To amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to update the definition of electronic surveillance.

Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago, the 9/11 Commission made a series of recommendations to Congress and the administration designed to ensure the safety of Americans while protecting the liberties that form the core of our democracy. This important legislation addresses issues that reach across all aspects of the lives of Americans.

The 9/11 Commission recommended that Congress ensure that first responders be able to communicate with each other across jurisdictions--firefighters with police officers, emergency medical professionals with State officials, local with State and Federal personnel. Title III, Ensuring Communications Interoperability for First Responders, establishes a grant program designed to achieve this important goal. As structured in this legislation, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) grant program will complement the interoperability program already underway at the Department of Commerce.

Under statute, DHS's expert on all matters relating to emergency communications is the Director of Emergency Communications. Title III of this Conference Report recognizes this statutory directive by ensuring that the Director of Emergency Communications will design and implement the grant programs' policies and guidelines. The Director will be in charge of ensuring that grant program funds are used to establish a forward-looking, nationwide, interoperable system to ensure the safety and efficient functioning of all of our first responders as they respond to natural disasters and other calamities. The Committee on Energy and Commerce looks forward to overseeing this program and receiving continual updates from the Director on the progress of DHS towards achieving nationwide interoperability through this program.

I am also especially pleased that the legislation ensures that the overwhelming majority of the interoperability grant funds will be passed through to localities, because it is at the local level that our first responders are working to ensure our safety and well-being. Importantly, the legislation ties the grant funds to the implementation of statewide plans and a national plan that will act as a road map towards statewide and national interoperability. As we have learned, natural disasters and incidents do not recognize international borders. To help our first responders address trans-border incidents, Title III also establishes border interoperability pilot projects to help us ensure that our first responders are able to communicate with our neighbors to the north and south.

Title IV addresses credentialing workers involved in ensuring America's safety. The Conference Report states that the DHS shall consult with the Secretary of Health and Human Services when developing credentialing standards for healthcare personnel. It is imperative that the Secretary of Health and Human Services not only be involved but also have a leadership role in developing standards for credentialing of healthcare professionals. Failing to utilize the public health expertise of the Department of Health and Human Services to its fullest extent could jeopardize efficient care and support for Americans who have been exposed to a terrorist attack or natural disaster. I look forward to working with Chairman Thompson to ensure that the required consultation is to the degree and of the depth merited by the importance of the public health of all of America's people.

I want to thank the gentleman for some important clarifications that have been added to Title IX of the bill, which addresses voluntary national private sector preparedness standards. When we voted on this bill in January, I noted that Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act establishes a mandatory regulatory program regarding the accidental releases of hazardous chemicals. As part of that program, the owner or operator of a covered facility must prepare and implement a risk management plan to detect and prevent or minimize accidental releases and to provide a prompt emergency response to any such releases. I asked for clarification at that time that the bill's voluntary program was not intended to interfere with this mandatory Clean Air Act program. The conference report before us today provides that clarification. Rules of Construction, as well as requirements for consideration and coordination with other Federal agencies' preparedness programs or standards, have been included in the two new sections of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 that address private sector preparedness. These provisions clarify that the private sector must continue to meet the Clean Air Act Section 112(r) requirements, and that the voluntary preparedness standards are not intended to supersede or interfere with the mandatory Clean Air Act program.

Another important area of concern addressed by this legislation is cargo screening. One of the major security vulnerabilities facing this Nation is the threat from the detonation of a nuclear device smuggled into a port through a cargo container loaded on a ship. It is a nightmare we must prevent. Section 1701 establishes a 5-year goal of 100 percent screening for radiological devices or material in cargo containers leaving foreign ports before they ever enter the waters of the United States. This is a worthy priority, and to ensure adequate flexibility, the DHS Secretary is given authority for 2-year waivers should there be major impediments to its implementation.

Section 1701 also authorizes the DHS Secretary to ``establish technological and operational standards for systems to scan containers; to ensure that the standards are consistent with the global nuclear detection architecture developed under the Homeland Security Act of 2002; and to coordinate with other Federal agencies that administer scanning or detection programs.''

The need for coordination between agencies is essential, particularly given the advanced work carried out by the Department of Energy (DOE) in setting up radiation portal monitors at ports, airports, and rail stations around the world. The DOE's ``Megaports'' program provides radiation detection equipment to key international seaports to screen cargo containers for radioactive materials, including Greece, Bahamas, Sri Lanka, Spain, Singapore, and the Netherlands. Approximately 70 ports worldwide are targeted for implementation, and installation efforts are underway at ports within Belgium, China, Dubai, Honduras, Israel, Oman, the Philippines, Thailand, Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, and Taiwan. Additionally, the Megaports program is teaming with the ``Container Security Initiative'' to implement the ``Secure Freight Initiative'' pilot program at ports in the United Kingdom, Pakistan, and Honduras. The DOE's ``Second Line of Defense'' program installs radiation detection equipment at borders, airports, and feeder ports in Russia, former Soviet Union states, and other key countries. Approximately 350 sites have been identified to receive detection equipment installations.

Even though this legislation authorizes the DHS Secretary to set minimum container scanning technology standards, the Conference Report properly notes that DOE has inherent capabilities to assess, through its cooperative agreements with numerous countries and port authorities, the adequacy of technical and operating procedures for cargo container scanning.

To ensure the smooth continuation of DOE's cooperative relationships with numerous countries and the further expansion of the Megaports program, the Conference Report makes clear that these two agencies shall closely coordinate their activities, and requires that DHS shall consult with DOE prior to the establishment of technological or operational standards that would affect screening activities in foreign ports. As part of the coordination requirement in this section, the Conference Report directs that where the scanning technology standards affect the DOE's Megaports and SLD programs, the Secretary shall invite the DOE to participate in the development and final review of such standards, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall seek the concurrence of the Secretary of Energy. Should differences arise, I would expect that DOE and DHS would notify the relevant committees of jurisdiction in Congress. The American people are counting on the agencies carrying out cargo screening at our ports and borders to ensure that there are technically sound decisions in setting standards and selecting equipment, and that there is seamless coordination between agencies with responsibility and expertise.

Title XXII makes an important modification to the Department of Commerce's interoperability grant program by including strategic technology reserves as eligible for funding. This modification recognizes the importance of a resilient and redundant network of emergency communications. In Title XXII, Congress also recognizes the expertise of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with regard to the Nation's communications and information infrastructure and directs the FCC to conduct a vulnerability assessment. This title also establishes a joint committee and a pilot project to improve communications for emergency medical and public healthcare committee. Title XXII also requires an important report on the progress of the re- banding efforts in the 800 megahertz band. As such, this title recognizes Congress's clear intent that this process proceed as expeditiously as possible so that our first responders in border areas may effectively utilize the spectrum to which they are moving. I also support the changes in Title XXIII because I believe that it will enhance and expedite the ability of our Nation's 911 centers to be able to automatically locate callers whether they are using traditional land line or mobile phones.

I appreciate the Chairman's willingness to work with me, the members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and our staff as we have used our expertise to improve the legislation in this Conference Report.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished member of the Rules Committee for yielding.

I would like to say to my good friend the provision is simply a 2- year pilot that only indicates the amount of the Intelligence budget. We know how important intelligence is, but I think we need to look at the whole bill of H.R. 1. And many of us sometimes need to be reminded of the enormity of that day.

I am very glad to stand here and support the rule for H.R. 1, the 9/ 11 conference report, because it emphasizes unique and new approaches to security. How more comforted we are as travelers to know that cargo is being inspected in ports, consumers or those who understand how vulnerable ports are. I know it well. I have one of the larger ports in the United States in my community, the Houston port.

How many of us are more comforted about cargo being inspected in airlines. How many of us are more comforted by the fact that we will have transportation security grants that go directly to the transportation entities like buses, like airplanes, like subways, like mass transit, Amtrak, and others to focus on the traveling public.

How disappointed I am that we didn't recognize the hardworking people who

work for us every day that we could not give collective bargaining rights for the Transportation Security Administration workers. But we are getting better. We are going to do developmental training, professional training.

This is a bill to remind us of where we have come from and where we are going. Interoperability, incident command system.

And, finally, let me just say we lost lives on 9/11 because we were not prepared in terms of the intelligence community. We were not prepared in terms of supporting the law enforcement community. Today we are prepared. We shall never forget.

My appreciation to the leadership of our chairman, Chairman Thompson, who has taken the challenge of the 9/11 families, and the 9/11 Commission report more than to his heart. That is why we are here today.

I want to thank the ranking member, Mr. King, for working with us on many of these challenges and always raising the voice of bipartisanship as it relates to 9/11.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud, as the subcommittee Chair for Transportation Security in Critical Infrastructure, to have had the opportunity to see some of the elements that are under our subcommittee jurisdiction take a strong stand in the 9/11 conference.

I did this earlier today, but I know that sometimes we need to be reminded of the Pentagon and reminded of this tragedy so that we understand today is an enormously important step towards securing the homeland security.

One of those aspects of securing the homeland security clearly has to do with providing transportation security. I am very proud that in the course of providing transportation security, we now have jurisdiction to issue transportation security grants so that buses and trains, so that the Amtrak system, mass transit, so that highways and byways will have the opportunity for

these jurisdictions to seek out grants specifically to secure areas that might be subject to the acts of terrorists.

Might I also say that we have now interoperability, that we have the ability that so many of our colleagues have worked on to talk to each other. We know the front lines of fighting terrorism has to be that our law enforcement is able to communicate.

We are very glad that this bill emphasizes intelligence sharing, which was one of the downfalls of the tragedy of 9/11. I am more than grateful to know that our families, our families sanctioned this bill, who have been so strong, and I salute them.

Let me also say that in placing language in the bill to provide transportation security grants and training, I am very glad that Texas Southern University will have a center of excellence that I announce and enjoy with my colleague from Texas, and also will be able to train transportation officials in security.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 1), to provide for the implementation of the recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission). As a Member of the Conference Committee that worked to reconcile the House and Senate versions of this legislation and to produce this report, I believe it represents a vital step toward securing the Nation. I wish to thank the Chairman of the Conference Committee, Senator Lieberman, as well as the distinguished chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, Congressman Bennie Thompson, for their visionary leadership in shepherding this important legislation through both houses of Congress. Unlike the previous Republican leadership, this Democratic Congress has wholeheartedly embraced the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, a body comprised of ten of the most distinguished citizens of this country.

Today Mr. Speaker, we are here to consider a Conference report that will provide for the implementation of the recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission). This Conference report closes many critical gaps identified by the 9/11 commission. In its final report, the 9/11 commission concluded that the United States Government had been unprepared for the 2001 terrorist attacks, and made numerous recommendations for how to safeguard the American people. The legislation passed by the House on January 9 and the Senate in mid- March will implement many of these important recommendations.

The 9/11 commission report noted the need for additional tools for first responders and emergency personnel. The lack of adequate equipment likely contributed to the deaths of 343 firefighters in New York City on September 11, 2001, when police could not communicate effectively with fire fighters prior to the collapse of the Twin Towers. Deficiencies in communication technologies also hindered the effective evacuation and rescue efforts after Hurricane Katrina. I am pleased to say that this legislation authorizes $1.6 billion over 5 years for a grant program to improve emergency communication capabilities for first responders. This legislation also requires States to submit statewide inoperability plans.

Additionally, this legislation calls for the allocation of Homeland Security Grants based on risk. High-risk areas will receive the crucial resources they need to protect their population and critical infrastructure. My home city of Houston, with its 5.3 million residents as well as the Port of Houston, a thriving petrochemical industry, the largest medical center in the world, and an extensive range of commercial assets, is just such an area. The allocation process put in place by this legislation ensures that those areas that face the highest risk of an attack receive adequate funding.

There are numerous other important provisions detailed in this Report. As Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection, I am extremely pleased with the provisions that will improve the security of our systems of transport. The 9/11 Commissioners gave a ``D'' grade to the Administration and Congress for their efforts on enhancing air cargo screening. To correct this deficiency, this legislation requires 100 percent screening of all air cargo carried on passenger planes. It also strengthens the explosives detection at passenger screening checkpoints. Additionally, this legislation requires the screening of 100 percent of U.S.-bound seaborne cargo containers loaded in foreign ports.

This legislation authorizes $4 billion over four years for rail, transit, and bus security grant programs, which will be administered under the Department of Homeland Security. In the Conference Committee, I stood by my conviction that DHS is in the best position to administer these grants, and I am pleased that the Department will be responsible for the distribution of these important transportation security grants. Specifically, this legislation provides training for rail and mass transit workers, and it requires security plans for high risk transit and rail companies.

This legislation enhances homeland security while protecting constitutionally enshrined civil liberties. It establishes the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight board as an independent agency, extends protection for whistle-blowers, and provides protection from lawsuits to individuals who report suspicious activities. We can protect our Nation without infringing upon the fundamental rights of Americans; we can provide security for our country without eliminating those freedoms that make the United States extraordinary. This legislation protects our rights as it protects our cities, borders, infrastructure, and population.

As I stand on the House floor today, 6 years since the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001, my heart still grieves for those who perished that day. No one could have predicted that attack; when the sun rose on the morning of September 11, none of us knew that it would end in an inferno in the magnificent World Trade Center Towers in New York City, the Pentagon in Washington, DC, and in the grassy fields of Shanksville, Pennsylvania. We can, however, work to identify and correct the shortcomings in our national security structures, and to take the necessary steps to prevent another such attack on our Nation and its people.

I stand here remembering those who still suffer, whose hearts still ache over the loss of so many innocent and interrupted lives. Mr. Speaker, we can best honor the memory of those who perished on 9/11 by working to ensure that such an attack never happens again. I strongly urge the adoption of this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 567 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, before yielding to myself, I yield to the gentleman from New York for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. McNULTY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 567 provides for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1, to provide for the implementation of the recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and its consideration.

This is a typical rule for a conference report and was reported out by the Rules Committee by a bipartisan voice vote.

Mr. Speaker, when Americans decided last November that they were tired of the way business was being done in Washington, they elected Democrats to the majority.

We promised them that we would implement the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, and today we are fulfilling that promise in bipartisan fashion. We are showing that compromise can, indeed, yield good policy. Democrats have shown with this bill that that compromise can indeed be positive for America.

There were many who did not want to see Democrats succeed in completing work on this bill. They preferred political posturing over protecting the American public. For them, inaction is an acceptable solution, and obstructionism their plan to get back into the majority.

The American people should take great comfort in knowing that we will not allow them to succeed.

I commend my good friends, the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Bennie Thompson, and the ranking member for their tireless work on this conference report. It was not an easy job, but their diligence and commitment to protecting America persevered.

This product takes significant steps to further protect the American people. Democrats are leading in delivery while fixing the shortcomings in our homeland security network highlighted by the 9/11 Commission.

First, this conference report places a priority on providing homeland security grants based on risk and not political preference. This is especially important to my constituents, as south Florida has seen its recent homeland security grant allocations decreased as political consideration has increased in the process.

When it comes to first responders, the conference report includes $1.6 billion for a first responder interoperability grant program.

The report also invests in rail, transit and bus security, authorizing more than $4 billion for these crucial grants.

Further, this report requires the screening on all passenger air cargo within 3 years. This is, without doubt, the furthest that Congress has ever gone to ensure that the flying public is safe and protected.

Within the next 5 years, the conference report requires the screening of all container ships as they leave foreign shores and head to the U.S. This, too, was another of the 9/11 recommendations.

If America is going to be safe, Mr. Speaker, then Congress must do everything in its power to ensure that cargo coming into our ports has been screened and checked. As someone who represents a district which is within just miles of three major international seaports, I'm pleased that the committee included this provision in the bill. The safety and security of south Florida literally depends on it.

I'm also pleased that the Homeland Security Committee and the House Intelligence Committee, of which I'm a proud member, were able to reach an agreement regarding the public disclosure of total spending in the intelligence community. This was another key recommendation from the 9/ 11 Commission, and Democrats are again keeping their promise to turn those recommendations into law.

It is a new day in the House of Representatives. With honesty and transparency as our guiding principles, Democrats are working to strengthen and restore faith in our intelligence community. Even more, we are sending the message to the American people that this Congress will no longer allow the intelligence community to operate without proper oversight.

This conference report is another installment of how Democrats are working to protect the American people and hold the Bush administration accountable for its failures and shortcomings.

This is a good conference report and a good rule. I urge my colleagues to support both.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very privileged to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security Committee of this House, my good friend from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Speaker, I am very privileged to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), who is the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee and has worked actively and diligently for the security of this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, before yielding to Mrs. Maloney, who was directly affected in her district in New York during 9/11, I would just say to my friend from Florida that when he and his party were in charge, the question is, what did they do? Did they pass $250 million annually for airport checkpoint screening? Did they pass $450 million annually for baggage screening? Did they do 100 percent screening within 5 years? Did they protect from lawsuits people who in good faith report what they believe are terrorist activities around airplanes, trains, or buses? Did they do stronger security measures? No. They did none of that.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished lady from New York, who really knows about 9/11, Mrs. Maloney.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), who is the chairwoman of the Intelligence Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment. The gentlewoman and I served on the Intelligence Committee, and perhaps she might be able to educate my friend from Texas regarding watch lists and how difficult it would be in order to have watch lists, as Mrs. Maloney put it, for 800,000 people on one rail line in New York alone.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield 3\1/ 2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who is on the Committee on Homeland Security, and the chairman of the Select Committee on Global Warming.

Mr. Markey has fought diligently regarding airport screening. The gentleman from Florida isn't in here now that talked about screening as not being something that's important.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas, my good friend (Ms. Jackson-Lee) of the Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/ 2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), who is chairman of the Science Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished new Member of the U.S. Congress from Pennsylvania who is chairman of the Subcommittee on Management, Investigations, and Oversight (Mr. Carney).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/ 2\ minutes to another distinguished member of the Committee on Homeland Security, my very good friend from the Virgin Islands, Donna Christensen.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield at this time 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time until the gentleman has closed.

I would ask the Speaker how much time I have remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, you do know and every Member of this body does know that the 9/11 Commission Report was published in the year 2004. Since that time an election has occurred. Before that time and even before this 9/ 11 Commission Report came into existence, President Bush did not even want to appoint a 9/11 Commission. He came kicking and dragging and screaming to even cause it to come into existence. And the extraordinary work that has been done by Lee Hamilton and Governor Kean and the other members of that committee recommended to this body in 2004 that we undertake these measures.

So now we come here, and I ask them, what did you do before that? The answer is nothing.

Mr. Speaker, this body has a responsibility today to pass this rule and the underlying legislation. We can't afford to continue to procrastinate, as my colleagues did since 2004.

Today this new Democratic majority is delivering another piece of our Six for '06 promises. Today this Democratic majority is passing and sending to the President for his signature the 9/11 Commission's outstanding recommendations.

The fact of the matter is that bad people who want to do bad things will always try to find a way to succeed. This conference report ensures that we are doing everything we can here in the United States and abroad to stop that from happening.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good friend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Madam Speaker, this Agricultural, Rural Development, and Food and Drug Administration appropriations bill provides more than $18.8 billion in discretionary spending for the next fiscal year. This bill represents an increase in spending by nearly 6 percent over last year's bill and continues the trend of the Democrat majority choosing to provide spending increases well above the rate of inflation and putting each taxpayer in the country on a path towards an average $3,000 increase in their Federal tax bill. Madam Speaker, this is too great a burden for the American taxpayer to pay.

As many of my colleagues know, I represent one of the premier agriculture districts in the country. Central Washington is rightfully famous for its apples, cherries, wine and many other farm and ranch products. The programs funded under this bill are of great importance to the communities I represent, and there are some provisions in the bill that I do indeed support.

For example, I am pleased that funding is maintained for rural development, which provides critical financial help to rural communities across the country. This bill also fully funds the Natural Resources Conservation Service, which provides on-the-ground technical assistance to farmers and ranchers dealing with soil and water management issues. I also note that this bill maintains a provision that I have long supported which allows Americans to be able to purchase drugs in other countries at lower prices and bring them back to the United States lawfully.

However, Madam Speaker, I am very disappointed that this bill cuts Agriculture Research Service funding by over $50 million compared to last year. I represent three Agriculture Research Service labs, two of which are collocated with Washington State University research facilities. Federally sponsored agriculture research not only improves crop productivity, it also helps farmers and ranchers find solutions to environmental and marketing challenges.

Many agriculture research initiatives were already facing the prospect of cutting essential research programs and researchers. Surely, Madam Speaker, with such a big increase over last year's spending level, we could have found room to at least protect the level of research being conducted today.

I am concerned about the potential impacts of these cuts and what it would mean for facilities in my district, in particular the Agriculture Research Service lab in Prosser. I intend to continue to work with my colleagues from Washington to ensure that we provide the funding necessary to maintain the important agriculture research activities already underway at these facilities.

I am also disappointed that this bill provides only $10 million for the Specialty Crops Block Grant program. This program provides grants distributed by the State departments of agriculture to assist the development, production and marketing of fruits and vegetables. Earlier this year, I joined a bipartisan group of my colleagues in asking that this program be fully funded at the $44.5 million level. This bill falls far short on this account.

Madam Speaker, if we pass this rule today, the House will begin consideration of the Agriculture, Rural Development, and Food and Drug Administration appropriations bill. While this must be accomplished in a timely manner, the Senate in fact will not begin consideration of this bill until September and there is, frankly, a more pressing issue facing our Nation today.

Watching the news and reading the newspapers, Americans are reminded each day that the United States remains vulnerable to another terrorist attack. It is vital that our laws keep us one step ahead of the terrorists, but currently, Madam Speaker, we lag behind.

Right now, Federal law ties the hands of our intelligence community, causing them to miss significant portions of intelligence, all because technological advances have outpaced Federal law. We cannot wait to respond only after another attack. We must act today.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, I will be calling on my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. By defeating the previous question, we will give Members the ability to vote today on the merits of changing current law to ensure our intelligence community has the tools they need to protect our Nation from a potentially imminent terrorist attack.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), a member of the Intelligence Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed my friend from Massachusetts would not respond to my asking him to yield when he spoke just a moment ago, and I am not discounting at all how important the provisions in this agriculture bill, how important they are, notwithstanding some of the problems that I have.

But this issue that we are talking about, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, is very important and it is timely right now. Right now.

Let me explain how this process works, because this does not slow down. And I shouldn't say it doesn't slow it down; it slows it down for one hour. Can't we take 1 hour to debate this issue?

If the previous question is defeated, and I will call for it to be defeated on the floor. If it is defeated, then the rule will be amended to take up the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act amendments for one hour to debate up or down.

This issue is very, very important and it is timely that it gets acted on before Congress leaves for the August district work period. So this does not slow down agriculture. It is not saying anything disparaging about agriculture.

And, frankly, Madam Speaker, I should know. I live in an agriculture- based economy. All of my neighbors are involved, in one way or the other, in agriculture. So I should know the importance of it.

But I also know the importance of taking up this issue regarding FISA and doing it right now, doing it this week, doing it today, by defeating the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5\1/ 2\ minutes to the ranking member of the Ag appropriations committee, Mr. Kingston of Georgia.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

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

The House of Representatives is expected to adjourn later this week for the August district work period. This district work period gives Members the opportunity to leave this humid area in Washington D.C. to work in their respective districts and listen to what is on the minds of the people that we all represent. Congressional ratings are at an all-time low, and I feel that is in part due to the fact that Congress is failing to address pressing issues.

I am asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, as I mentioned earlier. Voting ``no'' will not delay the consideration of the Agricultural, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration appropriations bill.

Let me qualify that. It will delay it for 1 hour. It will, however, give Members the opportunity to vote on the merits of updating current law so that our intelligence community has the tools it needs to monitor the telephone conversations of foreign terrorists physically located in foreign countries. Let me repeat that, foreign terrorists in foreign countries.

I hope that the Democrat majority will not stall any longer in allowing the House to vote on this very vital issue. Each minute we wait to act, our Intelligence Committee could be missing vital information, therefore increasing our risk of another attack on U.S. soil.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous material prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this completely closed rule and to the underlying big government legislation to use eminent domain to strip property owners of their rights that the Democrat majority is bringing to the House floor today.

This is the first of two closed rules being brought to the floor today courtesy of the Democrat majority from the graveyard of democracy and good ideas in the House of Representatives, the Rules Committee. It represents yet another example of the procedural gimmickry being blatantly exploited by the Democrats as they continue to completely ignore their campaign to run the most honest, open Congress in history.

Mr. Speaker, as any 5-year-old could tell you, the opposite of open is closed, and that's precisely what the American people are getting from the Democrats once again, another closed rule.

In fact, as compared with last Congress, through the same date, as of July 30, the Democrats have brought exactly twice as many closed rules to the floor as Republicans did when we held the Speaker's gavel.

Mr. Speaker, I will insert in the Record a document prepared by the Republican staff of the Rules Committee comparing the Democrats' awful record of reporting out closed rules in the 110th with last year's record of those controlled by the Republican Congress.

I appreciate the gentlewoman's inquiring about our intent. We have at least two speakers who would wish to speak on this issue at this time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. Speaker, the bill that is being brought forward today, I believe, is yet another example of the Democrat majority's attack on what I would refer to as constitutional balanced authority in this country. By virtue of bringing this bill forward, it means that what we will be doing is not allowing what I think is a fair process for people dealing with their own private land.

And I'm sure that you'll have lots of people who are my friends who are Democrats say, well, this is so important that we've got to have this land for the interest of all of the people, so we can have this pristine land. But, Mr. Speaker, we're talking about private property. And private property rights are those things under which this country, one of the things that this country is founded under that makes us entirely different than other countries. Other countries, many of them, all around the world, do not extend to their citizens the right for private property.

And so today, once again, what we're seeing is an assault, an attack, using Congress to come and use the powers of the Federal Government against private landowners. I'm sure if their story were being presented today, these private landowners may tell the story about how, for many, many years, I don't know the stories, but how many, many years, being from Texas we could tell the same story, in Connecticut it might be even longer, how people have passed these pieces of property down through generations.

But the fact of the matter is that any time that private property is being taken as a result of a force or a threat, in this case, to make a scenic wilderness area pristine and to preserve that as opposed to a single property owner keeping what they had, making those choices within the law and looking up and seeing the Federal Government staring down at them with all the resources of the Federal Government, knowing that the United States Congress brought this action on them, is regrettable.

It's regrettable that it had to happen this way. It's regrettable that we could not at least, through the Rules Committee, make a simple amendment in order that would say, why don't we clarify that we're not going to force this issue, that we'll hope that some compromise happens, but that we're not going to allow this condemnation.

Not at all. Can't have that kind of debate here.

And this Congress had claimed that we were going to be open and honest, and it would be the most open and honest Congress in the history of the United States Congress.

So that's what's regrettable. That's what's regrettable that here we find ourselves on a Monday at the end of July trying to help the big Federal Government to grab the land from private landowners. And I think that's wrong. I think it's wrong. I think it's wrong for this House to do that without being on record of saying we're not going to sick the Federal Government on these people who might be private landowners.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a recorded vote for the previous question for this rule. And if the previous question fails, I will ask the House to amend the rule to provide for the separate consideration of H.R. 3138, which would amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to update the definition of electronic surveillance.

Our country is facing a very serious problem, and I said this on the floor of the House twice last week, that must be addressed before the House adjourns in August. That means last week we had two weeks to get it done; this week we have one week to get it done. The majority Democrats continue to shirk their responsibilities to keep Americans safe by ignoring the seriousness of this threat.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 11 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico, the ``Land of Enchantment'' (Mrs. Wilson).

By prior agreement, I will close at this time, and I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, if the Rules Committee wants to spend special time on the House floor debating these closed rules, I believe that we can do better than the Eightmile Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

However, for some reason this Democrat leadership cannot seem to find time to schedule consideration of legislation that was just spoken about by the gentlewoman from New Mexico and the gentleman from California that clarifies one very specific thing, and that is that the United States Government will no longer be required to get a warrant to listen to foreign terrorists who are not even located in the United States of America.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, we have got time to pick on private landowners and to take their land by the use and force of the Federal Government, but we don't have time to schedule legislation to come and protect this country. Utterly incredible.

The Director of the National Intelligence, Michael McConnell and the Director of the CIA, Michael Hayden, have testified to this Congress that under current law their hands are tied. They are giving this body notice: we cannot do this under the law. And as Director McConnell testified, FISA is outdated and has been made obsolete by technology.

Today, once again, the Republicans are asking for us to support the intelligence community because they are forced to obtain warrants to listen to terrorists outside of our Nation, and as a result, and this is a quote, ``We are actually missing a significant portion of what we should be getting,'' directly from the Director of Central Intelligence.

This Congress has known about it for months. Republicans were on the floor last week. We are on the floor again this week. We are saying we are getting ready to go on break, we need to protect this country, we need to pass the law. We are asking the Democrat leadership once again if you have got time for this bill that is about a river, you certainly should have time to protect this country when our intelligence people are saying we need it. We have been saying for months we need it. The Republicans are on the floor today again to say there are 5 days left and then we will be on vacation.

Are they going to say to the American people and to the intelligence community, ``Too bad, we didn't have time to do that?''

If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are serious about facing down this threat, Mr. Speaker, they should come and join us. They should join us in defeating the previous question so that the House will be able to then address this issue since the Democrat leadership won't.

Don't hide behind something that deals with Republican or Democrat, and do the right thing for the country. This is a very real and a very serious threat.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include my amendment and extraneous material in the Congressional Record.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his concern and his compassion and his indefatigable work on the issue of making sure that those in our Nation who are hungry are able to get the food that they need in order to be able to sustain themselves.

I also want to say a thank-you to my colleague from California for his kind words and working with him on the farm bill.

Madam Speaker, I look forward to debating this bill and discussing our priorities. We are going to cover a lot of ground today with a wide ranging portfolio to accomplish quite a lot.

This appropriation covers many subjects. But what runs through every element of this bill is the common thread of our Nation assuming responsibility again for the things we are supposed to get right: keeping our country safe and healthy, preserving and strengthening our rural traditional communities, and thinking about problems that we have on the horizon, like energy, and not just thinking about today's problems.

I want to say thank you to Chairman Obey for his leadership and to our ranking member, Congressman Kingston, a partner in this effort. I believe together we have crafted a strong and bipartisan, responsible bill.

Our top priority has always been to move with a clear purpose in a direction towards several key goals: strengthening rural America; protecting public health; improving nutrition for more Americans; transforming our energy future; supporting conservation; investing in research; and finally, enhancing oversight.

Our bill provides total discretionary resources of $18.8 billion, $1 billion or 5.7 percent above 2007 and $987.4 million or 5.5 percent above the budget request. To be sure, a full 95 percent of the increase above the budget request, or $940 million, is used to restore funding that was either eliminated or cut in the President's budget, to acknowledge and to meet our obligation to hundreds of communities and millions of Americans.

When it comes to strengthening rural America, our first goal, our efforts have been critical to try to facilitate growth and to soften the impact of population loss in rural America. This bill provides $23.1 million in grants to rural areas for critical community facilities such as health care, education, public safety, day-care facilities. It also provides increases in the community facility loan programs. It provides $10 million more than the President requested for distance learning telemedicine grants, and it includes $728.8 million to support community facilities, water and waste disposal systems, and business grants.

We also make significant investments in rural housing: $212.2 million to fund $5.1 billion in affordable loans to provide housing to low- income and moderate-income families in rural areas, providing approximately 38,000 single-family homeownership opportunities.

On our second priority, protecting public health, the subcommittee stepped up from spinach and seafood to peanut butter and pet food. This has shown that our food safety system is dangerously inadequate and that we must transform the way we meet our obligation to protect the public health. So the bill provides $1.7 billion for the Food and Drug Administration, $128.5 million over 2007, $62 million over the budget request, and the first step in a fundamental transformation in the regulation of food safety at the FDA.

The bill directs the FDA to submit a plan to begin changing its approach to food safety when it submits the fiscal year 2009 budget, giving the committee time to review the plan before the funds to implement it become available on July 1, 2008.

We can help with additional resources, but there's also a need to have a corresponding commitment from management to perform its duties.

Funds are provided specifically to begin a critical transformation in food safety regulation, enhanced drug safety functions, review direct- to-consumer ads and review generic drugs.

Our next goal was improving nutrition, and I am proud of the progress we made on this issue. With the farm bill last week, this bill includes $39.8 billion for the Food Stamp program to meet increased participation and ensure rising food prices do not diminish families' purchasing power.

The bill also provides record funding for two fundamental food security programs which our country's most vulnerable population: the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, the WIC program, and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. These efforts go hand-in-hand with ongoing initiatives.

$957.7 million for nutrition programs to confront our Nation's obesity, instilling better eating habits in our children, giving them the tools and choices to avoid diabetes and other dangerous health conditions.

It includes record funding of $68.5 million for the expanded Food and Nutrition Education program; $26 million to expand the fresh fruit and vegetables and the Simplified Summer Food Program to all States; and $10 million for specialty crops, yes, for fruits and vegetables.

And when it comes to other key objectives, transforming our energy future, supporting conservation and investing in research, we step up with this bill. This legislation strengthens bioenergy and renewable energy research $1.2 billion, including loans and grants in rural areas. It restores many of the conservation programs slated for elimination in the President's request, including grazing lands, conservation initiatives, the Wildlife Habitat Program, watershed rehabilitation; and provides $979.4 million to continue assistance to landowners for conservation efforts on private land.

And yes, with regard to research, $178 million for cooperative State research education and extension service, and $108.9 million of that is for research and education. Overall, we have increased research.

Finally, the bill is dedicated to enhanced oversight. We share the concern about fraud, waste and abuse, and we have key language in here which would allow the risk management agencies to use up to $11.2 million in mandatory crop insurance funds to strengthen its ability to oversee the program by

maintaining and upgrading IT systems and other methods of detecting dubious claims.

I'm proud of the bill, its priorities and the goals that we set out to accomplish. I will continue to discuss some of the obligations of this bill later today, and the Congress has chosen to highlight and return to after many long years of inaction and silence. I'll continue to discuss and recognize the values and the priorities that my colleagues and I have sought to uphold, to strengthen and to honor with this bill.

I urge my colleagues to support the rule.

I just want to let the gentleman from Kansas understand about feeding programs in the United States, and I will get a copy for you, send it over to you, something called the Carsey report that just came about a week, a week and a half ago, which talks about 40 percent, 40 percent of children in rural America are dependent on food stamps.

This bill has gone a great distance to address the issues of rural America, including the farm issues of trying to link what is produced on the land with those who are in need of food, trying to deal with an opportunity to create a more stable economy in rural America when the President's budget, in fact, has left rural America pretty much decimated; $940 million of this bill and this increase has been placed to restore the programs mainly in rural America that the administration had either cut back or eliminated.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the outset, let me commend all the members of the Homeland Security Committee, especially Chairman Thompson, for the spirit of bipartisanship which did bring the floor to this moment right now, this conference report.

Having said that, I must take exception to a number of the statements that have been made here today, especially by the gentleman from Florida and his statements implying somehow that there has not been a significant amount of accomplishments since September 11, 2001.

Let me just recount some of them that were done prior to this. The enactment of the PATRIOT Act; the reauthorizing of the PATRIOT Act; the Intelligence Reform Act, which created the Director of National Intelligence; just last year, the adoption of the first-ever port security act; chemical plant security; restructuring FEMA; $1 billion for interoperability.

I really don't think it serves a purpose to somehow be suggesting that the Republicans, or any Member of this body for that matter, is holding back or in any way not doing all that is possible to protect our Nation against the threat of Islamic terrorism. For instance, the National Intelligence Estimate, when it was released last week, made a point of stressing that the greatly increased counterterrorism efforts over the past 5 years have constrained the ability of al Qaeda to attack the United States' homeland again and have led terrorist groups to perceive the homeland as a harder target to strike than on 9/11. These measures have helped disrupt known plots against the United States since 9/11.

So, Mr. Speaker, I don't think it does any purpose at all to downgrade the efforts made by this Congress and this administration. This should be a bipartisan effort, and I think a lot of the rhetoric today undermines that.

Having said that, I will be supporting this bill because, on balance, I believe there have been significant improvements made. I hope that next year and the year after and the year after that we continue to make improvements.

Now, there have been some failures. One of the main requirements, main recommendations of the 9/11 Commission was that jurisdiction be consolidated in one committee. That was not done. In fact, anyone who went to the first meeting of the conference committee, it was like the Tower of Babel. We had subcommittees and committees, and ranking members and committee chairmen. I think there were about over 60 people at a conference committee when there should have been four.

Having said that, I believe that this is something to work toward in the future. And I would hope that the Democrats, during the time that they still retain the majority, will work to consolidate that jurisdiction.

But some of the positive steps, on grant reform, I certainly agree with the gentleman from Mississippi on this, and I commend him for this. We did have long, involved preconferencing negotiations. And he worked with me and Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins to come up with a grant formula which is far more based on risk than it was before. It's still not perfect, it was still a minimum that's going to be in there, but having said that, it's a significant advance over what we've had in the past, and I applaud him for that. I applaud the other members of the conference committee, and the bipartisan membership of our committee which passed similar legislation in 2005 and 2006, and now it has been brought to fruition. And I give Chairman Thompson credit for that.

Also, on another issue, which I'm very pleased is in this bill, and that's upon the issue of giving immunity to those who come forward and report suspicious activity. I want to thank my good friend, Mr. Pearce, the gentleman from New Mexico who is here today, who was the first to initiate this legislation. Then we passed it here on the House floor in March. And so long as we're in a partisan mood today, I point out that a majority of Democrats voted against that. And last week, a majority of Democrats voted against it in the Senate. And to me it was unfortunate that we had to have 5 or 6 days of intense negotiations before the Democratic leadership finally intervened and brought about the insertion of that language into the conference report. But it is there; it gives immunity to those people who come forward and report what they see on good faith. And we learned on September 11, if you see something, say something.

We know that you cannot have enough FBI agents, you cannot have enough police officers to monitor the actions of Islamic terrorists. We need the eyes and the ears of millions of good Americans, and that's what this language protects.

Before I slow myself down, let me just say that at the conference committee from the other side, I want to commend Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins. This was a true bicameral effort. And again, Chairman Thompson, we went through a number of, over a period of weeks, preconference negotiations, all of which were conducted in good faith. And I think the product today, again, while not perfect, is another step in the right direction, building on the steps of the previous 5\1/ 2\ years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California, the former Attorney General of California, a man who came back to Congress to combat terrorism, Mr. Lungren.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the bipartisan nature of the majority leader's remarks. I thank him personally.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker of the House for her bipartisan comments, and I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) who is the initial author of the John Doe immunity legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul) a former member of the Joint Terrorism Task Force.

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to how much time remains.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), a member of the committee and an outstanding spokesman on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Staten Island, Brooklyn, who lost more residents than any other Member in Congress on September 11.

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

And let me thank, again, Chairman Thompson for his bipartisan effort, thank Senator Lieberman, Senator Collins. Let me thank the Republican staff members, Matt McCabe, Kerry Kinirons, Sterling Marchand, Heather Hogg, Mike Power. A special thanks to Mark Klaassen who unfortunately is

going to be leaving the committee, but he has been a tremendous asset. Chad Scarborough, Joe Vealencis, Deron McElroy, Adam Paulson and Lauren Wenger of my staff.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good conference report. I urge its adoption. And, again, I thank the chairman for his cooperation and assistance.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 580 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be allowed 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 580.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 580 will allow the House to consider H.R. 986, the Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Act.

Additionally, this rule makes a technical correction in the underlying bill by replacing a letter ``a'' with a letter ``b'' in the legislative text.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker, the Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Act, H.R. 986, was considered under suspension of the rules on

July 11, and received 239 votes, a majority of the House Members voting in favor of the bill. But as you know, Mr. Speaker, two-thirds majority is required for the expedited suspension procedure; and because the Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Act was supported by well over half the Members of the House, H.R. 986 deserves another opportunity for a floor vote. Therefore, today I urge a favorable vote again for H.R. 986.

Mr. Speaker, with over 150 miles of pristine rivers and streams and 62 square miles of relatively undeveloped countryside in the Connecticut area, the Eightmile Wild River watershed is an exceptional natural and cultural resource. This is being championed by House Member Joe Courtney, a new freshman colleague of mine from Connecticut.

The watershed contains large areas of unfragmented habitat, an array of rare and diverse wildlife, scenic vistas, high water quality, unimpeded stream flow, and significant cultural features. The Eightmile watershed has historic stone walls, churches and homes, and scenic views throughout, and an abundance of rare and diverse species within the watershed, including 155 at-risk plant and animal species.

The overall Eightmile River watershed ecosystem is healthy and intact throughout virtually all of its range. The Eightmile River is an exceptional treasure because it is a rare example of an intact river system. This is especially noteworthy in such a highly populated area so close to the coast and within the New York-to-Boston corridor. We must do all that we can to preserve this exceptional natural and cultural resource. The National Park Service agreed in 2006 in its study of the area.

And again, I'd really like to salute my freshman colleague, new Congressman Joe Courtney. He has championed this effort to designate segments of the Eightmile River in the State of Connecticut as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Communities in the area have been working for over 10 years for this designation, so I congratulate them today and salute the leadership of Congressman Joe Courtney, who brought new energy and commitment to this effort.

I also thank Natural Resources Committee Chair Nick Rahall for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, this is a noncontroversial bill. It was reported favorably by the Natural Resources Committee by voice vote in May. It received the strong bipartisan support of the House with a majority vote on July 11. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and support the act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) if he has any remaining speakers.

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

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time until the gentleman from Texas has made his closing statement.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to return the debate to the matter on the floor.

The Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Act sponsored by my colleague, Congressman Joe Courtney of Connecticut, which designates certain segments of the Eightmile River in the State of Connecticut as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.

Mr. Speaker, how fortunate we are to live in such a beautiful country; spacious skies, amber waves of grain, purple mountain's majesty, and the Eightmile Wild and Scenic River corridor.

Despite the protestations from the other side of the aisle, it has been the communities and the residents of this area that have worked on this designation for 10 years or more. And so I congratulate them today. And I salute the leadership of Congressman Joe Courtney, who brought a new energy and commitment to this effort, and I thank Natural Resources Committee Chair Nick Rahall for his leadership.

This is a noncontroversial bill. It was reported favorably by the Natural Resources Committee by a voice vote in May. It received the strong bipartisan support of the House, over 235 Members on July 11. Mr. Speaker, the Eightmile River is a national treasure, and we must do all that we can to preserve it.

This bill enjoys bipartisan support. A majority of the Members of this House have voted for it, and we're going to vote for it again. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the important Eightmile Wild and Scenic River Act.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows

Amendment to H. Res. 580

Offered By Mr. Sessions of Texas

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this

resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point

of order, consider the bill (H.R. 3138) to amend the Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to update the

definition of electronic surveillance. All points of order

against the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the bill to final passage without intervening motion except:

(1) one hour of debate on the bill equally divided and

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; and (2) one

motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.