Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the NULITES of the Urban League of Palm Beach County. NULITES is the National Urban League Incentive To Excel and Succeed. These fine young people focus on academic achievement and are actively involved in improving their communities. The Palm Beach County chapter has been awarded NULITES Chapter of the Year for the third time. Having been chosen from among NULITES chapters across the country, this is a very impressive accomplishment of which we can all be very proud.

Fadley Charles, a Florida State University student who is president of the chapter, stressed that, as Chapter of the Year, Palm Beach County NULITES have a ``responsibility to strive for better, respect all others, celebrate achievement, create a better future, care for each other and promote an empowering environment like no other.'' With three individual winners of scholarships in addition to Chapter of the Year honors, obviously, Palm Beach County NULITES are fulfilling their promise. It is my very great pleasure to recognize them today, and I know we will be hearing more good things about them in the future.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1636, the United States-Poland Parliamentary Youth Exchange Program.

As Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, U.S. Helsinki Commission, I can attest to the values of such a cultural exchange. Since the end of the Cold War, the Republic of Poland has steadily grown into a close friend and ally, and, through its active participation in the OSCE, NATO, and the EU, has shown a commitment to many of our democratic values and ideals. By sending high school students to Poland for an entire year, this program will encourage international involvement at a young age and serve to strengthen the relations between our countries.

I have seen the growth that such exchange fosters and the diplomacy it promotes during my time as an annual host to Australian interns through the UNI-Capitol Washington Internship Program. Moreover, I currently have an intern in my office from London and previously have hosted young people from Germany, Finland, Denmark, and Estonia, among others. By hosting foreign students in a similar program, the United States and Poland can enhance bilateral relations, improve international commerce, encourage global consciousness, and give our young people a sense of global citizenship.

I believe the United States-Poland Youth Exchange Program will provide a unique and important bridge between our countries, especially in the arena of promoting people to people relationships that are just as key if not more so than our military and economic relationships.

I urge my colleagues to fund the United States-Poland Youth Exchange Program by supporting H.R. 1636.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Regional Presidential Primary and Caucus Act of 2007. This companion legislation to the work of my friends Senator Klobuchar, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Alexander reflects an effective, equitable alternative to the current system used to determine presidential primary election dates.

As we have seen with the current disputed primary date in Florida and its partisan implications, our political parties have shown that they may not be the most appropriate administrators of this vital part of the presidential election process. Other states face similar disputes as each vie to enact earlier primaries to increase their influence in the selection of presidential candidates. It is apparent that with this trend, money is gaining even more influence in politics. When candidates have less time for citizens to evaluate their merit and less time to raise necessary campaign funds, the voices of many continue to be marginalized.

We need a more equitable system. Every person in every state deserves an equal opportunity to engage the selection of presidential candidates. Unless we enact legislation to restructure this system in a non-partisan manner, we will never have a system that takes into account the true principles of democracy upon which this nation was founded. The Regional Presidential Primary and Caucus Act of 2007 is a necessary step towards more equitable elections. This legislation reflects components of a plan previously advanced by the National Association of Secretaries of State and the suggestions of chief election administrators throughout the nation.

The Regional Presidential Primary and Caucus Act of 2007 establishes four geographic regions and four regional primary/caucus dates in each presidential election year. Under the bill, beginning in 2012 and on a rotating basis during each presidential election year, states in one region will hold their presidential primary elections on the first Tuesday in March. States in the next region will hold their primary elections on the first Tuesday in April, states in the next region on the first Tuesday in May, and states in the final region on the first Tuesday of June. The order of regions will rotate in each of the four years, ensuring that all states have the opportunity to hold their primary election first in the cycle once every four presidential elections.

I call upon my colleagues of the House of Representatives to support this commonsense approach to improving the administration of presidential primary election dates.

Madam Speaker, just before Congress returned to session this week, our Nation lost a gentleman who served with distinction in this body for 26 years and whose name became forever associated with the human rights struggle in the former Soviet Union.

Congressman Charles Vanik served his constituents of the Cleveland, OH, area from 1955 to 1981. In 1968, he voluntarily gave up his seat in a district that had become primarily African-American to allow my good friend and our former colleague, Mr. Louis Stokes, an opportunity to serve in the Congress. It says something for Mr. Vanik's reputation as a conscientious and hard-working Member that he could switch to a nearby district, defeat a long-time incumbent of the other major party, and return to Congress.

I did not know Mr. Vanik personally, but as Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I am particularly familiar with his contribution to the struggle to allow Soviet Jews to leave the Soviet Union and emigrate to Israel.

In the early 1970s, Soviet Jews who wished to emigrate to Israel faced government harassment and even prison terms in one of the many labor camps stretched along the eleven time zones of the Soviet Union. This issue became especially acute in 1972 when the Soviet government announced it would level an onerous ``education tax'' on Soviet Jews who wished to emigrate. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade of the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Vanik stepped up to sponsor an amendment to the Trade Reform Bill of 1974 introduced by Senator Henry Jackson of Washington State. This amendment linked awarding Most Favored Nation trade status to a nation's record on unhindered emigration for its citizens. President Nixon and Mr. Kissinger didn't like it, but it was a law whose time had come.

In the years that followed its passage, through detente and the tense days of United States-Soviet relations in the early 1980s, the Jackson- Vanik Amendment became a powerful symbol of the Congress' determination to see that the Soviet Union lived up to the Helsinki Accords.

Today, Madam Speaker, the Cold War is over, the Soviet Union is happily no more, Jewish citizens of Russia, the successor state to the Soviet Union, are free to emigrate to Israel or any other nation that will grant an entry visa.

Ironically, Congress has not yet fully ``graduated'' Russia from the provisions of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment. I do hope that, regardless of the many difficulties in relations with Russia that we are now experiencing, we will be able to do so in the near future. I am sure Chairman Vanik would agree with me.

Madam Speaker, although I was not acquainted with Chairman Vanik, I know that he left a legacy of deep respect when he retired from this august body. May we all serve our constituents, our Nation, and all those with whom we share this planet as conscientiously as he did.

Madam Speaker, today marks the 32nd anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act, which ushered in civil and political liberties for millions of oppressed Europeans. Most importantly, the Helsinki Final Act created a strong international framework that continues to promote liberty and peace in a region that extends beyond the traditional boundaries of Europe. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the U.S. Helsinki Commission, which I am privileged to chair, serve as invaluable institutions which ensure that countries honor their Helsinki Final Act commitments. The U.S. Helsinki Commission is proud of our role as the conduit between both Houses of the U.S. Congress, the Executive Branch, foreign governments and civil society.

As President Gerald Ford said during the Helsinki Accords, ``History will judge this conference not by what we say here today, but by what we do tomorrow, not by the promises we make, but by the promises we keep.'' We continue to respect this profound statement and

we anticipate the spirit of President Ford's sentiments will continue to endure long after the death of the late former President.

Fortunately, the spirit of the Helsinki Final Act remains strong. Overarching concerns for European security and liberty during the Cold War have evolved into regional energy security dilemmas, kleptocracy, and continued human rights violations. Moreover, Europe once again faces serious security concerns as Russia has suspended its obligations under the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty.

Madam Speaker, we must never forget how valuable the process of engagement has served the interests of Europe and the United States in the past. Working together in an integrated framework of cooperation and security is our best hope for peace and justice. While the world has been changing at an ever increasing pace since 1975, our ideals and values remain entrenched in the commitments made under the Helsinki Final Act.

Today we recognize the significant impact the Helsinki Final Act made in fostering a world with increased peace and justice. Today, Helsinki Human Rights Day, we honor our commitments and pledge vigilance in the quest for human rights, governmental accountability and cooperation for security throughout Europe, North America, Central Asia, and elsewhere in the world.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution congratulating the State of Israel on chairing a United Nations committee for the first time in history.

For the first time ever, an Israeli diplomat, Mr. Ron Adam, Director of the Israeli Foreign Ministry's U.N. Political Affairs Department, has been chosen to chair a U.N. committee: the Committee on Program and Coordination, CPC.

This 33 U.N. member body provides an important role to the functioning of the U.N., as it approves the work plan for all U.N. agencies and bodies.

Mr. Adam is highly qualified to represent his country at the U.N. He was former director of the Israel Foreign Ministry's U.N. Political Affairs Department and had been at the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs since 1990. From 1998-2002, he was a Counselor at the Israeli delegation to the U.N. Since 2004, he served as the director of the U.N. Political Affairs Department, in the Division for the United Nations and International Organizations. Last

year, Mr. Adam served as the deputy chair of the CPC, representing the European Group.

Madam Speaker, Israel was accepted in 2000 as part of the Western Europe and Others Group, WEOG, giving it the right to apply for positions on U.N. committees. The country already sits on several important committees and representatives from Israel have served as deputy chairs in the United Nations numerous times. However, this marks the first time that an Israeli has been chosen to chair a United Nations committee.

For far too long, Israel has been considered a second class nation at the United Nations, unfairly subjected to unjustified one sided attacks from other nations. The facts make the case themselves: 6 out of 10 emergency special sessions called by the United Nations General Assembly have directly condemned Israel, while no emergency sessions have been held against some of the world's worst cases of genocide or repressive regimes.

Israel is also the only U.N. member state denied membership by all of the U.N.'s five regional groups which elect U.N. bodies in Geneva.

Israel also remains the only country of the Western and Others Group to have a conditional status, thereby limiting its ability to caucus with its fellow members of this regional grouping, compete for open seats, or run for positions in major bodies of the United Nations.

The fact that some member states have chosen to use the U.N. as an attack mechanism toward Israel while blatantly ignoring the despicable human rights records of other states truly undermines the United Nations' credibility, integrity and effectiveness.

I am hopeful that Mr. Adam's appointment will help contribute to the normalization of Israel's bilateral and multilateral relations, as well as challenge future disproportionate United Nations condemnation of Israel.

I am also hopeful that the newly appointed United Nations Secretary- General Ban Ki-moon will work to end any unfair vilification of Israel at the United Nations and to use his good offices to support Israel's bid to join the Asian regional grouping.

Finally, I am hopeful that Israel will be granted membership on the Security Council for 2019 and gain full participation rights in the United Nations.

I ask for my colleagues' support and urge the House Leadership to bring this legislation to the floor for its swift consideration.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues of the Congressional Black Caucus to express my concern for diminishing access to higher education opportunities.

We live in a country where the education system is flawed from the ground up. The lack of proper instruction throughout elementary, middle, and secondary school has left many of the under-represented minorities even further behind their classmates. The lack of provisions and support provided to schools in historically black neighborhoods has caused the number of African-Americans applying and enrolled in professional schools to drop.

The number of African-Americans in both the medical and legal professions is anemic compared to the number that live in our country. Even though African Americans make up over 13 percent of the country's population, a recent study found that they make up only 3.9 percent of lawyers and 3.3 percent of physicians.

Madam Speaker, there are a multitude of reasons as to why African- American presence in law school dropped from 7.5 percent to 6.8 percent from 1994 to 2004. Many blame the law school admissions' over-reliance on the LSAT (Law School Admissions Test). This test, which has never been proven to be a successful forecaster of achievement in law school or aptitude as a lawyer, usually makes up over half the criteria that law school admissions counselors use to base their admissions decisions on. The inflated dependence on the LSAT, which studies show is in and of itself biased, has led to a sharp decline of both applications and enrollment by African-Americans into law school.

The necessity for schools to raise the median LSAT scores of the applicants they accept has caused a dramatic drop in the number of African-American law school students. In a study from 2002 to 2004, the 25th percentile LSAT score for law schools in my home State of Florida rose from 149 to 151. In that same time period, African- American enrollment in Florida law school dropped from 557 to 508 students, or nearly 10 percent, while total enrollment rose by 14 percent.

Madam Speaker, we need to challenge this disturbing trend or we are facing a future in which there is a complete lack of African-American presence in the legal world. This trend challenges the right of African-Americans to engage in the legal process of this great Nation.

One major issue that we can influence is the lack of support and education for those interested in a career in law. Many young African- American high school and college students have not had the exposure or have become discouraged by the mass of reports of diminishing African American law school enrollment. With encouragement from current black lawyers and those in support of more diversity in the legal profession, we can help build a proper education system for all students of this Nation.

This is not just about law school. We need to work together, from as early as elementary school, to provide the necessary tools to challenge the current pattern of disinvestment in education. Our educational system must give everyone the proper training and experience necessary to enter higher education and, someday, the professional world.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is aimed at combating corruption in energy-exporting countries and promoting a global energy security.

In my capacity as chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, I have held a series of hearings on the issue of global energy security. I offer this amendment today as a culmination of findings from those hearings.

This amendment encourages international participation in the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative and similar efforts. This amendment will increase the accountability of where our energy comes from by urging international disclosure of energy transactions and requiring the Secretary of State to submit an annual report on EITI compliance. It also states

that it is the power of the United States to decrease reliance, energy reliance on corrupt foreign governments.

I thank Chairmen Lantos and Dingell and my colleagues of the U.S. Helsinki Commission and the staff of the Helsinki Commission, and mine, for their anticipated support.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to the H.R. 3221, the New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act. The purpose of this amendment is two-fold: to combat corruption in energy-exporting countries and to promote democracy and the rule of law in these countries as well.

In my capacity as Chairman of the bipartisan, bicameral Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), I have held a series of hearings on the issue of global energy security in the 110th Congress. The topics of those hearings have spanned the vast diversity energy concerns of the 56 CSCE member nations. I offer this amendment today as a culmination of findings from those hearings.

The United States is the world's largest consumer of oil, accounting for 25 percent of global daily oil demand, despite having less than 3 percent of the world's proven reserves. As a result, we are increasingly dependent on foreign sources of energy.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, the countries that the U.S. has become dependent on for that energy are not reliable politically. In fact, only two of the world's top 10 exporters, Norway and Mexico, are established democracies. The non-democratic exporting countries face political instability, which pose a serious threat to the supply and transit of the oil and gas that America runs on.

While it is imperative that we work to limit our dependence on foreign oil and change the dynamic of supply and demand, it is just as important to create more stable and reliable sources of energy. As the National Petroleum Council recently reported, ``There can be no U.S. energy security without global energy security.''

Mr. Chairman, my amendment meets our objective of global energy security by supporting international participation in the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) and similar efforts. This amendment also urges these countries to establish domestic reporting requirements for all companies that purchase natural resources or make payments connected with the extraction of such resources to increase the accessibility of these transactions for accountable monitoring.

My amendment further requires that the Secretary of State submit to the Congress an annual report which details the United States' own participation in the Extractive Industries transparency Initiative, as well as our bilateral and multilateral diplomatic efforts to further global participation in EITI. This annual report would also entail other U.S. initiatives to strengthen energy security, deter energy kleptocracy, and promote transparency in the extractive industries.

Finally, my amendment states that it is the energy policy of the United States ``to increase energy security by decreasing energy reliance on corrupt foreign governments.''

Mr. Chairman, in order to have a comprehensive energy security policy for the nation, we must develop a complete strategy to improve transparency and accountability in oil-exporting states. My amendment will do just that.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

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

Will the gentleman yield?

There is a requirement for countries to participate in the extractive industries reporting.

Basically what we are doing is, for the first time, asking the Secretary of State to encourage countries to participate in EITI. EITI is to be renewed on September 30. And if we nudge some countries, without mentioning names, some of them may very well determine to participate. That way we will have more assurance of our energy supplies and try, as best we can, not to participate in the future with foreign corrupt governments.

Extractive practices, if the gentleman would yield.

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

Mr. Speaker, in 1994, a terrorist bomb destroyed the headquarters of the Argentine Jewish Mutual Association, known by its Spanish acronym, AMIA, killing 85 people and wounding 200. To this day, the attack on the AMIA remains the deadliest anti-Semitic incident since World War II, and as of yet, the perpetrators of this act have not been brought to justice.

I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 188, which not only condemns this heinous attack, but also applauds the Government of Argentina for speeding the pace of this investigation and calls on other responsible nations to support Argentina in its efforts to finally bring this case to a close.

Substantial evidence attributes the attack on July 18, 1994, to the terrorist group Hezbollah, based in Lebanon and sponsored by Iran. Evidence indicates that the tri-border region where Argentina, Paraguay, and Brazil meet was used to channel resources for the purpose of carrying out the AMIA attack by terrorists linked with Iran. Regrettably, the scheming of international terrorist organizations, such as Hezbollah and al-Qaeda, are not confined to the tri-border region. In fact, much of the Western Hemisphere is ideal for international terrorist groups to establish bases due to the ill equipped and poorly trained security agencies across the region.

Almost daily, we hear reports of terrorist threats from organizations including Hezbollah and al-Qaeda. It is more important than ever to vigorously pursue and prosecute these criminals at every given opportunity. Unfortunately, while the AMIA case has been officially under investigation for over 13 years, the responsible parties have not yet been apprehended. Massive judicial and investigative irregularities, destruction of evidence, and cover-ups have already distorted the long-delayed trial. Make no mistake about it, failure to duly punish the culprits of the AMIA attack serves to reward terrorists and help spread terrorism.

I strongly applaud the recent efforts by the Government of Argentina to fulfill its international obligations and its promise to the Argentine people by aggressively pursuing the local and international connections to this act of terrorism, wherever they may lead, and to properly punish all those who are involved. However, if the last few years have taught us anything, it is that no nation can effectively combat terrorism on its own. While it is up to the Argentine government to conduct a thorough investigation, it is also the responsibility of the international community to cooperate fully in this effort.

Argentina owes it to itself, its people, and the human family to conduct an intense, fearless, and comprehensive investigation that will lead to the identification and prosecution of the principal criminals. We in the international community owe it to Argentina to cooperate with its efforts to bring this dark chapter of its history to a close.

H. Con. Res. 188 is not only a much needed reminder of this tragic event, but it is also a reminder of the truly international scope of the war on terror.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 600 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, additionally, I ask unanimous consent that our colleagues be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 600.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 600 authorizes the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules at any time through the legislative day of Friday, August 3, 2007, on the following measures:

First, H.R. 3087, a bill to require the President, in coordination with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other military leaders, to develop and transmit to Congress a comprehensive strategy for redeployment of United States Armed Forces in Iraq; and, second, a bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain electronic surveillance.

Mr. Speaker, it is particularly important at this juncture in my remarks that I make it very clear that we have heard a lot of talk from the other side of the aisle about the need to reform FISA. The Director of National Intelligence has identified a specific intelligence collection gap and spoken of ``a backlog for things requiring a warrant,'' and I quote him. He claims that this is hindering our efforts to prevent terrorist attacks.

Congress, Mr. Speaker, takes its responsibilities to protect the Nation seriously. None of us on either side of the aisle want to leave our intelligence professionals short. The Intelligence Committee, the Judiciary Committee, the Homeland Security Committee, and the leadership have been working around the clock to come up with a solution that addresses this particular problem. However, again and again, the administration has overplayed their hand. Each time we get close to an agreement, they ask for more, and I might add the negotiations on this have been going on for over a year.

First they said Congress needed to clarify that the government shouldn't need a warrant to collect foreign communications. There was never ever any disagreement about that.

Then they said they wanted broader authority to conduct electronic surveillance of terrorist communications. We agreed to that.

Then they said they wanted immunity for the telecommunications carriers. We agreed to give them prospective immunity and would consider retrospective immunity when we get back.

But we insist on a couple of things. We want to preserve the role of the FISA Court as an independent check on the government to prevent them from infringing on the rights of Americans, and we insist that this legislation have a sunset. In this rushed environment before recess, we should not make permanent changes to FISA.

Last night, the congressional leadership was willing to make further changes for Director McConnell. He said with those changes he would support the bill because it would ``significantly enhance America's security.'' And I am quoting him again. But after this agreement was reached, congressional Republicans insisted on a much broader, permanent bill, giving the Attorney General, this Attorney General, not the Court, the discretion to make decisions about surveillance involving Americans. Clearly, in my judgment, they are not negotiating in good faith.

If they reject this bill, the other side is saying, in the face of a resurgent al Qaeda, they don't want to plug the collection gap identified by the Director of National Intelligence immediately. They are rejecting ``significantly enhancing America's security.''

Now, if the other side insists on manufacturing obstructionist delays and rejecting agreements that will enhance our security, we can stay here all August and September and December until we get this done. The security of this Nation deserves no less.

This rule is necessary, Mr. Speaker, because under clause 1(a), rule XV, the Speaker may entertain motions to suspend the rules only on Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday of each week. In order for suspensions to be considered on other days, as my colleagues well know, the Rules Committee must authorize consideration of these motions.

This is not an unusual procedure, as some on the other side may suggest. In fact, in the 109th Congress, alone, my friends on the other side of the aisle reported at least six rules that provided for additional suspension days.

This rule limits the suspension of rules to only these two bills and will help us move important legislation before we leave for the August recess. Time is, indeed, of the essence. Not because many in this body wish to go home this weekend but, rather, because of the gravity of these situations both here at home and abroad.

I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this rule and the underlying piece of legislation.

I do wish to put my colleagues on notice that, following the conclusion of debate on this rule, I intend to offer an amendment to the rule. My amendment will permit the House to consider emergency legislation today appropriating $250 million to begin the reconstruction of the I-35 bridge, which collapsed this week in Minnesota. We have properly given our condolences and continue those to those who have lost loved ones and those who are awaiting word regarding those who are still missing and those who have been injured. All of us grieve with all of them.

Without this amendment and this rule, this legislation will not be permitted to proceed; and these emergency funds would be delayed. Realize a vote against this rule and my amendment to the rule will be a vote against providing this emergency assistance to the people of Minnesota, specifically Minneapolis, Minnesota.

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

This matter is under suspension. My friend on the Rules Committee and I were there when it passed out of the Rules Committee on suspension, and that requirement is met.

Will the gentleman yield?

Thank you for yielding. It is in the hopper. The minority members of the Intelligence Committee have the measure.

At this time, I am very pleased to yield to my colleague, with whom I've served 7 years on the Select Committee on Intelligence. She was the ranking member and is now the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Before yielding to Ms. Harman, who has gone down this road for well over a year to get us to this point, I would like to say to my friend from Texas that perhaps it would be helpful if he would ask the minority members of the Intelligence Committee about the bill.

Secondly, the measure that we are dealing with is a rule providing for suspension, not consideration.

That said, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from California (Ms. Harman).

I yield the gentlelady an additional minute to respond.

I yield 30 seconds to Ms. Harman.

The gentleman says he has a copy of the bill in his hand. I would remind the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, who is my good friend, that this rule is to make in order a suspension day.

I'm glad you do understand it.

I would ask the gentleman from Texas to ask his Republican colleagues on the Intelligence Committee why they didn't share the bill with the Rules Committee Republicans. We cannot control what you do or do not do.

And under the circumstances, Ms. Harman just made it very clear to you that the goalposts keep moving. You try to act as if you don't know that for a year and a half that this has been going on here in this intelligence community, working with this administration, trying to take care of this matter.

Now understand this. First, you said on that side that Congress needed to clarify that the government shouldn't need a warrant to collect foreign-to-foreign communications. There was never any disagreement about that, and stop saying it to the American public.

Then they said they wanted broader authority to conduct electronic surveillance of terrorist communications. We agreed to that.

Then they said they wanted immunity for the telecommunications carriers. We agreed to give them prospective immunity and consider retrospective immunity when we get back.

Last night, not yesterday, not midnight to noon, and some people have gotten caught in the dark, last night, the congressional leadership was willing to make further changes for Director McConnell. He said that with those changes he would support the bill because it would, in his word, ``significantly'' enhance America's security.

But after this agreement was reached, congressional Republicans insisted on a much broader bill giving the Attorney General, not the Court, the discretion to make decisions about surveillance involving Americans. Clearly, in my judgment, as I said previously, you're not negotiating in good faith.

I remind you once again that this rule is to make in order a suspension day. You will have all the time you need to do all the reading you need to do.

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

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I will yield to the distinguished Chair of the Intelligence Committee in just a moment.

But I would like to respond to my good friend from Michigan, and he is my good friend, and he was correct in asserting that he, Ms. Harman, myself, all of the members of the Intelligence Committee that are here, have worked actively for more than a year on this. What he was incorrect about was whether or not there were ongoing negotiations.

I would urge him to know that with staff, the distinguished Chair of the Intelligence Committee and many other Members, and Ms. Harman from her Chair on Homeland Security, and countless others in the minority as well, have worked day and night with the administration to produce a bipartisan, bicameral proposal.

Mr. Rogers just said last night no other negotiations were going on. Last night the DNI asked us to make three changes, three, to our proposal. We made all three changes. They are in this bill. But the administration still rejected our proposal, and they gave us a moving target.

We gave the administration what it told us it needed to protect America. They still said no.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

I object.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Is it not true, Mr. Speaker, that there are computer terminals on the majority side, the minority side and at the Speaker's desk; and, further, Mr. Speaker, is it not true that the Clerk of the House has the responsibility, when there are engineering problems, to fix the engineering problems?

Mr. Speaker, I object. The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary inquiry.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Madam Speaker, I object.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Madam Speaker, I would remind everyone here that this rule is to make in order a suspension day. This particular measure is not about FISA.

Madam Speaker, I'm very pleased to yield to a woman that I've worked with on the Intelligence Committee when she was the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee and that I worked on that committee with for 6 years. In this body is the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee; in addition, another of my colleagues, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Turner, Mr. Holt. All of us serve on that same committee that Mrs. Wilson serves on, and I rather suspect that she knows that we know that there is no prohibition that she has suggested here.

I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the former ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee and the now-Chair of the Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment of the Homeland Security Committee.

Excuse me.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to be astounded, particularly at the remarks of the distinguished ranking member of the committee that I serve on with him, that he would have us believe something different than what his proposal allows for. His proposal, or the proposal of the minority, would allow the Attorney General to do this, not lawyers.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the point person for every person in the House of Representatives on intelligence, the distinguished Chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence, Mr. Silvestre Reyes.

Madam Chairman, what the gentleman just read was ordered to the White House by the National Intelligence Director. The Republican logic allows that what was acceptable yesterday is not acceptable today.

Parliamentary Inquiry

I do not.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment to the rule at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to briefly describe this amendment to House Resolution 600.

The amendment would add a third suspension measure to this resolution, a bill to provide assistance to Minnesota. This will allow the House to consider the Minnesota bridge disaster emergency relief legislation. I am sure that everyone here would urge that the reconstruction of the bridge that tragically collapsed on Wednesday be undertaken.

While the minority has been engaging in manufactured obstructionism, the House has been denied the opportunity to act on the priorities of the American people.

While the minority has been engaged in manufactured obstructionism, the House has enacted on legislation to require a comprehensive strategy to withdraw our troops from harm's way.

While the minority has been engaged in manufacturing obstructionism, the House has not been able to act on FISA reform.

Finally, while the minority has engaged in manufactured obstructionism, the House has not acted on providing emergency assistance to our fellow Americans who are grieving and suffering in Minnesota.

Manufactured obstructionism is what they are doing, and the American people will not stand for it.

By allowing this bill to come to the floor today, we can get this bill to the President's desk immediately. Whatever differences we have here today, this should be something we all can support.

I hope my colleagues will support the amendment and the rule.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Speaker, as Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, otherwise known as the Helsinki Commission, I rise to introduce a resolution which expresses the concern of this body regarding the Russian Federation's suspension of implementation of the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE).

Russia's declared suspension of the CFE on last July 14 is troubling to the countries that are parties to the treaty because it may lead to instability in the security situation in Europe.

NATO and the former Warsaw Pact countries ratified the CFE in 1990, under the auspices of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, predecessor of the current Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The CFE has played a major role in European security in the post-Cold War era. The treaty set broad limits on key categories of conventional military equipment in Europe and mandated the destruction of excess weaponry. Under its provisions, over 60,000 pieces of combat material have been destroyed or removed from the arsenals of signatory states, under a rigorous, but mutually acceptable, transparency regime. In sum, it established parity, transparency, and stability among the conventional military forces and equipment in Europe.

The CFE was amended in 1999 to account for the dissolution of the former Soviet Union and the reality that several Warsaw Pact countries had become NATO members. However, NATO members have not yet ratified the amended treaty because Russia has failed to fulfill related commitments to withdraw its troops and weaponry from the territories of Moldova and Georgia, where they I are stationed against the wishes of those governments.

Among other reasons, Russia justified its suspension of the CFE on the basis that the U.S. plans to construct missile defence facilities in Eastern Europe, NATO member states refuse to ratify the 1999 CFE ``Adaptation Agreement,'' and what Moscow sees as further encroachment by NATO toward Russia's border.

Madam Speaker, this resolution is not intended to discount Russia's concerns in the area of national security. However, Russia's actions over the past few months, combined with this latest on the CFE, prompts the question: How much of Russia's decision to suspend the CFE was based on genuine security concerns, and how much of the decision was designed to project President Putin and his United Party as ``tough on the West'' in the face of upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections?

We believe that Russia's proposed ``moratorium'' on CFE compliance is a regrettable step that may needlessly increase tensions in Europe.

I am introducing this ``sense of the House'' resolution urging the Government of the Russian Federation to reconsider its intention to suspend CFE implementation and to engage in dialogue with the other CFE signatory states to resolve outstanding problems and establish a foundation for the eventual implementation of the above-mentioned Adaptation Agreement to the CFE Treaty of 1999. In other words, we urge Russia to reconsider its decision and behave more responsibly.

I urge my colleagues to support this timely resolution as a demonstration of this body's concern for European security.