Congratulating the people of the Republic of Lithuania on the 1000th anniversary of Lithuania and celebrating the rich history of Lithuania.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor humbly as a fourth- generation immigrant family of Lithuania. Of course, I, like many Americans today, are really a Heinz 57 mutt, also having German ancestry and Irish ancestry, and we think some American Indian ancestry. But ``Shimkus'' is ethnically Lithuanian.

So I always kid and joke that it's only in Washington, D.C., that you automatically become an expert in a region of the world based upon the ethnicity of your last name. But it's a labor of love that I've taken, and, hence, I bring this resolution to the floor to place Lithuania in the spotlight.

Before I do that, I want to read a letter from three friends and former leaders of the Baltic countries and 22 total leaders: Valdas Adamkus, a former President of the Republic of Lithuania; Vaira Vike- Freiberga, former President of the Republic of Latvia; and Mart Laar, who is the former Prime Minister of Estonia.

I'm not going to read the whole letter. I'm going to highlight a few sections, and then I'm going to transition to state why resolutions like this are important, because sometimes we go, Oh, why do we do these resolutions? I think the letter that they have written highlights the importance of us continuing to mention our friends and allies and talk about the strengths of the relationships.

This letter is about three pages long, but I just highlight a few short snippets in each one. Again, these are 22 leaders of not just the Baltic areas, but the Central and Eastern European democracies. Most of these are now no longer in public service but are former leaders.

They say, ``Twenty years after the end of the cold war, however, we see that Central and Eastern European countries are no longer at the heart of American foreign policy.''

``Americans have largely stopped worrying about. . .'' Now, that's positive about some of our successes, but it also raises concerns.

``There is a growing sense of nervousness in the region.''

``NATO today seems weaker than when we joined.'' They also say, ``The region's deeper integration in the EU is of course welcome and should not necessarily lead to a weakening of the transatlantic relationship.''

Also stated is ``there are fewer and fewer leaders who emerged from the revolutions of 1989 who experienced Washington's key role in securing our democratic transition and anchoring our countries in NATO and EU. A new

generation of leaders is emerging who do not have those memories and follow a more `realistic' policy.''

I think that's important for us to understand. These countries fought for freedom, but the leaders who fought for freedom are now leaving power. And this new generation needs to be reminded of the strength of the U.S. relationship to the former captive nations from the Eastern European countries.

They also, in here, talk about, ``We welcome the `reset' '' . . . ``but there is also nervousness in our capitals.''

``Our region suffered when the United States succumbed to `realism' at Yalta. And it benefited when the United States used its power to fight for principle.'' And that's what I hope we continue to do.

``We believe this is a time both the United States and Europe need to reinvest in the transatlantic relationship.''

So I appreciate the committee allowing the resolution to come to the floor because this is another way in which we can talk about the important relationship that we have.

The resolution, itself, talks about the 1,000 years which they're celebrating in Lithuania, the 1,000 years when the name Lithuania first appeared in written documents. Lithuania was around before that, but that makes us look like little kids here in the United States; hence, the world is much older than our great Constitutional Republic.

There's a lot of ``whereas'' in the resolution. Whereas, under the cover of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, on June 17, 1940, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania were forcibly incorporated into the Soviet Union in violation of preexisting peace treaties.

Another whereas: Lithuania is a full and responsible member of the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the European Union, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Full partners--full voting partners and full participants in the defense organization known as NATO and the article 5 guarantee to both themselves and other NATO countries.

Another whereas: As contributing to international civilian and military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Georgia, which are all important aspects that they have stepped up to the plate to be part of this commitment to securing democracy and freedom in the war on terror.

So we, as a country, get a chance, through this resolution, to congratulate the people of the Republic of Lithuania for this historical timeframe. We commend the Government of Lithuania for their commitment to democracy, freedom, the rule of law, and being allies in the campaigns that we, in connection with our treaty obligations and the greatest organization that's kept peace and stability that the world has known, which is NATO, their role in that. And we want to continue to recognize that this relationship is strong now and we will do all we can in our part to make it strong in the future.

I think my colleague from Florida mentioned, also, challenges that we've addressed, and we will continue to work on those so that our relationship becomes stronger in a world where democracy and freedom needs to flourish for people to live the lifestyles that they will grow and flourish individually.

I thank the committee for allowing this to the floor, and I thank Congressman Smith for allowing me this time.

An Open Letter to the Obama Administration From Central and Eastern

Europe

We have written this letter because, as Central and Eastern

European (CEE) intellectuals and former policymakers, we care

deeply about the future of the transatlantic relationship as

well as the future quality of relations between the United

States and the countries of our region. We write in our

personal capacity as individuals who are friends and allies

of the United States as well as committed Europeans.

Our nations are deeply indebted to the United States. Many

of us know firsthand how important your support for our

freedom and independence was during the dark Cold War years.

U.S. engagement and support was essential for the success of

our democratic transitions after the Iron Curtain fell twenty

years ago. Without Washington's vision and leadership, it is

doubtful that we would be in NATO and even the EU today.

We have worked to reciprocate and make this relationship a

two-way street. We are Atlanticist voices within NATO and the

EU. Our nations have been engaged alongside the United States

in the Balkans, Iraq, and today in Afghanistan. While our

contribution may at times seem modest compared to your own,

it is significant when measured as a percentage of our

population and GDP. Having benefited from your support for

liberal democracy and liberal values in the past, we have

been among your strongest supporters when it comes to

promoting democracy and human rights around the world.

Twenty years after the end of the Cold War, however, we see

that Central and Eastern European countries are no longer at

the heart of American foreign policy. As the new Obama

Administration sets its foreign-policy priorities, our region

is one part of the world that Americans have largely stopped

worrying about. Indeed, at times we have the impression that

U.S. policy was so successful that many American officials

have now concluded that our region is fixed once and for all

and that they could ``check the box'' and move on to other

more pressing strategic issues. Relations have been so close

that many on both sides assume that the region's

transatlantic orientation, as well as its stability and

prosperity, would last forever.

That view is premature. All is not well either in our

region or in the transatlantic relationship. Central and

Eastern Europe is at a political crossroads and today there

is a growing sense of nervousness in the region. The global

economic crisis is impacting on our region and, as elsewhere,

runs the risk that our societies will look inward and be less

engaged with the outside world. At the same time, storm

clouds are starting to gather on the foreign policy horizon.

Like you, we await the results of the EU Commission's

investigation on the origins of the Russo-Georgian war. But

the political impact of that war on the region has already

been felt. Many countries were deeply disturbed to see the

Atlantic alliance stand by as Russia violated the core

principles of the Helsinki Final Act, the Charter of Paris,

and the territorial integrity of a country that was a member

of NATO's Partnership for Peace and the Euroatlantic

Partnership Council--all in the name of defending a sphere of

influence on its borders.

Despite the efforts and significant contribution of the new

members, NATO today seems weaker than when we joined. In many

of our countries it is perceived as less and less relevant--

and we feel it. Although we are full members, people question

whether NATO would be willing and able to come to our defense

in some future crises. Europe's dependence on Russian energy

also creates concern about the cohesion of the Alliance.

President Obama's remark at the recent NATO summit on the

need to provide credible defense plans for all Alliance

members was welcome, but not sufficient to allay fears about

the Alliance's defense readiness. Our ability to continue to

sustain public support at home for our contributions to

Alliance missions abroad also depends on us being able to

show that our own security concerns are being addressed in

NATO and close cooperation with the United States.

We must also recognize that America's popularity and

influence have fallen in many of our countries as well.

Public opinions polls, including the German Marshall Fund's

own Transatlantic Trends survey, show that our region has not

been immune to the wave of criticism and anti-Americanism

that has swept Europe in recent years and which led to a

collapse in sympathy and support for the United States during

the Bush years. Some leaders in the region have paid a

political price for their support of the unpopular war in

Iraq. In the future they may be more careful in taking

political risks to support the United States. We believe that

the onset of a new Administration has created a new opening

to reverse this trend but it will take time and work on both

sides to make up for what we have lost.

In many ways the EU has become the major factor and

institution in our lives. To many people it seems more

relevant and important today than the link to the United

States. To some degree it is a logical outcome of the

integration of Central and Eastern Europe into the EU. Our

leaders and officials spend much more time in EU meetings

than in consultations with Washington, where they often

struggle to attract attention or make our voices heard. The

region's deeper integration in the EU is of course welcome

and should not necessarily lead to a weakening of the

transatlantic relationship. The hope was that integration of

Central and Eastern Europe into the EU would actually

strengthen the strategic cooperation between Europe and

America.

However, there is a danger that instead of being a pro-

Atlantic voice in the EU, support for a more global

partnership with Washington in the region might wane over

time. The region does not have the tradition of assuming a

more global role. Some items on the transatlantic agenda,

such as climate change, do not resonate in the Central and

Eastern European publics to the same extent as they do in

Western Europe.

Leadership change is also coming in Central and Eastern

Europe. Next to those, there are fewer and fewer leaders who

emerged from the revolutions of 1989 who experienced

Washington's key role in securing our democratic transition

and anchoring our countries in NATO and EU. A new generation

of leaders is emerging who do not have these memories and

follow a more ``realistic'' policy. At the same time, the

former Communist elites, whose insistence on political and

economic power significantly contributed to the crises in

many CEE countries, gradually disappear from the political

scene.

The current political and economic turmoil and the fallout

from the global economic crisis provide additional

opportunities for the forces of nationalism, extremism,

populism, and anti-Semitism across the continent but also in

some our countries.

This means that the United States is likely to lose many of

its traditional interlocutors in the region. The new elites

replacing them may not share the idealism--or have the same

relationship to the United States--as the generation who led

the democratic transition. They may be more calculating in

their support of the United States as well as more parochial

in their world view. And in Washington a similar transition

is taking place as many of the leaders and personalities we

have worked with and relied on are also leaving politics.

And then there is the issue of how to deal with Russia, Our

hopes that relations with Russia would improve and that

Moscow would finally fully accept our complete sovereignty

and independence after joining NATO and the EU have not been

fulfilled. Instead, Russia is back as a revisionist power

pursuing a 19th-century agenda with 21st-century tactics and

methods. At a global level, Russia has become, on most

issues, a status-quo power. But at a regional level and vis-

a-vis our nations, it increasingly acts as a revisionist one.

It challenges our claims to our own historical experiences.

It asserts a privileged position in determining our security

choices. It uses overt and covert means of economic warfare,

ranging from energy blockades and politically motivated

investments to bribery and media manipulation in order to

advance its interests and to challenge the transatlantic

orientation of Central and Eastern Europe.

We welcome the ``reset'' of the American-Russian relations.

As the countries living closest to Russia, obviously nobody

has a greater interest in the development of the democracy in

Russia and better relations between Moscow and the West than

we do. But there is also nervousness in our capitals. We want

to ensure that too narrow an understanding of Western

interests does not lead to the wrong concessions to Russia.

Today the concern is, for example, that the United States and

the major European powers might embrace the Medvedev plan for

a ``Concert of Powers'' to replace the continent's existing,

value-based security structure. The danger is that Russia's

creeping intimidation and influence-peddling in the region

could over time lead to a de facto neutralization of the

region. There are differing views within the region when it

comes to Moscow's new policies. But there is a shared view

that the full engagement of the United States is needed.

Many in the region are looking with hope to the Obama

Administration to restore the Atlantic relationship as a

moral compass for their domestic as well as foreign policies.

A strong commitment to common liberal democratic values is

essential to our countries. We know from our own historical

experience the difference between when the United States

stood up for its liberal democratic values and when it did

not. Our region suffered when the United States succumbed to

``realism'' at Yalta. And it benefited when the United States

used its power to fight for principle. That was critical

during the Cold War and in opening the doors of NATO. Had a

``realist'' view prevailed in the early 1990s, we would not

be in NATO today and the idea of a Europe whole, free, and at

peace would be a distant dream.

We understand the heavy demands on your Administration and

on U.S. foreign policy. It is not our intent to add to the

list of problems you face. Rather, we want to help by being

strong Atlanticist allies in a U.S.-European partnership that

is a powerful force for good around the world. But we are not

certain where our region will be in five or ten years time

given the domestic and foreign policy uncertainties we face.

We need to take the right steps now to ensure the strong

relationship between the United States and Central and

Eastern Europe over the past twenty years will endure.

We believe this is a time both the United States and Europe

need to reinvest in the transatlantic relationship. We also

believe this is a time when the United States and Central and

Eastern Europe must reconnect around a new and forward-

looking agenda. While recognizing what has been achieved in

the twenty years since the fall of the Iron Curtain, it is

time to set a new agenda for close cooperation for the next

twenty years across the Atlantic.

Therefore, we propose the following steps:

First, we are convinced that America needs Europe and that

Europe needs the United States as much today as in the past.

The United States should reaffirm its vocation as a European

power and make clear that it plans to stay fully engaged on

the continent even while it faces the pressing challenges in

Afghanistan and Pakistan, the wider Middle East, and Asia.

For our part we must work at home in our own countries and in

Europe more generally to convince our leaders and societies

to adopt a more global perspective and be prepared to

shoulder more responsibility in partnership with the United

States.

Second, we need a renaissance of NATO as the most important

security link between the United States and Europe. It is the

only credible hard power security guarantee we have. NATO

must reconfirm its core function of collective defense even

while we adapt to the new threats of the 21st century. A key

factor in our ability to participate in NATO's expeditionary

missions overseas is the belief that we are secure at home.

We must therefore correct some self-inflicted wounds from the

past. It was a mistake not to commence with proper Article 5

defense planning for new members after NATO was enlarged.

NATO needs to make the Alliance's commitments credible and

provide strategic reassurance to all members. This should

include contingency planning, prepositioning of forces,

equipment, and supplies for reinforcement in our region in

case of crisis as originally envisioned in the NATO-Russia

Founding Act.

We should also re-think the working of the NATO-Russia

Council and return to the practice where NATO member

countries enter into dialogue with Moscow with a coordinated

position. When it comes to Russia, our experience has been

that a more determined and principled policy toward Moscow

will not only strengthen the West's security but will

ultimately lead Moscow to follow a more cooperative policy as

well. Furthermore, the more secure we feel inside NATO, the

easier it will also be for our countries to reach out to

engage Moscow on issues of common interest. That is the dual

track approach we need and which should be reflected in the

new NATO strategic concept.

Third, the thorniest issue may well be America's planned

missile-defense installations. Here too, there are different

views in the region, including among our publics which are

divided. Regardless of the military merits of this scheme and

what Washington eventually decides to do, the issue has

nevertheless also become--at least in some countries--a

symbol of America's credibility and commitment to the region.

How it is handled could have a significant impact on their

future transatlantic orientation. The small number of

missiles involved cannot be a threat to Russia's strategic

capabilities, and the Kremlin knows this. We should decide

the future of the program as allies and based on the

strategic plusses and minuses of the different technical and

political configurations. The Alliance should not allow the

issue to be determined by unfounded Russian opposition.

Abandoning the program entirely or involving Russia too

deeply in it without consulting Poland or the Czech Republic

can undermine the credibility of the United States across the

whole region.

Fourth, we know that NATO alone is not enough. We also want

and need more Europe and a better and more strategic U.S.-EU

relationship as well. Increasingly our foreign policies are

carried out through the European Union--and we support that.

We also want a common European foreign and defense policy

that is open to close cooperation with the United States. We

are the advocates of such a line in the EU. But we need the

United States to rethink its attitude toward the EU and

engage it much more seriously as a strategic partner. We need

to bring NATO and the EU closer together and make them work

in tandem. We need common NATO and EU strategies not only

toward Russia but on a range of other new strategic

challenges.

Fifth is energy security. The threat to energy supplies can

exert an immediate influence on our nations' political

sovereignty also as allies contributing to common decisions

in NATO. That is why it must also become a transatlantic

priority. Although most of the responsibility for energy

security lies within the realm of the EU, the United States

also has a role to play. Absent American support, the Baku-

Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline would never have been built. Energy

security must become an integral part of U.S.-European

strategic cooperation. Central and Eastern European countries

should lobby harder (and with more unity) inside Europe for

diversification of the energy mix, suppliers, and transit

routes, as well as for tough legal scrutiny of Russia's abuse

of its monopoly and cartel-like power inside the EU. But

American political support on this will play a crucial role.

Similarly, the United States can play an important role in

solidifying further its support for the Nabucco pipeline,

particularly in using its security relationship with the main

transit country, Turkey, as well as the North-South

interconnector of Central Europe and LNG terminals in our

region.

Sixth, we must not neglect the human factor. Our next

generations need to get to know each other, too. We have to

cherish and protect the multitude of educational,

professional, and other networks and friendships that

underpin our friendship and alliance. The U.S. visa regime

remains an obstacle in this regard. It is absurd that Poland

and Romania--arguably the two biggest and most pro-American

states in the CEE region, which are making substantial

contributions in Iraq and Afghanistan--have not yet been

brought into the visa waiver program. It is incomprehensible

that a critic like the French anti-globalization activist

Jose Bove does not require a visa for the United States but

former Solidarity activist and Nobel Peace prizewinner Lech

Walesa does. This issue will be resolved only if it is made a

political priority by the President of the United States.

The steps we made together since 1989 are not minor in

history. The common successes are the proper foundation for

the transatlantic renaissance we need today. This is why we

believe that we should also consider the creation of a Legacy

Fellowship for young leaders. Twenty years have passed since

the revolutions of 1989. That is a whole generation. We need

a new generation to renew the transatlantic partnership. A

new program should be launched to identify those young

leaders on both sides of the Atlantic

who can carry forward the transatlantic project we have spent

the last two decades building in Central and Eastern Europe.

In conclusion, the onset of a new Administration in the

United States has raised great hopes in our countries for a

transatlantic renewal. It is an opportunity we dare not miss.

We, the authors of this letter, know firsthand how important

the relationship with the United States has been. In the

1990s, a large part of getting Europe right was about getting

Central and Eastern Europe right. The engagement of the

United States was critical to locking in peace and stability

from the Baltics to the Black Sea. Today the goal must be to

keep Central and Eastern Europe right as a stable, activist,

and Atlanticist part of our broader community.

That is the key to our success in bringing about the

renaissance in the Alliance the Obama Administration has

committed itself to work for and which we support. That will

require both sides recommitting to and investing in this

relationship. But if we do it right, the pay off down the

road can be very real. By taking the right steps now, we can

put it on new and solid footing for the future.

Valdas Adamkus, Former President of the Republic of

Lithuania; Martin Butora, Former Ambassador of the

Slovak Republic to the United States; Emil

Constantinescu, Former President of the Republic of

Romania; Pavol Demes, Former Minister of International

Relations and Advisor to the President, Slovak

Republic; Lubos Dobrovsky, Former Minister of Defense

of Czechoslovakia, former Czech Ambassador to Russia;

Matyas Eorsi, Former Secretary of State of the

Hungarian MFA; Istvan Gyarmati, Ambassador, President

of the International Centre for Democratic Transition

in Budapest; Vaclav Havel, Former President of the

Czech Republic; Rastislav Kacer, Former Ambassador of

the Slovak Republic to the United States; Sandra

Kalniete, Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Latvia;

Karel Schwarzenberg, Former Minister of Foreign

Affairs, Czech Republic; Michal Kovac, Former President

of the Slovak Republic; Ivan Krastev, Chairman of the

Centre for Liberal Strategies in Sofia, Bulgaria;

Aleksander Kwasniewski, Former President of the

Republic of Poland; Mart Laar, Former Prime Minister of

Estonia; Kadri Liik, Director of the International

Centre for Defense Studies in Tallinn, Estonia; Janos

Martonyi, Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hungary;

Janusz Onyszkiewicz, Former Vice-president of the

European Parliament, former Defense Minister, Poland;

Adam Rotfeld, Former Minister of Foreign Affairs,

Poland; Alexandr Vondra, Former Minister of Foreign

Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister, Czech Republic;

Vaira Vike-Freiberga, Former President of the Republic

of Latvia; Lech Walesa, Former President of the

Republic of Poland.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the author of the resolution, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

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

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

I rise in strong support of my friend and colleague's resolution celebrating the rich history of Lithuania.

I was recently back in Lithuania just a couple of weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, for the July meeting of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and saw, once again, the beautiful city of Vilnius, a city with an historic history.

But more importantly than the city and its physical attractiveness is the people themselves, the kindness, the generosity, and a goodness, innate goodness, which is truly remarkable.

The Lithuanians, as we know, were occupied. They were often called a captive nation, one of the Baltic captive nations. In 1940, they were brought into the Soviet Union by force, a grave injustice that this Congress has never recognized and thankfully now, since 1990, they were the first of the so-called Soviet Republics to declare its independence.

Since securing their independence from the Soviet Union, Lithuanians have won the world's admiration by making Lithuania a free country that truly respects fundamental human rights. The Lithuanian Government conducts democratic and fair elections, respects the rule of law, and the Lithuanian economy is free.

Mr. Speaker, the United States owes Lithuania a debt of gratitude, but the United States has not freed Lithuania from Soviet domination-- they did that themselves. Lithuania has recognized the common values it shares with the United States and has deployed its soldiers to do duty alongside ours in Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, as well as in Georgia.

Let me also point out that back in the early 1990s, I was part of a delegation led by Steny Hoyer. When the Soviets looked like they were about to take over the Parliament and rush it with the black berets, several of us traveled to Vilnius to be there to be in solidarity with President Landsbergis, who was under siege. And the belief was that if sufficient numbers of parliamentarians were there as witnesses, it might have a chilling effect on Soviet ambitions and they might not storm that Parliament.

What we found in Vilnius was people who were literally praying night and day, people outside the parliament saying rosaries, offering up prayers and, hopefully, acting as shields themselves to the Soviet aggression.

I will never forget visiting a TV tower that had been attacked by the Soviets. There were candles burning where people dropped as they were fired upon by Soviet troops; but they were still there in defiance, standing up to this world power that was seeking to crush them. One of the incidents I will never forget. Don Ritter, one of our Members of the House who was then the ranking member of the CSCE, stepped across the line, and there was a Soviet tank there at the TV tower which all of a sudden began turning its turret towards him. Several of us who were there said, Don, you'd better step across. This is truly a volatile situation. And nothing came of it. But again, the Lithuanians were there protesting against tyranny and the domination that was coming out of Moscow but did so with such class and such courage that it was truly inspiring.

Our delegation was matched by delegations from Poland and other countries, recently emerging democracies; and they too were saying, We're not going to stand idly by and watch this great people conquered once again--conquered but never really conquered in their hearts and minds. So I, again, want to thank Mr. Shimkus for bringing this to the floor. I also thank my friends on the other side of the aisle for posting it for debate and consideration. Again, this says to the people of Lithuania, You are a tremendous people. We recognize and admire your goodness and your courage, because you certainly demonstrated it under fire.

I yield back the balance of my time

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 285, and urge its immediate adoption. This resolution, introduced by friend and home state colleague, Chair of the House Baltic Caucus, Congressman John Shimkus, congratulates the people of the Republic of Lithuania on the one thousandth anniversary of their country, celebrates the rich history of this nation and its people, and highlights the valuable relations Lithuania maintains with the United States.

As Co-Chair of the Central and Eastern European Caucus, and representative of a large Lithuanian community, I have a special pride in being a cosponsor of this measure, and rising in its support. The Balzekas Museum of Lithuanian Culture, which is a major player in Lithuanian cultural life and scholarship in the United States, is located in my district. And Chicago is home to more Lithuanians outside their native home than any other location.

As few know, the name ``Lithuania'' first appeared in Europe in the year 1009--a historical timeline unfathomable to many Americans. The state of Lithuania was established as early as 1236, and became at times the largest country in Europe. The modern establishment of Lithuania as a sovereign and democratic state occurred in 1918.

While Lithuania, along with Latvia and Estonia, were forcibly incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1940, this did not diminish Lithuanians' national pride, their valor or spirit. Despite Soviet persecution and barbaric assaults on their freedoms, Lithuanians persisted, aided by the support and prayers of millions of Lithuanians in the United States and elsewhere.

In 1990, after decades of oppression and occupation, Lithuania became the first Soviet-controlled republic to break away and declare its independence.

Since that time, Lithuania has developed into a free and democratic society. Its free market economy has experienced strong growth, and has joined the United States in pursuing knowledge-driven opportunities, including biotechnology and other high-tech sectors.

The United States has and continues to maintain a strong and positive relationship with Lithuania. Our nations have held 85 years of continuous diplomatic relations. Lithuania has supported international peace and security efforts, and has contributed to civilian and military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Georgia, and elsewhere, for which the United States government is highly appreciative.

In that vein, I would like to extend the warmest congratulations to Ms. Dalia Grybauskaite, who was elected as the new President of Lithuania in May of this year with over two-thirds of the vote. The first female President of Lithuania, Ms. Grybauskaite was sworn in on July 11, 2009. A former European Union Budget Commissioner, finance commissioner in Lithuania and a diplomat in Lithuania's U.S. Embassy, I congratulate her and wish President Grybauskaite success in her new role.

I look forward to joining my constituents and other Chicago-area Lithuanians in celebrating this 1000th anniversary in September. Lietuviu Dienos Chicago 2009, a community celebration led by Mr. Andrew Bucas--owner of Grand Duke's Lithuanian restaurant--and the Chicago Consul General of the Republic of Lithuania, will be held at Summit Park, in the Village of Summit located in my district, on September 20, 2009. Prominent Lithuanian-American Joe Kulys has been instrumental in organizing this celebration and has been a key leader in the Lithuanian-American community.

I wish Lithuanians and Lithuanian-Americans alike the best wishes and hearty congratulations in the celebration of 1000 years of Lithuanian history and progress.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 285) congratulating the people of the Republic of Lithuania on the 1000th anniversary of Lithuania and celebrating the rich history of Lithuania.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H. Res. 285, which recognizes the 1,000-year anniversary of Lithuania, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I wish to thank my good friend from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) for introducing this resolution. It allows the House to add its voice to the Senate's in congratulating the Lithuanian people on this momentous occasion.

In the year 1009, the name Lithuania first appeared in European records when it was mentioned in a German manuscript. The gentleman from Illinois would note that a number of us, Democrats and Republicans, were in Lithuania earlier this year and had the opportunity to meet with the government and talk about the history. It was a great opportunity.

Since that time, the country has had a long and distinguished history. The state of Lithuania was established by Duke Mindaugas in 1236; yet his official coronation as King was on July 6, 1253, a date that is still celebrated as a national holiday in Lithuania.

By the end of the 14th century, Lithuania had become the largest country in Europe. On February 16, 1918, Lithuania was established as a sovereign and democratic state.

In June 1940, Lithuania, along with its Baltic neighbors, was forcibly incorporated into the Soviet Union. On March 11, 1990, Lithuania became the first Soviet Republic to declare its independence.

Lithuania has since become an active member of the national community, helping to strengthen Euro-Atlantic relations through its participation in NATO and the European Union.

Lithuania has helped secure peace and stability through its many contributions to international and civilian military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Balkans.

Lithuania has also been a strong ally of the United States, as our countries marked 85 years of continuous diplomatic relations in 2007.

The subject of Lithuanian-American relations came up during our recent participation in the Transatlantic Legislators' Dialogue. Members of Congress felt it was important to urge Lithuania to enact property restitution laws in order to bring some sense of justice and closure to the families of victims of the Holocaust, and I look forward to working with our colleagues in Lithuania to resolve this issue. This will surely continue to strengthen our relationship.

While we Americans celebrate our national independence on July 4th, the people of Lithuania commemorated their day of statehood on July 6. It is therefore appropriate, during this festive month, that the House passes a resolution to congratulate Lithuania on its 1,000th anniversary and reaffirm the close ties between our peoples and countries.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this resolution and urge my colleagues to do the same.

I reserve the balance of my time.

If there are no other speakers, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer the resolution previously noticed.

I do, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this House operates under rules, or it's supposed to operate under rules, rules that have been longstanding in the House and that are incorporated in written form. And rule IX of those rules of the House states specifically, Members may raise questions ``affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings'' and those affecting the rights of Members individually in their representative capacity.

So the question is, Mr. Speaker, what is more fundamental to the rights of the Members of this House than the ability to represent their constituents and to affect the legislation that's brought to the floor?

The Democrat majority, under Speaker Pelosi, has unilaterally--some would say brazenly, some would say repressively--ended a 220-year tradition of allowing any Member to allow a spending bill.

And that's precisely what I'm attempting to do, Mr. Speaker.

When my constituents sent me here to Congress, they didn't send me here to just push buttons. What they sent me here to do was to exercise every single ability that a Member of the House is granted. And one of the abilities that the Member of the House is granted is the opportunity to affect legislation.

And under rule IX, which states, Mr. Speaker, that the proceedings should not affect the rights of the Members individually in their Representative capacity, so if being denied the ability to offer an amendment doesn't affect the rights of this House, if it doesn't affect the dignity and integrity of its proceedings, if it doesn't affect my rights as a Representative, then I don't know what does, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know what does. If Members are not allowed to offer amendments, then the Member, him or herself, is unable to represent their constituents and consequently is disenfranchising every single American.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would contend respectfully that the inability of Members to offer amendments is an indignity upon the House and makes it so that Members are not able to exercise their representative capacity.

And I appeal to the Chair to see the light of day and allow this privileged resolution to move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

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