Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

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

Madam Speaker, on September 28, 2006, the Republicans were in the majority and the Democrats were in the minority. I was managing a rule on the floor similar to what we are considering here today to allow specific bills to be considered under suspensions under the rule on a day that suspensions are not permitted under House rules like today.

During debate on that day in September 2006, the then-ranking member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, stated, ``It isn't just what the Congress has done with its time that is so disappointing. It is also what the Congress has not done, all of the challenges it has not addressed.''

Madam Speaker, the same can be absolutely said today about the Democrat control of the House of Representatives. Earlier this year, House Democrats approved a budget that included a tax hike of $683 billion, the largest in American history. Americans cannot afford the Democrat plans to cut the child tax credit in half, to reinstate the marriage penalty, and raise taxes on every single taxpayer. Instead of record-breaking tax increases, this Congress should work to make those tax cuts permanent.

I'm also dismayed that the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives has not acted to extend the State and local sales tax deduction to States that don't have State income tax. That tax expired on January 1 of this year. The State and local sales tax deduction is important for those States that don't have a State income tax, such as my home State of Washington. Extending this deduction is a matter of fairness that Congress must act to renew as soon as possible.

The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives have also failed to act to give our intelligence community the tools they need to protect our country from new terrorist threats by modernizing the seventies-era FISA laws. For over 74 days now, America has been hobbled in the vital work to monitor terrorist communications and detect new plots despite the fact that the Senate has approved a bipartisan plan and sent it over to the House. House Democrat leaders have refused to allow the House to vote on the Senate plan and have refused to go to conference with the Senate.

Madam Speaker, why, I ask, why is an issue of this magnitude being placed on the back burner by Democrat leaders, despite repeated attempts by Republicans to allow the House to vote on this bipartisan plan?

Madam Speaker, the Democrat-controlled House has also failed to address perhaps the most pressing issue on the minds of Americans today, rising gas prices.

Democrat leaders may not like to hear it, but since they took control of Congress in January of 2007, the cost of a gallon of gas has gone up by over 50 percent. In fact, the cost of gas has gone up by more in 16 months than it had gone up in the prior 6 years.

Instead, they have spent hours giving speeches trying to blame the President and anyone but themselves for the fact that Congress has done nothing to address rising gas prices. But, Madam Speaker, facts are stubborn things.

And the facts are that gas prices have gone up over a dollar a gallon on the Democrat Congress' watch. The facts are that Democrat leaders promised the American people in 2006 that if they were to control Congress that they had a ``commonsense plan'' to ``lower the price at the pump.''

It's been 16 months of this Democrat Congress, and the promise is nowhere to be seen. This Congress has put forward no plan, has taken no action, and passed no bills to lower gas prices. They promised relief at the pump to lower gas prices, and they've done nothing.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to insert into the Record an article by Investor's Business Daily posted April 29, 2008, and it states, ``This Congress is possibly the most irresponsible in modern history. This is especially true when it comes to America's dysfunctional energy policy.''

[From Investor's Business Daily, Apr. 29, 2008]

Congress Vs. You

Energy: President Bush let the Democrat-led Congress have

it with both barrels Tuesday, lambasting lawmakers for

fiddling while the energy crisis burns. It was a well-

deserved takedown of do-nothing lawmakers.

We've said it before, but we'll say it again: This Congress

is possibly the most irresponsible in modern history. This is

especially true when it comes to America's dysfunctional

energy policy.

The media won't call either the House or the Senate on its

failures, for one very obvious reason: They mostly share an

ideology with the Democrats that keeps them from

understanding how free markets and supply and demand really

work. Sad, but true.

So we were happy to hear the president do the job, calling

out Congress for its inaction and ignorance in his wide-

ranging press conference Tuesday.

``Many Americans are understandably anxious about issues

affecting their pocketbook, from gas and food prices to

mortgage and tuition bills,'' Bush said. ``They're looking to

their elected leaders in Congress for action. Unfortunately,

on many of these issues, all they're getting is delay.''

Best of all, Bush didn't let the issue sit with just

generalities. He reeled off a bill of particulars of

congressional energy inaction, including:

Failing to allow drilling in ANWR. We have, as Bush noted,

estimated capacity of a million barrels of oil a day from

this source alone--enough for 27 million gallons of gas and

diesel. But Congress won't touch it, fearful of the clout of

the environmental lobby. As a result, you pay at the pump so

your representative can raise campaign cash.

Refusing to build new refineries. The U.S. hasn't built one

since 1976, yet sanctions at least 15 unique ``boutique''

fuel blends around the nation. So even the slightest problem

at a refinery causes enormous supply problems and price

spikes. Congress has done nothing about this.

Turning its back on nuclear power. It's safe and, with

advances in nuclear reprocessing technology, waste problems

have been minimized. Still, we have just 104 nuclear plants--

the same as a decade ago--producing just 19% of our total

energy. (Many European nations produce 40% or more of their

power with nuclear.) Granted, nuclear power plants are

expensive--about $3 billion each. But they produce energy at

$1.72/kilowatt-hour vs. $2.37 for coal and $6.35 for natural

gas.

Raising taxes on energy producers. This is where a basic

understanding of economics would help: Higher taxes and

needless regulation lead to less production of a commodity.

So by proposing ``windfall'' and other taxes on energy

companies plus tough new rules, Congress makes our energy

situation worse.

These are just a few of Congress' sins of omission--all

while India, China, Eastern Europe and the Middle East add

more than a million barrels of new demand each and every

year. New Energy Department forecasts see world oil demand

growing 40% by 2030, including a 28% increase in the U.S.

Americans who are worried about the direction of their

country, including runaway energy and food prices, should

keep in mind the upcoming election isn't just about choosing

a new president. We'll also pick a new Congress.

The current Congress, led on the House side by a speaker

who promised a ``common sense plan'' to cut energy prices two

years ago, has shown itself to be incompetent and

irresponsible. It doesn't deserve re-election.

Madam Speaker, we all know that we must work together, Democrats, Republicans, the House, the Senate and the President, to solve America's pain at the pump. Until this happens, however, we should not deny good ideas from being considered.

Therefore, I will be urging my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that I can amend the rule to make in order any bill that would ``have the effect of lowering the national average price per gallon of regular unleaded gas.'' Let's defeat the previous question and show America that Congress is serious about addressing the rising cost at the pump.

With that, I reserve my time.

At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Madam Speaker, Americans don't want a debate on the problems causing gas prices to dramatically increase. They want a debate on solutions.

Therefore, as I stated a moment ago, I will be asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that Members can offer solutions that have the effect of lowering the national average price per gallon of regular unleaded gas.

As I mentioned, 2 years ago, then-minority leader, now-Speaker Pelosi promised Americans a Democrat plan to lower gas prices at the pump. They have controlled Congress for 16 months, but we still have not seen this plan. Meanwhile, the cost of gasoline is setting record highs. The time is now for the House to debate ideas and solutions for lowering gas prices, and it is time for the Democrats to reveal their plan that they promised 2 years ago.

So, Madam Speaker, by defeating the previous question, I will move to amend the rule to allow any bill to be offered and considered under suspensions of the rule that would have the effect of lowering the national average price per gallon of regular unleaded gas.

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

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can have this debate, so that we can consider these vitally important issues that America's families, workers, truckers, small businesses, and our entire economy face with these rising prices of gasoline.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives is being asked to swallow this colossal Senate lands bill without any Member having the opportunity to offer amendments or provide input. This is an abdication of our duties as elected Representatives and it means good legislation will continue to sit lingering and waiting for action in the Senate because it's not been included in this packaged bill.

There are parts of this massive bill that I do support. In fact, I am the sponsor and author of the bill, H.R. 386, that will convey certain buildings and land from the Bureau of Reclamation to the Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District. This measure will allow for greater local control of property that is already being used for irrigation purposes. It will also allow the irrigation district to make needed improvements. H.R. 386 passed the House by a vote of 417-0 in February, 2007 and I am pleased that the Senate finally acted on this bipartisan piece of legislation.

However, this package excludes many other House passed bills that have been awaiting Senate action, including two of which are of particular interest to me and communities in Central Washington state.

The first bill, H.R. 523, passed the House last October by a vote of 377 to zero. This bill would allow for the sale of several parcels of property from the Bureau of Land Management to the Douglas County PUD for both ease and efficiency of management, while ensuring environmental protections. Additionally, the funds generated from this sale would be put towards improving public access to existing BLM lands in Washington state. This creates an opportunity to address some long- standing needs to improve public access to public lands in my state, including for recreation at the Juniper Dunes area. Having passed the House over six months ago without dissent, and also being subject of a positive Senate hearing in February, there is no reason that this bill shouldn't be part of this package.

Second, I am frustrated that the Senate did not include H.R. 1285, the Snoqualmie Pass Land Conveyance Act. This legislation would help facilitate the construction of a modem fire station to serve both local communities and interstate freeway travelers crossing Snoqualmie Pass. The Snoqualmie Pass Fire and Rescue is often the first to respond to emergencies through the pass. This heavily traveled area often sees major snowstorms as well as avalanches. This bill passed the House last July by voice vote and it merits passage by the Senate and to be signed into law.

Instead of action on these two bills, there is indefinite delay and no apparent plan for action. I will not be allowed to offer an amendment to add these two non-controversial bills to this Senate package. The House is only given the choice of passing this bill.

I have heard some of my colleagues in both the House and the Senate claim that this conglomerate Senate bill mainly includes bills that passed out of the House of Representatives and enjoy strong bipartisan support. Both H.R. 523 as well as H.R. 1285 fit both of those criteria. Why then were they not included in S. 2739 when other bills were included that have never passed the House or had prior Senate Committee approval?

I am frustrated and disappointed at the closed manner in which the House is being

forced to vote on this bill. Furthermore, I am concerned at the enormous expansion of federal land ownership and management responsibilities created by this bill when we are not currently able to meet our public lands existing maintenance needs. It is ironic that both of the bills that have been left out of this legislation would, in a responsible way, actually decrease and relieve these demands and stress on current capabilities.

For these reasons, I must vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, the small business programs covered by this bill are almost totally without their critics; they enjoy widespread bipartisan support. But, Mr. Speaker, there is controversy and opposition to this legislation because of the manner in which Democrats have chosen to conduct the business of this House.

First, there are concerns expressed about the increased set-aside for these two programs, which will come at the cost of other important research. Concern and opposition of this bill has come from the head of the Small Business Administration, from the White House, and from the Association of American Universities, among others, which represents 60 leading research universities across the country.

Typically, there would be an opportunity to address these types of concerns through committee action before any bill comes to the House floor. But the Democrats have chosen to skip past a hearing of the full House Science Committee on this scientific research legislation. They're just bypassing that step and sending it here to the House floor, where the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee decided to further restrict action on the legislation by limiting the number of House Members who can offer amendments, and they just limited it, Mr. Speaker, to just 17 out of 432 Members in the House.

Now it is true that my Democrat friends on the Rules Committee have allowed some amendments to be offered on this bill, but they have certainly treated themselves very well. Under this rule, Democrat members of the Rules Committee get to offer one-third of the amendments allowed to the entire House. Out of the 17 amendments that would be made in order under this rule, the Rules Committee Democrats get six of them. But under the rules that the Rules Committee wrote, 415 Members will not be allowed to offer even one amendment.

Restricting debate on the House floor is really becoming an old habit for the new Democrat majority, the new Democrat majority that pledged to run a more open, bipartisan House when they won the election in 2006. The Democrat majority has not kept their promise to the American people and have instead passed more closed rules denying all amendments on the House floor than any Congress in history, and they did it in record time.

Despite this record of shutting down debate in the House, the new majority has failed to complete its work and address matters critical to American families, small businesses and the economy. They failed to meet last week's April 5 deadline to write a budget for the next fiscal year, for example. The current farm bill ended last September, and our farmers are still waiting for that bill to be finished.

House Democrats have refused to pass the Senate's bipartisan bill to modernize FISA and to protect our country. Vital tax relief is set to expire while Democrats propose the largest tax increase in American history. Families, workers and small businesses don't need a record tax increase, Mr. Speaker, and they can't afford the plans to cut the child tax credit in half, reinstate the marriage penalty, and raise rates on every single taxpayer.

While Democrats plot these record-breaking tax increases, they sit by while the price of gasoline rises to record levels. Since Democrats took control of Congress in January of last year, the cost of a gallon of unleaded gas has gone up by 50 percent. According to the AAA, the national average for regular unleaded gasoline has gone up $1.18. The cost of gas has gone up more in 15 months, Mr. Speaker, than it had gone up in the prior 6 years.

Two years ago tomorrow, on April 24, 2006, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, then the Democrat minority leader, issued a press release claiming that House Democrats ``have a commonsense plan to bring down skyrocketing gas prices.'' This was 2 years ago tomorrow, Mr. Speaker. Two weeks after that press release, then minority leader Pelosi said that Democrats have ``real solutions'' that would ``lower the price at the pump.'' That was 2 years ago, Mr. Speaker, just less than 2 years ago. But now they've controlled the House for over a year, yet the ``real solutions'' and the ``commonsense plan'' promised by Democrats are nowhere to be seen. They pledged to lower gas prices, and they've done nothing; gas prices keep climbing.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's time for Speaker Pelosi to reveal the Democrat plan and for this House to be allowed to consider ways to address the rising price of gasoline. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will be asking my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that I can amend the rule to make in order any amendment to the underlying bill that would ``have the effect of lowering national average gas price per gallon of regular unleaded gas.'' This House can then debate the rising cost of gas and we can have that debate, Mr. Speaker, by defeating the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I will insert into the Record both Speaker Pelosi's 2006 press release and a letter sent yesterday from Republican leaders to Speaker Pelosi asking for the Democrats to put forward the commonsense plan that they had promised.

Pelosi: `With Skyrocketing Gas Prices, Americans Can No Longer Afford

Rubber Stamp Congress'

Washington, DC.--House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi

released the following statement today on President Bush's,

Speaker Hastert's, and the Republican Congress' empty

rhetoric on gas prices. Key facts on the Majority's failure

to address gas prices follows Pelosi's statement.

With skyrocketing gas prices, it is clear that the American

people can no longer afford the Republican Rubber Stamp

Congress and its failure to stand up to Republican big oil

and gas company cronies. Americans this week are paying $2.91

a gallon on average for regular gasoline--33 cents higher

than last month, and double the price than when President

Bush first came to office.

``With record gas prices, record CEO pay packages, and

record oil company profits, Speaker Hastert and the Majority

Congress continue to give the American people empty rhetoric

rather than join Democrats who are working to lower gas

prices now.

``Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down

skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging,

rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies,

tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas

companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.''

Key Facts on the Majority's Failure to Address Gas Prices:

President Bush, Speaker Hastert and the Majority Congress

wrote and passed a Republican energy bill that President

Bush's own Energy Department said would raise gas prices on

American consumers. Big oil and gas companies wrote the

Republican energy bill, and the American people paid the

price.

The Majority rejected imposing tough penalties on price

gouging companies three times in the past year, since that

time, gas prices increased by another 11 cents a gallon.

Speaker Hastert and the Majority have been blocking action

on Congressman Stupak's Federal Response to Energy

Emergencies Act (H.R. 3936) since last September, which would

protect American consumers from high gas prices by empowering

the FTC and the DOJ to investigate and prosecute oil

companies engaged in price gouging at each stage of the

energy production and distribution chain and outlaws market

manipulation.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier of California.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

Two points: 415 Members of this House are denied an opportunity to offer an amendment because this is a structured rule, number one.

Number two, I would hope that my friend from Oregon would join me in voting to defeat the previous question because he has a view on why gas prices are high. If we have an open debate on that, he'll have his opportunity to make that argument and perhaps offer legislation that would lower the price of gasoline. That is precisely what I'm going to be asking my colleagues to do in defeating the previous question so they'll have that opportunity. I hope the gentleman will join with me in that regard.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

But my point is that when the gentleman was talking about the rising price of gas, he has an opinion as to why gasoline prices have risen. We haven't had a debate on this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 additional minute on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I just simply want to say that we haven't had a debate, and this is an opportunity to debate this issue. And I hope the gentleman will join with me in voting to defeat the previous question so we can have his ideas on what would lower the price of gasoline, along with other ideas being debated.

That would not take away, would not take away at all, the ability to debate only those 17 amendments that you said were made in order. But the fact still remains 415 Members of this body do not have a chance to perfect this bill as they see fit.

I am happy to yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, under suspension of the rules, there is generally agreement between both the minority and the majority. If the gentleman was upset then, he could have very easily have defeated the bill and brought it up under a special rule.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

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

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

Mr. Speaker I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I find this debate of the last three Members absolutely incredible. All we have heard from the last three speakers is the problems, but we have heard no solutions.

So I want to repeat, Mr. Speaker, by defeating the previous question, we can debate solutions on the floor of this House. I would hope that all of those, especially the last three speakers on the other side, would join me in voting ``no'' on the previous question so they can offer their solutions so we can debate them on the floor of the House. That is the sum and total of defeating the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Michigan just made the case for me one more time to defeat the previous question so that the gentleman could offer some solutions.

I just want to remind everybody, Mr. Speaker. Two years ago tomorrow, then Democrat minority leader Nancy Pelosi said: We have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices. We have real solutions to lower the price at the pump.

When the Democrats took over, the price at the pump was $2.33. Now, it is $3.51.

I yield myself another 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, by defeating the previous question we can discuss and debate those solutions. That is all I am asking Members to do. I am not taking sides, I am not saying their ideas are bad. I am just saying we have an opportunity to debate those solutions.

I appreciate my friend for yielding. I just simply want to say, and you make my case. If you have these solutions, defeat the previous question and we can have a debate on that.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I took all of my time because I was advised there were no speakers on the other side, so I can't yield time right now.

Mr. Speaker, I inquire once again of my friend from Vermont if he has any more speakers.

Thank you for being so precise, Mr. Speaker. I do appreciate that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate, we have had a debate on the problems. We haven't had a debate on the solutions. My motion then would allow that to happen. So let me repeat, Mr. Speaker.

Two years ago, Speaker Pelosi promised Americans a Democrat plan to lower gas prices at the pump. They

have controlled Congress for 15 months, but we still have not seen this plan. Meanwhile, the cost of gas is setting record highs.

Under their leadership, the national average price of gas has increased by $1.18. It is time for the House to debate ideas for lowering gas prices. It is time for the Democrats to reveal their plans.

Mr. Speaker, by defeating the previous question, I will move to amend the rule to allow any amendment be made in order on the underlying bill that would, quote, have the effect of lowering the national average price per gallon of regular unleaded gas.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can have this debate, so that we can consider these vitally important issues that America's families, workers, truckers, small businesses, and our entire economy face with these rising prices of gasoline.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, we need to stop this unprecedented attempt to rewrite trade laws and jeopardize fair trade for our American farmers.

Washington State is the most trade-dependent State in the Nation. One in three Washington jobs is tied to international trade. Since 1991, Colombia has had open, free entry into the U.S. for many of their products, while steep tariffs block our farmers' access into Colombia.

This agreement would immediately, immediately, Mr. Speaker, eliminate tariffs for Washington State apples, cherries, pears, wheat, beef, and more. If the issue is the economy, what better way to stimulate our Nation's economy than to level the playing field and wipe out unfair trade barriers for our farmers.

Mr. Speaker, Representatives and Senators are elected to vote, so let's do our job and vote on the Colombia agreement. What the House is now considering is an effort to delay, to hide, to slam the door, shut the door on free

and fair trade that millions of Americans' jobs depend on. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this Hugo Chavez rule.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and namesake Mr. Hastings from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is an unfair rule making in order, in my view, a bad bill, and a poor way to run the House of Representatives. It is claimed by this legislation's proponents that it is just an attempt to write into Federal law a new BLM, Bureau of Land Management, land management scheme that was invented by then-Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt.

It is the weakest of justifications for passing legislation and an abdication of responsibility for the legislative branch, for this Democratic Congress, to argue that we have to pass this bill to authorize what the last Democratic President created by fiat. Yet the harm to the powers and responsibilities of the House and our public lands is far greater.

This bill simply doesn't write into law the national landscape conservation system that Secretary Babbitt created, because this bill is written so poorly and loosely that it actually gifts the authority of the Congress over to the political appointees and career department bureaucrats in the Interior Department.

Vague words such as ``values'' are left undefined by this bill. It is the job of the Congress to define terms and write bills plainly and clearly. Not doing so gives away the power to these presidential appointees and career bureaucrats. When the elected Congress doesn't do its job, the unelected agencies and departments are free to impose their opinions and philosophy as laws and regulations.

With the faults and deficiencies of this bill so obvious, it was no surprise that last night 28 amendments to improve this legislation were filed with the Rules Committee, and with the Democratic track record of shutting down debate in this Congress, it was certainly no surprise when the Democratic Rules Committee blocked 19 of these amendments and denied representatives an ability to come to the floor and have a debate and a vote on their proposals.

My dear friend from Florida noted that the rule makes in order two Democratic amendments and six by Republicans, but I must point out that this means that every amendment offered by the Democrats were made in order, but 19 were not allowed to be made in order that were sponsored by Republicans.

Many relevant and constructive amendments were shut down by the Democratic Rules Committee. These include amendments to ensure the ability for wind and solar energy production on these public lands, to require that the Federal Government fully fund payments in lieu of taxes to local governments before spending new funds on landscaping, to ensure that there is no net loss of off-highway recreation areas and boating access facilities, to protect existing grazing rights, to ensure that hunting, fishing, recreational shooting and other current uses can continue on BLM lands and to require that the privately owned property of American citizens are not included in the NCLS without the written consent of the owner.

When the Rules Committee blocked these amendments, they acted to put the decisions in the hands of the Interior Department. This bill is a threat to the ability of citizens to enjoy and use their public lands. Democrat leaders won't even permit Members of the House to vote on whether Americans will be able to continue to ride, boat, graze livestock, shoot, hunt or fish on the lands that they can use today. This Congress says to Americans that their private property rights are not certain, that these rights and their land is at risk subject to the whims of the Interior Department.

That Democratic leaders are shutting down debate on this bill is truly not a surprise, but it is a broken promise. When the new majority took control after the 2006 elections, they promised to run the most open House in history. Unfortunately, they have not kept this promise.

In fact, the Democratic majority has set a historic record of the most closed rules in the history of the House, and they have already done that in record time. They have shut down debate on the House floor more than any other majority ever.

Why have they done so? It certainly isn't because of the tremendous accomplishments of the 110th Congress. The list of items not done, overdue bills and unfinished business of this House is long and growing longer.

For example, House Democrats have refused to pass the bipartisan Senate bill to protect our country by modernizing the 1970-era FISA law to monitor foreign persons in foreign places. Another example is the farm bill that expired last September, and America's farmers have been left waiting for months and wondering when this Congress will act.

Another is fixing the Medicare payments to doctors so that they can keep caring for seniors. Another is passing funding for the war on terrorism. The new No Child Left Behind act awaits renewal later this fall. Also the Secure Rural Schools Act desperately needs to be passed to keep the Federal promise made to rural communities whose hospitals and schools are at risk.

The State sales tax deduction expired last December for those States that don't have a State income tax like Washington and Florida. With the deadline just 6 days away, the new majority has yet to create a final budget outline for the next fiscal year.

The House isn't working on these national priorities, but last week the Rules Committee went so far as to pass a rule to restrict debate and permit only three amendments on legislation to renew the Fire Administration.

The end result of this closed process was that all three amendments passed by a voice vote and the bill passed this House by 412-0. Hardly a controversial bill, but under the closed process we are left with that example of how this House is being run.

With the House neglecting its work and not acting on these priorities, we have a lot of free time on our hands, to which the new majority leaders respond by shutting down Republicans from being allowed to offer amendments on even the most noncontroversial bills, like last week and what we will take up this week.

This is an unfair rule on a poorly written bill that threatens each and every American's ability to recreate, use and enjoy their public lands. It puts citizens' private property rights at a real risk.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule, to oppose the bill and insist that the House get to work on the important business this Congress is thus far failing to get done.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to my good friend and former member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Bishop of Utah.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

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

I would just make this point: There are many times when amendments are filed by Members of this body and they do not come to the Rules Committee and their amendments are made in order, and that was the case, for example, of one of the amendments that was made in order by a Democrat Member last night. Those things do happen.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, this is a restrictive rule that prevents Members of this House from offering amendments to try and improve the poorly and loosely written underlying bill.

As has been said several times, 19 amendments were blocked by the Rules Committee. This rule does not allow the House to debate amendments to protect American's current ability to enjoy these BLM lands through fishing, riding, hunting, and boating.

But even more egregious is that this rule blocks the House from voting on an amendment to protect private property rights of American citizens. As Representative Bishop has pointed out, and he had filed an amendment to the Rules Committee, it was amendment No. 13, that would have simply directed the Secretary of the Interior not to include private property within the National Landscape Conservation System without the written consent of the landowner, and this deals with the issue of in holdings, as Mr. Bishop mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, this is a fair amendment. It is an important amendment. It seeks only to protect the private property rights of American citizens. The Rules Committee should not have blocked his amendment from being made in order and let Members vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on that amendment.

So I am going to give, Mr. Speaker, Members an opportunity to support or oppose private property rights by asking Members of the House to defeat the previous question on the rule. By defeating the previous question, I will seek to amend the rule to allow Representative Bishop to offer his private property rights amendment No. 13. By voting ``no'' on the previous question, Members are voting to respect and protect the private property rights of all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio, Ms. Sutton, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, in 2003, this legislation, the United States Fire Administration Reauthorization Act, passed the U.S. Senate by unanimous consent, and it passed the House that same year as a suspension bill by a voice vote. This year it was approved with bipartisan support and a voice vote out of the House Science Committee. The history of this bill has clearly been one of bipartisanship and broad agreement on the merits for renewing the U.S. Fire Administration activities.

Mr. Speaker, it is a prime candidate for consideration as a suspension bill by this House, and in a Tuesday meeting of the Rules Committee, I suggested that if no amendments were filed with the committee, that the House should actually consider it as a suspension bill because of its broad support.

The Democrats on the Rules Committee said no to consideration as a suspension, as was done in 2003, which, I might add, was done with their consent in 2003. The Democrat Rules Committee insisted on a structured amendment process requiring Representatives to file their proposed amendments through the Rules Committee for the committee's review. Ultimately three amendments were filed with the committee. This rule would make only those three amendments in order, thereby prohibiting the 432 other Members of the House from coming to the House floor and offering an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the Democrat majority has set an historic record for the most closed rules in the history of the House. In doing so, they shut down debate on the House floor more than any other majority has.

Mr. Speaker, it is really a terrible record. As the new Democrat majority took control after the November 2006 elections, they promised the exact opposite. They pledged to run the most open House and to allow for bipartisanship.

Mr. Speaker, they have broken that promise. Other than appropriation bills, which are historically considered under open rules, this Congress has had only one, just one open rule, and that was over a year ago, in February of 2007.

Mr. Speaker, this bill to renew the activities of the Fire Administration is noncontroversial. If it is not going to be considered under suspension of the rules, then it should be done under an open rule. If this noncontroversial bill is not a candidate for an open rule, then what bill will this Democrat majority be willing to bring to the floor and allow under an open rule?

The Democrat majority blocks debates on controversial bills and noncontroversial bills. No legislation appears safe from their drive to shut down and shut out debate in this House. They promised to run the House in an open manner, and they are not. They passed new rules to make conference committees more open. Then they just stopped using conference committees and retreated further behind closed doors to write final bills. Mr. Speaker, as just one example, take the Democrat refusal to conference with the Senate on FISA legislation.

The American people were promised that this House would be run differently, that it would be run better, but in fact it has not been. The Democrat majority has exceeded and surpassed the heavy-handed tactics that they condemned in the last Congress. Now they have gone so far as to take a noncontroversial bill that was passed by voice vote and turn it into another opportunity to tighten the vise and block debate on the House floor.

This House deserves to be allowed to work in an open and free manner, and it hasn't had that, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would just make the observation: This bill, as I mentioned in my remarks and as the gentlelady from Ohio mentioned in her remarks, has obviously very, very broad bipartisan support. Why not consider it then under an open process? There are probably many Members that have an idea that they could perfect this legislation, but we are being denied, with the exception of three amendments, to try to perfect this bill.

I just think it is the wrong way to go in a body that prides itself being open to debate and being very deliberative. We are certainly not getting that opportunity under this noncontroversial bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from New York (Mr. Arcuri) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, which I must note, Mr. Speaker, is more time than the entire House Intelligence Committee will be permitted to debate the legislative proposal covered by this rule. The Democrat Rules Committee is allowing just 20 minutes for the members of the Select Committee on Intelligence to debate this Democrat FISA proposal.

What is at stake is the safety and security of our Nation to protect us against foreign terrorists threats by modernizing the 1970s electronic surveillance law. The issue before the House is no less than our intelligence community's ability to protect American citizens by monitoring foreign terrorists communicating in foreign places. But the respective members of the Intelligence Committee are to be given only 20 minutes to debate this issue.

It appears that Democrat leaders are not content with their record of the most closed rules in the history of the U.S. House of Representatives in shutting down every Member from being permitted to offer amendments on the House floor. So now they are going so far as to restrict the time the House is even permitted to debate bills that they are trying to ram through this body.

Mr. Speaker, since the new Democrat majority took control of the House Rules Committee last January a year ago, they have approved rules that allow other committees far more time to debate matters of far less importance than FISA. For example, H. Res. 214 provided a rule allowing the Transportation Committee 1 hour of floor debate on legislation to ``authorize appropriations for sewer overflow control grants.''

H. Res. 269 gave the Financial Services Committee 1 hour to debate housing assistance for Native Hawaiians.

H. Res. 327 gave an hour to the Science and Technology Committee to discuss scholarships for math and science teachers.

H. Res. 331 gave the Resources Committee 1 hour of time, not just 20 minutes, but 1 hour of time to debate restoring the ``prohibition on the commercial sale and slaughter of wild free roaming horses and burros.''

Mr. Speaker, I believe my colleagues on the other side of the aisle care sincerely about the security of our country and our fellow citizens. But I fail to understand how it could be justified to allow more House floor time to debate overflowing sewers and the killing of wild burros than the members of the Intelligence Committee are allowed today to discuss the urgent needs of FISA.

The answer is that Democrat leaders are working overtime to block the

House from voting on a bipartisan compromise bill that has passed the Senate by a vote of 68-29. The bill passed the Senate over a month ago, and on February 12, the Democrat leaders refused to allow the House to even vote on that measure.

Twenty-one Blue Dog Democrats sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi at the end of January declaring their support for the Senate FISA bill. But there still hasn't been a vote. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record that letter.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, January 28, 2008.

Dear Madam Speaker: Legislation reforming the Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is currently being

considered by the Senate. Following the Senate's passage of a

FISA bill, it will be necessary for the House to quickly

consider FISA legislation to get a bill to the President

before the Protect America Act expires in February.

It is our belief that such legislation should include the

following provisions:

Require individualized warrants for surveillance of U.S.

citizens living or traveling abroad;

Clarify that no court order is required to conduct

surveillance of foreign-to-foreign communications that are

routed through the United States;

Provide enhanced oversight by Congress of surveillance laws

and procedures;

Compel compliance by private sector partners;

Review by FISA Court of minimization procedures;

Targeted immunity for carriers that participated in anti-

terrorism surveillance programs.

The Rockefeller-Bond FISA legislation contains satisfactory

language addressing all these issues and we would fully

support that measure should it reach the House floor without

substantial change. We believe these components will ensure a

strong national security apparatus that can thwart terrorism

across the globe and save American lives here in our country.

It is also critical that we update the FISA laws in a

timely manner. To pass a long-term extension of the Protect

America Act, as some may suggest, would leave in place a

limited, stopgap measure that does not fully address critical

surveillance issues. We have it within our ability to replace

the expiring Protect America Act by passing strong,

bipartisan FISA modernization legislation that can be signed

into law and we should do so--the consequences of not passing

such a measure could place our national security at undue

risk.

Sincerely,

Leonard Boswell, Marion Berry, Mike Ross, Bud Cramer,

Heath Shuler, Allen Boyd, Dan Boren, Jim Matheson,

Lincoln Davis, Tim Holden, Dennis Moore, Christopher

Carney, Earl Pomeroy, Melissa Bean, Joe Baca, John

Tanner, Jim Cooper, Brad Ellsworth, Charlie Melancon,

Zack Space.

When the Rules Committee met to discuss this bill on Wednesday, several of my Democratic colleagues argued that the House shouldn't have to give in to a my-way-or-the-highway or take-it-or-leave-it approach when it comes to the bipartisan Senate bill.

I agree with my colleagues, Mr. Speaker. No Member of this House should ever vote for legislation that they can't support. Members have the right to vote their conscience. But, Mr. Speaker, simply allowing the House to vote on a bipartisan FISA bill doesn't force any Members to vote against his or her will. It just gives them an opportunity to vote on a bill that has passed the other body overwhelmingly.

It is the Democrat leaders and a liberal minority amongst that party who are telling the rest of the House that it's their way or no way. For days and weeks, they've refused the call of the 21 Blue Dog Democrats for the House to act in the name of our Nation's security. Democrat leaders are standing in the way of letting the House vote and work its will because they fear a majority of this body will actually approve the Senate bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, every Member of the House is going to have a chance to vote and to allow the bipartisan Senate language to pass this House. Let me be very clear what I intend to do when the previous question is moved, because this will not be the ordinary motion. I will amend just one clause of the rule, that is, section 2, so that the section will then read, and I quote: Upon rejection of the motion to concur specified in section 1, a motion that the House concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 3773 is hereby adopted.

What does that mean? What this means is that by voting ``no'' on the previous question, the rule will be amended in such a way that continues to allow the House to debate and vote on the proposal that's offered by the Democrats today. But if the House Democrat proposal fails, then the bipartisan Senate FISA bill is then agreed to by the House. So we will have the vote on the Democrats' partisan FISA bill presented to us today, but if the vote on the Democrat FISA bill fails, then the games stop right there and the Senate bill goes to the President for his signature. There's no more stalling, Mr. Speaker, no more posturing.

It's time for the House to stand up and vote and get on with the business of protecting America.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Republican Conference chairman, Mr. Putnam from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the distinguished Republican leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds before I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

The gentleman from Texas just said that he wanted to reconcile the differences between the House position and the Senate; yet there has never been a motion or an attempt by the House to go to conference on these two bills. If you truly want to have a compromise, why don't you go to conference? That hasn't happened.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have?

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier in this debate I put into the Record the January 28 letter from the 21 Blue Dog Democrats to Speaker Pelosi in support of the bipartisan Senate bill. And I'd like to quote from that letter, Mr. Speaker:

``Following the Senate's passage of a FISA bill, it will be necessary for the House to quickly consider FISA legislation to get a bill to the President before the Protect America Act expires in February.''

Mr. Speaker, the Protect America Act has expired, as has the entire month of February. But House Democrat leaders have not acted, as these 21 Blue Dog Democrats have asked, on our national security needs.

I will quote again from the Blue Dog Democrat letter: ``We have it within our ability to replace the expiring Protect America Act by passing strong bipartisan FISA modernization legislation that can be signed into law, and we should do so. The consequences of not passing such a measure would place our national security at undue risk.''

I regret to say, Mr. Speaker, that for 27 days, our country's national security has been put at undue risk because FISA legislation has not been passed because the Democrat leaders are blocking the House from voting, from even voting on the Senate proposal that passed the Senate by a 68-29 vote.

So let me be very clear about what I'm talking about when I'm going to ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, and why that will be an attempt, or will be a means, by which we can address the Senate bill for the first time in this body, because this, what I'm going to do, is not an ordinary motion.

By voting ``no,'' Mr. Speaker, on the previous question, I will seek to amend one specific clause of the rule, H. Res. 1041, so that the House will still be permitted to debate the FISA bill that this underlying rule makes in order; but if that bill, and if that proposal does not pass this body, then the House, under the provision that I'm seeking to amend the rule, will agree to the Senate bill; and, therefore, the bill would be sent to the President to become law.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Now let me just review where we are on this, just to put this into a time frame. The Protect America Act was first put into place last August, set to expire in February so they could work out the differences.

Now, the Senate had their proposal, as I mentioned, and as has been mentioned by our leader, passed by a big margin, 68-29.

The House has their version. There's nothing unusual with both Houses in a bicameral legislative body having two versions of the same issue. And the way you generally resolve that is to go to conference and work out the difference.

We have not had the opportunity, in this body, to go to conference with the Senate on this bill. Further, we have been denied time and time again to have an opportunity to even vote on the Senate amendments. By defeating the previous question, we will have that opportunity.

So I urge my colleagues to vote to defeat the previous question so we can amend the rule to have an opportunity to vote and address the Senate bill that passed overwhelmingly.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule IX, I rise to a question of personal privilege.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, no one in this House takes more seriously than I do the rules governing confidentiality of matters before the House Ethics Committee.

Each of us privileged to serve on the committee signs an oath pledging not to disclose information related to our work in the committee except as authorized under our committee rules.

During nearly 8 years of service on the Ethics Committee, including 2 years as the chairman, I have never found it necessary to disclose committee documents or any other privileged information. Mr. Speaker, that changed yesterday when it became clear that the Democrat leadership would, indeed, force Members to vote on a proposed independent ethics entity.

You see, I knew, and Chairwoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones knew, something that the other Members of this House did not know. Several months ago, we had been advised by the nonpartisan, professional attorneys at the Ethics Committee that they believed the proposed independent ethics entity would infringe upon Members' due process protections under the rules of the House and that it would seriously hamper the Ethics Committee's ability to carry out its important responsibilities.

When the ranking member of the bipartisan task force, Mr. Smith of Texas, sent a letter asking for our committee's official comments on Representative Capuano's proposal, I took his request to Chairwoman Tubbs Jones and asked her to prepare a formal response with me to the ranking member of that task force. I did so because I felt strongly that the proposed entity would so greatly impact the work of the Ethics Committee that it would be irresponsible, Mr. Speaker, irresponsible not to share with task force members our official views of this plan.

Last night, in a Dear Colleague letter to every Member of this House, that was printed in the Congressional Record, it was printed in Roll Call, it was printed in other publications, Representative Tubbs Jones has attempted to rewrite the history on this issue.

For reasons that I have trouble fathoming, she now claims, and I quote, Mr. Speaker, ``Both Representative Hastings and I agreed that the Ethics Committee could not and should not give advice to the committee charged by House leadership with reviewing the ethics process itself.''

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. I could not possibly have stated more clearly to Mrs. Tubbs Jones my desire to respond fully and jointly to Ranking Member Smith's request for guidance on how the task force proposal would affect our committee.

Now I recognize the difficulty that she must have explaining to her colleagues why she did not believe that they should be made aware of the concerns expressed by our nonpartisan attorneys on the committee. But, Mr. Speaker, those attorneys don't work for her and they don't work for me. They work for every Member of this House. So, I don't understand, I didn't understand then and I don't understand now, why my distinguished colleague, the gentlelady from Ohio, sought to keep that information from every Member of the House, but she did. And I do not stand by and permit her to call into question my integrity on setting that record straight, as I did so with a letter I sent out to every Member, along with the e-mail of the attorneys on their advice on that issue.

Now, Mr. Speaker, Members should be advised that this is not the first time that I have had to set the record straight following ill- considered public comments by Representative Tubbs Jones. Last June, she issued a press release declaring that the Ethics Committee would empanel an investigative subcommittee into the matter of Representative William Jefferson. Under the committee's rules, Representative Tubbs Jones had no authority to issue such a statement and lacked the authority to establish such a subcommittee. She not only knew that such an action would require a bipartisan vote of the committee, but she also knew that the committee had never voted on the matter. And she knew, Mr. Speaker, that I had pressed her for months to reestablish the Jefferson subcommittee which had lapsed at the end of the last Congress before it completed its work. And I said so, Mr. Speaker, when she issued that because she did not consult with me and ask me to give permission for her to release that statement. She simply did not do so. So, once again, I cannot fathom her reason for making such an inaccurate and irresponsible statement as I mentioned earlier.

Mr. Speaker, I make no apology to this House for insisting that Members benefit from the advice and counsel of the skilled attorneys at the Ethics Committee before voting on a proposed independent entity. After all, Mr. Speaker, this affects them. I'm a Member, also, of the Rules Committee. And at the Rules Committee 2 weeks ago, when we had testimony on this issue, I expressed my concern then as to what would come of this outside entity.

So, Mr. Speaker, I resent the claim by Representative Tubbs Jones that I have violated the rules of the House and the Ethics Committee in this manner. As she no doubt intended, Representative Tubbs Jones' false allegations have now made their way into the news, bringing further discredit to the House. But most disturbing, Mr. Speaker, is her public threat to use her position as chairman of the House Ethics Committee to bring sanctions against me. Such a threat can only be motivated by a desire to intimidate and embarrass, while distracting attention from her decision to keep every Member of this House from receiving information that I think every Member deserved to have before we voted on that proposal last night.

Mr. Speaker, I think her action in calling into question and impugning my reputation, and what she did last night, is wrong, and I think she failed in her effort of trying to do that.

So I rise today, point of personal privilege, to point out the history of this, and my position, and the reason why I felt that every Member of this House had to have this important information, notwithstanding the fact that we had a very short time frame to even debate the matter at hand.

So, Mr. Speaker, with that, I appreciate your indulgence. And I would like to yield time to my friend from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), one of my classmates.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I want to yield now to the minority Republican whip, Mr. Blunt of Missouri.

I have other Members that wish to speak, and I will call on them at this point.

I will not yield at this point.

Mr. Speaker, it is my time, and I will decide.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to Mr. LaHood from Illinois, another one of my classmates.

I thank the gentleman very much for his sentiments.

I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), the former attorney general.

I would like to yield to my friend from the neighboring State of Idaho, Mr. Simpson.

I thank the gentleman very much for his very kind remarks.

I am happy to yield to the distinguished chairwoman of the Ethics Committee, if she would acknowledge that I did consult with her on this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that that was the response, because let me go back and again review this, at least chronologically on the issue that we debated last night and my involvement with that and my involvement with the professional attorneys that wrote their opinion on the impact this would have on the ethics process.

I was sent a letter by the ranking member, Mr. Smith of Texas, the first part of November. It was addressed to me. It was also addressed to the committee. We had our regularly scheduled meetings at that time, and I asked the chairwoman that I think that we should respond to this in a way, and in further fact, would you be interested, and she said no. I said okay, I respect that. But the attorneys went about their business, as was asked, and rendered their thoughts on what this would do to the whole committee process.

Now, this was in November, Mr. Speaker. That plan of this outside group was not made public until the end of December. There was time, I am not sure of the exact time frame, when those attorneys went down and consulted with the task force. There is a bipartisan group there, at least from a staff standpoint, I am not sure, because I wasn't a member of that task force, but I was advised that they went down and shared their concerns. So there was some involvement from our staff attorneys with the task force on the issue and the policy, and I want to emphasize this, Mr. Speaker, on the policy that would confront the House later on.

Now, two weeks ago when I was in the Rules Committee, I am a member of the Rules Committee, we had what I thought was a very, very good discussion when Mr. Capuano and Mr. Smith came up and testified on the merits or demerits of this outside bill. There was a lot of angst on the other side, I have to say. The distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee expressed her displeasure at that time, and my other colleagues on the Rules Committee did too. But we had a very, very open discussion. And I expressed at that time, Mr. Speaker, what I thought would be at least a partial remedy for the ethics process.

I felt that there needs to be more transparency some way while still keeping and not violating confidentiality. I thought that Mr. Smith's position was a very, very good position the way it was set up, and I felt that should have at least been debated on the floor. That's probably another issue.

But as this process moved forward, and the fact that, I believe it was 2 weeks ago the issue was pulled from the floor, the distinguished majority leader said new information has come to us. That information came in Mr. Smith's proposal. He said it deserves looking into.

At that time, if my memory serves me correctly, Mr. Wamp and Mr. Hill, Republican and Democrat, both stood up and announced that they too had a bipartisan suggestion that should be looked at. So I thought, well, okay, maybe this will go in a way that I think is very beneficial.

I have long felt, and I said at that Rules Committee meeting before, that when you do ethics you need to do it in a bipartisan way. It has been alluded to. My friend, Mr. Hulshof, made this observation earlier on.

I am absolutely convinced in this body you cannot, you cannot make ethics legislation unilaterally. It comes back to bite you because of the nature, I guess, of the issue. We painfully learned that, as Mr. Hulshof pointed out in his remarks. I have stated this a number of times upstairs in the Rules Committee when this issue has come up.

I thought this task force, frankly, moving forward, would be a way to settle that. But as we know, we had a great deal of problems on our side of the aisle with an outside group. It apparently couldn't come to an agreement on that. As a result it went forward unilaterally.

At that time, I felt that the information, the information that our professional attorneys downstairs had come up with the proposal, was worthy to be shared by everybody in this House so that we could make a determination as to what is the best course for the institution. Sometimes I truly believe that we think too much in 2-year cycles, which coincides with our term. I think we ought to think longer term. I really think that the rules change that we made last night was the wrong rules change, but that will be judged, I suppose in the future.

I came to the conclusion, knowing that this memo was there, and so I went, had a meeting with the distinguished chairwoman and, again, consulted with her. She, of course, disagreed with my position, and I said that I was going to do so, and I did. Now, before I released that, I might say, I asked my staff to contact the chairwoman's staff to let her know that I was going to go forward with this, which, of course, I did.

I was very surprised when I came to the floor and saw this letter that was sent out. Thus I felt that I needed to rise today on a point of personal privilege to explain my position.

I suppose, like all positions that we have, and positions that we take in this body, there is always more than what is on the surface. I felt that needed to be explained as fully as I possibly could. But I have to say if I am guilty of anything, that my motivation was to allow the Members of this body to get as much information as possible. I have had Members from the other side of the aisle last night and this morning

who came up to me and said I wonder why this information didn't want to be shared. Well, I don't know that. I don't have the answer to that.

But I felt absolutely within my rights, without violating the rules of the committee or the House, to share that with all of my colleagues. I did so, and I did so in a way that I think is in the best tradition of this House for as much openness as we can possibly have.

Mr. Speaker, I have no more requests for time. I thank the House for its indulgence, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank my friend from California for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, while I am constrained by confidentiality rules in speaking about the current work and past actions of the Ethics Committee, I want to clearly state today that I believe the current rules and structure of the ethics process should and need to be improved.

The procedures of the Ethics Committee are not perfect, and I firmly believe this House should make modifications to those procedures to better protect the integrity of the House and the faith of the American people. However, Mr. Speaker, this House must act carefully and deliberately in making any improvements, and it must be done in a bipartisan way. Mr. Speaker, that is not happening.

No consideration of a bipartisan reform proposal is permitted on the floor tonight. The House floor is shut down to any debate. No alternative is allowed to be considered. No amendment may be offered. No respect, Mr. Speaker, is offered to the concerns expressed by both Democrat and Republican Members of this House.

Mr. Speaker, in 2005, at the beginning of the 109th Congress, Democrat leaders decried House rule changes that were written only by Republican leaders. Democrats demanded bipartisanship and a fair say in the rules that governs the ethics of House Members. Democrats weren't given any say then, and those one-way changes to the rules were ultimately reversed during the 109th Congress. It is now 3 years later, and the same Democrat leaders have abandoned their calls for bipartisanship and are refusing to work across the aisle to make bipartisan improvements to the ethics process.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans were wrong to do it in 2005 and Democrats are wrong doing it today. In fact, since the new Democrat majority took office a little over a year ago, this House has already had to go back twice and correct poorly written rules that Democrats passed without any input from Republicans. In both instances, Mr. Speaker, Democrat- written rules that the House had to go back and fix were ethics rules.

The House should learn from the mistakes of the past several years and not doom ourselves to repeat history by failing to insist that ethics changes be done in a bipartisan way. For the ethics process to work, bipartisanship is vital. Without bipartisanship, the process will fail.

Bipartisanship is not always easy, but it is absolutely necessary for the legitimacy of the entire ethics process. Without bipartisanship, the process degenerates into politically motivated actions, or witch hunts.

This proposal is not a good proposal, and no one, Mr. Speaker, is more disappointed than I. Because Members of the Ethics Committee are asked to do an unwelcomed job. We do it by the rules of the House. And by the rules of the House, we must remain silent, even when subjected to relentless and often inaccurate criticism and attacks on our actions.

So, Mr. Speaker, improve the ethics process. Improve the ethics ability to police its Members. Improve our ability to provide timely information to the American people. Improve the bipartisanship that is central to the ability of the ethics process to function. But, Mr. Speaker, for the sake of this institution and for ensuring an ethics process that will function properly, do not act in a partisan way by supporting a proposal written solely by one party. Oppose this proposal and demand bipartisan improvements to the entire ethics process.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I could hardly believe my ears when I heard my friend from Florida say that this is a dilatory tactic, and the idea was to, what was it, to deny a vote on this bill? For goodness sakes. Last night there were several attempts, several attempts to try to improve this bill in a way that would make it more palatable to more people in this House, and they were turned down every time by the majority, Democrat majority, in the Rules Committee. And so for my friend from Florida to stand up and say that that is an attempt to kill this bill, when last night she participated in an exercise to do exactly that, is just beyond me.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, history is being made today in the U.S. House of Representatives. Yesterday, Democrat leaders and the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee chose for a record-setting, a record-setting 50th time to consider legislation under a completely closed process that allows no amendments, no alternatives, no substitute proposals, and permits not a single Member of this House the opportunity to change or improve the underlying bill.

Last January, the new Democrat majority promised the American people a new era of openness in the U.S. House, but they have delivered the most restrictive and unfair process in the history of the House. It is only March in the first part of the second session of this Congress, but the Democrats have already exceeded the 49 closed rules of the entire 109th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, that is a historic low. We were promised change, and we have gotten it. Only it has been change, Mr. Speaker, for the worse.

Mr. Speaker, time after time, Democrat leaders have shut down any and all opportunity for Members of the House to amend, alter or debate legislation. This is a sad and disrespectful way to approach the business of the American people and the people's House. It doesn't have to be this way, and it certainly isn't what the Democrat leaders promised a little more than a year ago. That promise has been tossed out the window, along with any pretense to seek out bipartisan compromise in passing legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the Senate has passed a bipartisan bill on mental health parity, and, Mr. Speaker, it passed unanimously. Yet House Democrat leaders refuse to even allow the bipartisan Senate compromise to be voted on in the House. An amendment to allow a House vote on the Senate compromise was blocked by the Democrat Rules Committee, just as it blocked every other amendment offered by Members of this House, and that only happened last night.

Yet the reach of this bill goes far beyond mental health parity. The $1.3 billion cost it would impose on businesses providing health care to employees is an issue that, frankly, is not addressed, or any loss of care that may result from new government mandates that are contained in the bill is also not addressed.

The reach of this bill stretches deep into the ability of doctors to provide care to patients across this country through a $3 billion cut in health care to Americans served by doctor-owned hospitals. This is the second time in 7 months that the House will vote on legislation that seeks to ban doctor-owned hospitals by cutting funding from Medicare and Medicaid to these facilities, and, as such, Mr. Speaker, it imposes a very real and serious threat to some Americans' ability to access health care.

One of the hospitals threatened by this proposal is Wenatchee Valley Medical Center in my district in central Washington. The Wenatchee Valley Medical Center, Mr. Speaker, was founded in 1940 by three physicians. In the last 68 years it has grown, and now employs 1,500 people. It serves a population of 250,000 people in an area the size of the State of Maryland and it treats 150,000 patients a year. It has been designated by the State of Washington as a ``critical need hospital'' that is serving a rural underserved area.

Today, Mr. Speaker, it is 100 percent owned by 150 doctors. Apparently, that is a crime, because this bill would outlaw this facility as it has existed for 68 years, because this bill would prohibit any hospital from being more than 40 percent owned by doctors if they are to continue receiving Medicare patients for the care that they provide to their seniors.

Mr. Speaker, the Wenatchee Valley Medical Center has been treating and caring for patients longer than there has been even 50 States in our Union, and yet this bill could end that care.

When I discussed this threat to Wenatchee with the proposal sponsors last night in the Rules Committee, they said the simple answer was to sell the 60 percent stake in a government-ordered fire sale so it meets the 40 percent limit on doctor ownership. Not only is a fair price, Mr. Speaker, unlikely to be paid when selling under a threat of government action, but it is unfair and disruptive to any institution with a long record of excellent care.

Mr. Speaker, what is so nefarious about 100 percent doctor ownership, or 75 percent, or 50 percent, or even, Mr. Speaker, 41 percent? What is magically solved with the ownership of 40 percent? The answer is nothing, nothing when it comes to Wenatchee.

The irony is not lost on me that this bill only bans doctor-owned hospitals in an effort to supposedly target bad behavior. Consider this, Mr. Speaker: If a corporation engages in the exact, in the exact same practices that this bill tries to stop doctor-owned hospitals from doing, the corporation would pay no penalty. It wouldn't even be touched. So apparently patients are safer if corporations are in charge, but patients are in danger and taxpayers are being ripped off if doctors prosper from owning a hospital and are providing excellent care.

What is really happening in this bill is a push to move our country ever closer to a Canadian-style government-run health care system, as under this bill such a Canadian-style system will replace good, high quality care from down-home doctors with the extensive medical expertise of Congress. The Federal Government will decide where Americans will get care and what hospitals will be banned or shutdown. The Federal Government will also decide when Americans are allowed to get care, if they are allowed to get care at all.

If the Federal Government can ban doctors from owning a hospital, then the health care access of every American, Mr. Speaker, in my view, is at risk. I fundamentally disagree with those who believe that an all-knowing Congress and thousands of Federal bureaucrats can deliver Americans the best health care possible.

Keep in mind, this ban on doctor-owned hospitals, quote-unquote, saves $3 billion. Ironically, Mr. Speaker, this is accomplished by denying or reducing access to care for seniors and poor Americans on Medicaid and Medicare. Instead of growing the size and power of the Federal Government by taking decisions away from local doctors and removing freedoms from individual Americans, we should be allowing American patients to make more choices and free doctors to focus on their profession of healing.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to Wenatchee Valley Medical Center, the accusations of negligent care and fiscal rip-offs that are leveled at doctor-owned hospitals simply don't apply to this facility. Wenatchee is not guilty of the sins of others simply because it is a doctor-owned hospital since 1940. It should not be targeted or threatened for the real or anecdotal failures of recently created doctor-owned hospitals.

The language in this bill is simply not ready for passage as it is currently written. It is too broad and imprecise. It would punish honest, well-performing hospitals and doctors and their patients for the actions of others. If there is bad behavior, Mr. Speaker, to be banned, then target that behavior. Don't impose an overreaching ban that harms innocent patients and doctors.

My constituents are not alone in facing this threat. Both Mr. Hinojosa of Texas and Mr. Kagen of Wisconsin have similar concerns about health care institutions in their districts.

Efforts to improve this legislation so that it doesn't threaten and harm our home-grown hospitals have not been met with openness. In fact, we have been denied on a bipartisan basis. Last night in the Rules Committee I made three separate attempts to try to offer an amendment to protect innocent hospitals. However, Democrats on the Rules Committee chose to deny each and every attempt to preserve the stricture of my hospital and the hospitals of Mr. Hinojosa and Mr. Kagen.

Mr. Speaker, there are legitimate bipartisan concerns about the toll this language would have on local hospitals that have done no harm and who provide important health care access to thousands of Americans.

This bill needs to be corrected, not forced through the House with zero opportunity for improvement or amendment. This record-setting closed rule denies any chance for help to be provided to Wenatchee Valley Medical Center or to patients in hospitals in Texas and Wisconsin. The rule deserves to be defeated and this House allowed to vote on correcting this flawed bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

If the issue is to go after doctor-owned hospitals that are not doing the ethical thing, then why not go after them instead of writing a bill that covers everything carte blanche including this facility in my district? The gentleman has not answered that. He didn't answer it last night, and he probably won't answer it today.

I yield to my friend from Texas, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions, 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a former member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, there are several parts to this bill. And obviously by the remarks that I made previously, I am worried about what we call the pay-for part of that because it would have a detrimental effect, as I mentioned, on doctor-owned facilities, particularly in my district, but also in other parts of the country.

Since this issue came up some 7 months ago, we discovered that there are very few doctor-owned facilities that are unique in the sense of what I was talking about today, and I think my colleagues from Wisconsin and Texas talked about last night in the Rules Committee, and so I want to ask my friend from New Jersey who is the sponsor of this legislation, and I will be happy to yield to him.

He talked about the issue of overutilization. Now, I simply have to bring this up because I doubt that the 150,000 patients of the Wenatchee Valley Clinic would say that they are overutilizing that clinic. I think they go there because they want to have their health needs taken care of. So I don't think that is applicable to that facility, and I mentioned that in my previous remarks.

I want to ask my friend from New Jersey a question.

As I mentioned, apparently there are just a few hospitals that fall in the category that I was describing.

But there are bipartisan concerns about the effects of this bill on good hospitals providing quality care. I made that point.

Will you work with me and other Members from both sides of the aisle to protect these hospitals and to exempt them totally from this ban on doctor ownership?

I yield to my friend from New Jersey.

Reclaiming my time, I asked if the gentleman would work with me, and apparently the gentleman is saying that he won't work with me, even though this apparently is a very, very small universe, a universe of hospitals that deserve, I think, to have some sort of special consideration because if you have, for example, a government-mandated fire sale, what is the value of the enterprise that you're trying to sell? Yet that is precisely the language that you have in place.

So I'm asking you again. Since there are very few of these facilities, in three different States, would you work with us to exempt them totally from the ban that's imposed by this bill?

The gentleman answered me yes. Now go ahead with your no. Please explain your no.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's explanation.

To me, Mr. Speaker, this sounds precisely as a look into the future, as we move towards what I would consider, I know that some would want, a government-style health care in this country, where conditions are going to be set forth on what kind of care, when that care is, what's the condition of ownership. All of these things apparently are on the horizon, and we are seeing an inkling into the future of how that would be effected.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, there's been a lot of discussion here today on the underlying bill, the subject of which has broad support. The issues are the PAYGO and the issues are the denial, denial of the Democrat leadership in this House to allow a vote on a bill that passed in the other body unanimously. So much for openness that was promised a little over a year ago.

Mr. Speaker, I want to focus my closing remarks on another issue, another issue that has not been taken up and needs to be addressed, and that's the FISA issue that we have talked about so many times.

It has come to my attention today, and it will be in a publication presumably tomorrow, that the distinguished majority leader said that the electronic surveillance bill, or the FISA bill, will not be taken up this week.

We are becoming unprotected in this country because we don't have all the capabilities that we need in our intelligence community.

With that, Mr. Speaker, in this rule, Democrat leaders have blocked the House from voting on a bipartisan compromise on mental health parity, as I had mentioned.

I want to talk now about modernizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act into the 21st century. The Senate has passed legislation that will

bring this 1970s Jimmy Carter-era law up to date to reflect today's age of disposable cell phones and the Internet. Yet for weeks now, House Democrat leaders have refused to allow Representatives to vote on this Senate bill. They've done this despite the public support given the bipartisan Senate compromise by 21 members of the Democrat Blue Dog Coalition.

House Democrat leaders are tying the hands of our intelligence professionals to make them jump through unnecessary red tape and paperwork to protect our country. If foreign persons in foreign places are conspiring and plotting to harm Americans and our country, then our intelligence personnel should be listening to them. They shouldn't have to waste precious time and energy on bureaucratic hurdles.

We can protect and are protecting the constitutional rights of Americans, but we also must protect their lives by recognizing the terrorist threat to our country and modernizing FISA.

I ask all my colleagues to join with me in defeating the previous question so that we can immediately move to vote on the bipartisan Senate FISA bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 50th closed rule, record-setting 50th closed rule that denies every Member from offering an amendment on the House floor, and to vote ``no'' on the previous question and in favor of a bipartisan permanent solution that closes the terrorist loophole.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the intent of the original 1978 FISA law was to enhance Americans' security while at the same time protecting Americans' privacy. Recognizing that no responsibility of the Federal Government is more important than providing for the defense and security of the American people, Congress should be doing all it can to ensure that FISA continues to reflect the intent of the original law.

In the nearly 30 years since FISA became law, we have seen tremendous advances in communications technology, such as the Internet, cell phones, and e-mail. However, under the original FISA law, our intelligence officials are not free to monitor foreign terrorists, Mr. Speaker, in foreign countries, without a court order, because of advances, as I mentioned, in communications technology.

Mr. Speaker, let me repeat again: Because of advances in technology, our intelligence officials are not free to monitor foreign terrorists in foreign countries. It is clear that the law is outdated and must be modernized to reflect changes in communications technology over the past three decades.

In August, Congress, in a bipartisan manner, took an important step to close our Nation's intelligence gap. The Protect America Act passed only after repeated attempts by Republicans to give our Nation's intelligence professionals the tools and authority they need to protect our homeland. This action was long overdue, and this law marked a significant step forward in improving our national security. But, unfortunately, Democrats forced these needed technology tools to expire in 6 months.

In November, the House Democrat leaders brought legislation to the floor that does not go far enough to reform outdated FISA laws. It weakens Americans' privacy protection and fails to permanently close our Nation's intelligence gap. A bipartisan, permanent solution is needed that shows all Americans and our enemies that the United States is truly committed to closing our Nation's intelligence gap.

Yesterday, the Senate acted in a bipartisan manner by a vote of 68-29 to permanently close the terrorist loophole and ensure that intelligence officials are able to monitor communications of suspected terrorists overseas such as Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders. This commonsense solution would help keep our country safe from attack and should be acted on immediately and sent to the President to be signed into law.

Mr. Speaker, House Democrat leaders need to stop dragging their feet. They need to end their delaying tactics, indeed, to let the House vote on the Senate-approved measure. Today, I am going to give Members of the House an opportunity to support the bipartisan measure that the Senate passed just yesterday. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to allow the House an opportunity to concur with the Senate amendments. By approving the Senate amendments, the bill can become law before the current extension expires in just a few days.

We don't need to close the terrorist loophole just temporarily, Mr. Speaker. We need to close it permanently and update our Nation's surveillance laws in order to protect our Nation from another terrorist attack.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question so that we can permanently close the loophole.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), also a member of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the former attorney general of the State of California, Mr. Lungren.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a Member who for 6 years was the chairman of the Subcommittee on Constitutions of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), a member of the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to another member of the Intelligence Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my friend from New York if he has any more speakers.

And so the gentleman is prepared to close after I close?

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

Mr. Speaker, the tragic events of September 11, 2001 taught us many lessons. One of the lessons we learned that day was that our Nation must remain aggressive in our fight against international terrorism. We must always stay one step ahead of those who wish to harm our fellow Americans. Now is not the time to tie the hands of our intelligence community. The modernization of foreign intelligence surveillance into the 21st century is a critical national security priority.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree with that assessment. On January 28, 2008, less than 3 weeks ago, 21 members of the Blue Dog Coalition sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi in support of the Rockefeller-Bond FISA legislation. The letter states, and I quote, ``The Rockefeller-Bond FISA legislation contains satisfactory language addressing all these issues and we would fully support that measure should it reach the House floor without substantial change. We believe these components will ensure a strong national security apparatus that can thwart terrorism across the globe and save American lives here in our country.''

Mr. Speaker, that was a letter sent to Speaker Pelosi less than 2 weeks ago by the members of the Democrat Blue Dog Coalition.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, January 28, 2008.

Dear Madam Speaker: Legislation reforming the Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is currently being

considered by the Senate. Following the Senate's passage of a

FISA bill, it will be necessary for the House to quickly

consider FISA legislation to get a bill to the President

before the Protect America Act expires in February.

It is our belief that such legislation should include the

following provisions: Require individualized warrants for

surveillance of U.S. citizens living or traveling abroad;

Clarify that no court order is required to conduct

surveillance of foreign-to-foreign communications that are

routed through the United States; Provide enhanced oversight

by Congress of surveillance laws and procedures; Compel

compliance by private sector partners; Review by FISA Court

of minimization procedures; Targeted immunity for carriers

that participated in anti-terrorism surveillance programs.

The Rockefeller-Bond FISA legislation contains satisfactory

language addressing all these issues and we would fully

support that measure should it reach the House floor without

substantial change. We believe these components will ensure a

strong national security apparatus that can thwart terrorism

across the globe and save American lives here in our country.

It is also critical that we update the FISA laws in a

timely manner. To pass a long-term extension of the Protect

America Act, as some may suggest, would leave in place a

limited, stopgap measure that does not fully address critical

surveillance issues. We have it within our ability to replace

the expiring Protect America Act by passing strong,

bipartisan FISA modernization legislation that can be signed

into law and we should do so--the consequences of not passing

such a measure could place our national security at undue

risk.

Sincerely,

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and give us an opportunity to vote on a bipartisan, permanent solution that closes this terrorist loophole in the FISA Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote.

Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Arcuri

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote on the resolution.

Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Arcuri

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.