the Committee on the Judiciary. We will have plenty of time to discuss that on the floor in coming weeks. We are discussing the abuse of power and flouting of the rules by the chairman of the committee at the minority hearing on June 10.

What the chairman said today did not contest or dispute a single point or a single allegation or assertion in the resolution. He did not deny that he rigidly cut off witnesses, every witness, in mid-sentence, a practice unheard of normally in the Committee on the Judiciary.

He did not deny that he made several false and disparaging comments about members of the minority in violation of the rules.

He did not deny that he refused on numerous occasions throughout the hearing to recognize members of the minority party attempting to raise points of order.

He did not deny that he violated the rules by adjourning unilaterally and peremptorily the committee hearing while members were seeking recognition and seeking points of order.

He did not deny that his staff cut off our microphones and even the lights when we were attempting to continue the hearing that he had illegally attempted to cut off.

He says that I said that he chaired the hearing with an attitude of total hostility. Watch the C-SPAN tape, not the tape on the committee website, the entire tape on the C-SPAN website. You will see the accuracy of what I said.

This was unforgivable, it was undemocratic, it was tyrannical. It was demeaning to the House and it should not occur again. Regardless of how he normally chairs hearings, regardless of whatever may happen about the PATRIOT Act in the future, this was an exercise in tyrannical disregard of the rights of the members of the minority and the millions of Americans we represent.

It is intolerable, it is abusive, and, therefore, this resolution should be passed and it should not happen again.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I strongly oppose this resolution because it does not state what the facts are relative to the Judiciary Committee's consideration of the PATRIOT Act. I rise today to respond to false, misleading, and malicious allegations that have been made by Members of this House and reported in the media concerning the conduct of the Judiciary Committee's June 10 hearing on the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act and my consideration of the PATRIOT Act as chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Since becoming chairman of this committee in January 2001, I have consistently demonstrated a commitment to fair and equitable consideration of issues before the committee. Perhaps no other issue better demonstrates this commitment than the committee's response to the tragic events of September 11, 2001. Shortly following the attacks, I called a committee hearing to draft antiterrorism legislation at which the Attorney General and other top officials of the Justice Department testified. At that meeting, I pledged to work with the minority to draft bipartisan legislation to help detect, deter, and defeat terrorist threats to our Nation's security.

Since that time, the record clearly demonstrates that I have kept my word by conducting bipartisan and evenhanded consideration of this critical issue.

In October of 2001, the committee unanimously approved the PATRIOT Act by a vote of 36-0. I was enormously proud of this vote because it proved that a committee comprising sharply diverging viewpoints could speak in a clear and united voice on an issue of overwhelming importance to the security, safety, and liberty of all Americans. When drafting this legislation, I also insisted that provisions expanding the scope of Federal authority be subject to congressional reauthorization. I included sunsets in these provisions because I strongly believe that Congress must play an active and continuing role in ensuring that the PATRIOT Act protects the safety and security of all Americans while preserving the freedom and liberty that distinguish us as Americans.

To ensure that the PATRIOT Act is being implemented in a manner that reflects the priorities of Congress, on multiple occasions Ranking Member Conyers and I have sent detailed, extensive, and bipartisan inquiries to the Department of Justice concerning the implementation of the legislation.

When the Justice Department did not fully respond to one set of detailed inquiries, I forcefully asserted the committee's prerogatives by raising the possibility of a committee subpoena to obtain the requested information.

The committee has conducted several hearings on matters related to the PATRIOT Act, at which senior administration officials have testified. At my request committee members have also received briefings on the implementation of the PATRIOT Act from senior law enforcement officials.

On March 28 of this year, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), ranking member, and I jointly announced a series of hearings on the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. We made this announcement in the same spirit of bipartisanship that has typified the committee's consideration of this issue since the committee's first hearing on this subject following September 11. While the primary focus of this series of hearings has been to examine provisions in the PATRIOT Act that are set to expire at the end of this year, the scope of these hearings has been broadened to include provisions of the PATRIOT Act that will not sunset, and issues that are only tangentially related to PATRIOT Act have also received formal committee consideration at the request of the minority.

The record clearly proves that I have worked in a bipartisan manner to ensure that the committee has received testimony from an array of knowledgeable witnesses of diverging viewpoints, and that members had the opportunity to address questions to each of them. And at this time I include in the Record a listing of the oversight activities and a chronology of the hearing record that has been held since April before the Committee on the Judiciary and its subcommittees.

OVERSIGHT: House Judiciary Committee Oversight of the USA PATRIOT Act

oversight through letters to the department of justice

House Judiciary Committee sent the Attorney General, John

Ashcroft, a letter on June 13, 2002, with 50 detailed

questions on the implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act. The

questions were a result of extensive consultation between the

majority and minority Committee counsel. Assistant Attorney

General, Daniel Bryant, responded to Chairman Sensenbrenner

and Ranking Member Mr. Conyers on July 26, 2002, providing

lengthy responses to 28 out of the 50 questions submitted. On

August 26, 2002, Mr. Bryant sent the responses to the

remaining questions, after sending responses to six of the

questions to the House Permanent Select Committee on

Intelligence. Then, on September 20, 2002, Mr. Bryant sent

the minority additional information regarding the Department

of Justice's responses to these questions.

On April 11, 2003, Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking

Member Mr. Conyers sent a second letter to the Department of

Justice with additional questions regarding the use of pre-

existing authorities and the new authorities conferred by the

USA PATRIOT Act. Once again, the questions were the product

of bipartisan coordination by Committee counsel. Acting

Assistant Attorney General, Jamie E. Brown, responded with a

May 13, 2003 letter that answered the questions she deemed

relevant to the Department of Justice and forwarded the

remaining questions to the appropriate officials at the

Department of Homeland Security on June 13, 2003, the

Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs at the Department

of Homeland Security, Pamela J. Turner, sent responses to the

forwarded questions.

On November 20, 2003, Chairman Sensenbrenner and

Congressman Hostettler, Chairman of the Subcommittee on

Immigration,

Border Security, and Claims, sent a letter to the Comptroller

General of the Government Accountability Office (GAO)

requesting a GAO study of the implementation of the USA

PATRIOT Act anti-money laundering provisions. This report was

released on June 6, 2005.

oversight through hearings

On May 20, 2003, the Committee's Subcommittee on the

Constitution held an oversight hearing entitled, ``Anti-

Terrorism Investigations and the Fourth Amendment After

September 11th: Where and When Can Government Go to Prevent

Terrorist Attacks.'' On June 5, 2003, the Attorney General

testified before the full Committee on the Judiciary at an

oversight hearing on the United States Department of Justice.

Both the hearing on May 20 and the hearing on June 5

discussed oversight aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act.

Ovrsight Through Briefings

The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security

of this Committee requested that officials from the

Department of Justice appear and answer questions regarding

the implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act. In response to our

request, the Department of Justice gave two separate

briefings to Members, counsel, and staff:

During the briefing held on August 7, 2003, Department

officials covered the long-standing authority for law

enforcement to conduct delayed searches and collect business

records, as well as the effect of the USA PATRIOT Act on

those authorities.

During the second briefing, held on February 3, 2004, the

Department of Justice discussed its views of S. 1709, the

``Security and Freedom Ensured (SAFE) Act of 2003'' and H.R.

3352, the House companion bill, as both bills proposed

changes to the USA PATRIOT Act.

The Department of Justice has also provided three

classified briefings on the use of the Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Act (FISA) under the USA PATRIOT Act for Members

of the Judiciary Committee:

On June 10, 2003, October 29, 2003, and June 7, 2005 the

Justice Department provided these briefings.

The Department also provided a law enforcement sensitive

briefing on FISA to the House Judiciary Committee Members and

staff on March 22, 2005.

HEARING CHRONOLOGY: House Judiciary Committee Consideration of the USA

Mr. Speaker, I believe all of my colleagues would accept the premise that justice is not outside of the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, nor is the concept of justice outside of the concept of this august body.

Judge Learned Hand is cited to have stated that the spirit of liberty is a spirit which is not too sure that it is right. So sometimes, Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that those of us who believe in liberty should step back for a moment and question whether everything that we have done or everything that we think is right.

I think it is well to remind my colleagues that our Founding Fathers, those who came freely to this Nation, fled because they fled from persecution. And they fled to have the opportunity and the right to speak. We have always abhorred the tyranny of the majority. So it is important that those of us who stand today welcome, welcome, the offer being made by the previous speaker that we can sit down and resolve these questions and these disputes.

But there is no doubt that the resolution offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) has not been refuted. Violation of Rule XVII did occur. A motion did not occur to adjourn, and it is the rule that we have accepted. The violation of Rule XVII did occur, and as much as we did have a hearing, there were witnesses who were not able to respond to accusations or allegations being made by Members of Congress.

I think that we as Members recognize that we represent the American people, and whether or not witnesses come and take an oath and offer to this Congress words that you agree or disagree with, courtesies should be given to them so that their voice might be heard.

The previous speaker is right. We worked in a bipartisan way on the PATRIOT Act. We did it within a 6 week period. But ultimately another bill went to the floor of the House. It behooves us now to insist on behalf of the American people a complete overview and oversight of the PATRIOT Act.

So I simply say to my colleagues, justice should not be fleeting, and we should abide by justice, all of us, and we should vote for the Nadler resolution.

Mr. Speaker, Judge Learned Hand is cited to have stated that ``The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right. . . .''I would like to associate myself with the resolution filed by the Gentleman from New York and I join him in expressing displeasure and outrage at the disrespectful conduct of the Republican majority at the Committee hearing that was held on Friday, June 10, 2005. The Hearing was requested by the distinguished Ranking Member Mr. Conyers, for the purpose of hearing important testimony relating to questions of civil rights and civil liberties, immigration policy, and human rights resulting from the provisions to be reauthorized in the USA PATRIOT Act.

What happened on June 10 was not only an attempt to silence Democratic Members of Judiciary, it was to silence Democracy in America. In my 11 years on the Committee on the Judiciary, I have never witnessed such treatment and disrespect as we saw by the Committee Leadership, who in addition to walking out of the hearing, also unilaterally decided to shut off the microphones for both Members and witnesses.

Furthermore, to do so in the context of analysis of very substantive legislation such as PATRIOT Act Reauthorization, something that greatly concerns all Americans, only exacerbated the repugnancy with which the very legislation itself was passed.

Throughout that hearing, which was called at the least convenient time of 8:30 a.m. on a Friday when Congress was not in session, witnesses and Members were cut-off in mid-sentence, and the Chairman refused to yield to points of order or points of personal privilege called for by the Committee Democrats. The hearing was abruptly adjourned by the Chairman, in violation of the Rules of the House while microphones of Democratic members were shut off while they attempted to speak.

Sixteen provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act automatically sunset at the end of the year unless reauthorized by Congress. As such, the Judiciary Committee held hearings on the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act that absolutely required bipartisan cooperation. Legislation that touches upon fundamental civil rights and civil liberties should not be commingled with petty games, personal gripes, or hostile acts steeped in partisan politics. It is my hope that the Republicans will issue an apology and begin taking strides to form a bridge across the aisle that has been widened by ugly partisan divide.

Sixteen (16) provisions that are due to sunset at the end of 2005 are set for reauthorization. These provisions include Section 213 that allows delayed notification search warrants, Section 209's emergency disclosure of e-mails without a court order, and the provision that allows access to business records.

I commend the Chairman for his disposition to hold the 10 oversight hearings that have been held on these controversial provisions. However, if my colleagues on this side of the hearing room were to file an action based on the common law principle of forum non conveniens, we would likely be justified based on the fact that this hearing has been called for 8:30 a.m. on the day following the end of votes for the week! Nevertheless, we applaud this de minimis effort to appeal to the requests for hearings that have been made by the distinguished Ranking Member of this body.

By way of background, I remind this body that the PATRIOT Act was passed into law a mere six weeks following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The process of drafting this bill until its signing into law by President Bush took only four days from October 23 to October 26, 2001. The final measure, H.R. 3162, incorporated provisions of H.R. 2977, which the House passed on October 12, 2001, and S. 1510, which the other body passed on October 11, 2001. While Congress grappled with the need to act expeditiously to fight terrorism, I still marvel that a bill more than three hundred pages long moved from introduction to enactment at such a daunting speed. The process of reauthorization seems to resemble this path.

Mr. Speaker, while the Committee on the Judiciary has exercised oversight on the provisions that are up for reauthorization, I feel that, given their continued and increasing contentiousness, we must further analyze the possibly negative impact that they will have on our civil rights, civil liberties, and other guarantees under the U.S. Constitution. Conduct that disrespects Members who wish to conduct substantive debate as representatives of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friends from Pennsylvania and Illinois who did a great job describing the sacrifice that Mr. Mastrapa gave to his country on behalf of the citizens of Iraq and, actually, freedom throughout the world.

Mr. Speaker, today we honor a man who honored us and dedicated his life to serving others. I thought I would take a few minutes to share some of the hometown effects of the loss of Sergeant Mastrapa.

Arthur Stacey Mastrapa put country and others above self. He possessed a unique calling for both service and optimism that left a mark on the lives of all he met.

His sister-in-law, Tracy Mastrapa, described this calling: ``He dedicated his life to public service, first in active duty as a military police officer, then as a postal worker, and finally as a Reserve MP. He was called to serve his country, which he did proudly with the utmost integrity.''

His calling led him to join the Army in 1992 and then as he left the Army, to reenlist in the Army Reserves after his active duty years ended.

His career outside the Reserve was also in service of his fellow citizens, this time in central Florida. As a postal worker in Altamonte Springs, Florida, he earned the respect of those around him. One of his colleagues said of his work, ``I respected him for his positive outlook and his level head. Also, his customers remarked how much they liked him and appreciated his dedication. He was a hard worker and good family man.''

Two years ago, Sergeant Mastrapa answered the call to serve for what turned out to be the final time. He and his Reserve unit, the 351st Military Police, were deployed to Iraq. Last June in Iraq, Sergeant Mastrapa made the ultimate sacrifice.

All human beings strive to occupy a valued place. One observer has offered this definition for this desire: ``You occupy a valued place if other people would miss you if you were gone.''

Mr. Speaker, Arthur Mastrapa occupied a valued place. He left behind a wife, Jennifer, and two children Marisa and Reese. They, along with the rest of his family, miss him terribly.

His co-workers miss him as well. One described Sergeant Mastrapa as a man who ``loved his job, loved his family, loved his country.''

Another said, ``I only knew him a short time but it was long enough to know what a great guy he was. Arthur was a family man. He loved his kids and wanted them with him all of the time.''

So in an attempt to honor a man who occupied a valued place, his coworkers requested that a special place be named for him, the post office in Altamonte Springs, Florida, the very place Sergeant Mastrapa worked prior to leaving for Iraq for what turned out to be his final journey.

Today, we are here to carry out his colleagues' wish so they are reminded of Arthur Mastrapa when they arrive for work each new day, and so his wife, his children, his family and his friends can come to see his name and remember his service, his sacrifice and his decency.

In closing, I would like to borrow from the words of President Harry Truman who said, ``We know that helping others is the best way, probably the only way to achieve a better future for ourselves.''

Arthur Stacey Mastrapa's desire to help others and serve his country has made the future a better place to live. I urge my colleagues to approve H. Res. 324 and create a lasting memorial to Sergeant Mastrapa's name.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 324) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 321 Montgomery Road in Altamonte Springs, Florida, as the ``Arthur Stacey Mastrapa Post Office Building''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 324.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 324, a bill to designate the U.S. postal facility at 321 Montgomery Road in Altamonte Springs, Florida, as the Arthur Stacey Mastrapa Post Office Building. I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney) for sponsoring this legislation to honor Sergeant Mastrapa, a courageous American hero whom our Nation lost in the war on terror.

Sergeant Arthur Mastrapa of Apopka, Florida, an Army Reservist and military police officer, was killed in a rocket attack at a logistics support facility in Balad, Iraq, on June 16,

2004. He was 35 years old. His loss was made more tragic because it came just 2 days before he was due to return home with his comrades in the 351st Military Police Company, based in Ocala, Florida. He is survived by his loving wife, Jennifer, and his two loving children, Marisa and Reese.

Nothing could be more appropriate or fitting than to name this post office after Sergeant Mastrapa. Mastrapa was a Reservist and a postal letter carrier who worked full time at this post office on Montgomery Road in Altamonte Springs. I hope and pray that the dedication of this facility in Altamonte Springs will be a meaningful reminder of Arthur's life and service to his family, friends, colleagues, and neighbors. The Mastrapa family needs to know that the heartfelt thoughts and prayers of all the Members of the House of Representatives are with them. We join them in mourning their loss.

The United States of America owes its security and freedom to people like Arthur Mastrapa. Sergeant Mastrapa and our Armed Forces have helped to prevent another attack against America since September 11, 2001, by taking the war on terror straight to where our enemies live and plot. Certainly, the wonderful democratic election in Iraq on January 30 was in no small part possible to Sergeant Mastrapa's heroism.

I know the Iraqi people, like all Americans, would thank Arthur if they could.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House leadership for selecting this bill for floor consideration, and I greatly thank my distinguished colleague from Florida for working on H.R. 324. I urge all Members to support this honor for Sergeant Arthur Mastrapa.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney), my distinguished colleague, the sponsor of H.R. 324.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support H. Res. 324, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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