David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. I will yield to my friend some additional time. I just entered into the Record, and I didn't mention this in my opening remarks, an article that was in the Sunday Times of London last, this past Sunday, ``Is al Qaeda Planning a Big British Attack?,'' and this is a report on intelligence that has just come forward of a massive, large scale terrorist attack on Britain and other Western targets with the help of supporters in Iran. According to a leaked intelligence report that came forward, they talk about this attack being on a par with Hiroshima and Nagasaki in an attempt to shake the Roman Empire. And I have entered this article in the Record that was in the Sunday Times, and I think it is very important that this be related to the remarks the gentleman has made. And I thank him for yielding. And I would yield whatever the balance of my time is on this side to him.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, let me begin by expressing my appreciation to both of my California colleagues, Ms. Watson and Speaker Pelosi, for their very thoughtful words, and, obviously I would, as all of my colleagues I know want to do, would associate ourselves with the very, very thoughtful remarks offered by Speaker Pelosi. Madam Speaker, this is a very sad time for me personally, for a number of reasons. Juanita Millender-McDonald was my friend and my neighbor. And she was my neighbor not only in California representing an adjoining congressional district, but my neighbor right here on Capitol Hill. We were next-door neighbors. So, Madam Speaker, I have to say that I had the privilege of spending a great deal of time with Juanita. As Speaker Pelosi said in her statement that she released yesterday, Juanita Millender-McDonald truly was a trailblazer. She was an individual who showed amazing commitment throughout her entire life to her beliefs, and I was very happy that she as a Democrat and I as a Republican were able to work together and find areas of agreement. I have to say one of the biggest challenges that we face in Southern California, I know my California colleague Ms. Watson understands this very well, is the area of transportation. The gridlock challenge, as is the case with many metropolitan areas around the country, is particularly bad in the Los Angeles area. Juanita Millender-McDonald served on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and worked tirelessly to try and focus on those challenges, the difficulties that we faced. There was one particular project that I was pleased to work with Juanita on, and that was something known as the Alameda Corridor Project. A huge percentage of all of the goods going to and from the United States, exports and imports, come through the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. Juanita represented large parts of Long Beach, and she understood the importance of international trade. So she was one of those in the vanguard in the quest to deal with construction of the Alameda corridor which allowed those goods to move from the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles to the rest of the United States and, similarly, goods exported from America. I am very happy to see the distinguished Chair of the Transportation Committee, Mr. Oberstar, nodding in agreement. He knows how important this issue is, and he worked very closely with Juanita Millender-McDonald and all of us who have been involved on that issue. I know she championed it with great enthusiasm. I also would like to say she was a very proud alumna of the University of Redlands. She went to the University of Redlands at age 40 and got her degree from the University of Redlands. One of the reasons I am proud to point to that is the distinguished former chairman, now ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Lewis, has specifically asked me to raise this issue. As I said, we were neighbors. As Speaker Pelosi correctly pointed out, while a number of us knew that Juanita had not been well, very few knew of the seriousness of her illness. I remember standing with my two California colleagues, Ms. Watson and Mrs. Napolitano, just last week, and we talked about making a video that we were going to provide for Juanita because we knew she had not been well. So her passing has come as a great shock to every single one of us. She is the first woman to ever chair the Committee on House Administration. She was a trailblazer on so many issues. Her passing is a loss to my State of California and to this institution and to the entire country. Madam Speaker, at this point I am going to ask unanimous consent that my California colleague, Mr. Calvert, be able to manage the time from this point forward, and with that I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I will say that obviously it appears, and the gentlewoman has already stated what she believes the outcome will be in this House; it be will be in the hands of those two Senators of whom she just referred, and we will see what happens, whether it is within the first branch of government or within the third branch of government. Obviously, the second branch of government will have a role in determining this. The argument that I believe needs to be made, and Mr. Sessions just touched on this and has been arguing it throughout his management of this, the passion that is shown for the rights of the District of Columbia are very, very important, and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Mr. Speaker, recognizes those and represents them extraordinarily well. But an equal passion for the Constitution of the United States and, Mr. Speaker, an equal passion for the job that Mr. Sessions and I and Mr. Arcuri and the other members of the Rules Committee have for democracy in this institution is something that is very, very important. I would say, Mr. Speaker, to my friend from the District of Columbia, who argues so strongly on behalf of the need for representation here in the House of Representatives for the District of Columbia, that if we look at this rule, which is subverting 200 years of precedent in this institution, by saying that if a motion to recommit on either of these bills in fact prevails, the motion is laid on the table, never before in the history of this institution, Mr. Speaker, has this been done. So I have to say that we have an equal passion for our commitment to the precedents and the responsibility of the greatest deliberative body known to man; and for that reason, Mr. Speaker, we are troubled with the procedure around which we are about to move ahead with this very important debate.

Mr. DREIER. I will yield in just a moment when I am done with my statement. I know the gentleman has plenty of time. I look forward to yielding to the gentleman, but I would like to explain why it is that we're here and how outrageous this rule is. What happened last November, when we lost the majority, we got ourselves in a position where we figured, gosh, we will have only one bite at the apple, only one opportunity to allow the majority of the House to come together and address these issues. And what happened, Mr. Speaker? What happened is very clear. On seven occasions so far in the 110th Congress, the House has worked its will. A bipartisan majority of Republicans and Democrats came together and succeeded in passing motions to recommit, including on a District of Columbia bill that we are addressing here. So what is it that happened? Because of the fact that the Democratic majority leadership, not a majority of the House, but the majority leadership decided they did not want us to do this, they have resorted to a procedure which unfortunately creates a scenario whereby if the House succeeds in passing a motion to recommit, the opportunity to have a bill laid on the table, which basically kills the bill completely, is put before us. And I think, Mr. Speaker, that that is a very, very unfortunate precedent that the new majority is looking at, and they are doing it simply to subvert the will of this House. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. DREIER. Yes. But the point is if, for the first time ever, this rule actually takes a motion to recommit, Mr. Speaker, and it basically submits it to be laid on the table potentially, the bill to be laid on the table, therefore preventing the House from having the opportunity to work its will, never before in the history of this institution, Mr. Speaker, has this kind of sleight of hand been used. We know, Mr. Speaker, why it is that we are here considering this measure again. It is very simply due to the fact that a bipartisan majority, Republicans leading with Democrats voting along in support of the motion to recommit on this bill, led to what is clearly sleight of hand, undermining the long-standing tradition. We, as the minority, on 47 different occasions in the years leading up to our winning the majority in 1994, were denied the opportunity have a motion to recommit. We were denied that time and time again, Mr. Speaker. Not every time, but we were often denied it. So that is the reason that we made a decision when we won the majority in 1994 that we were going to guarantee that the minority had a right to offer a motion to recommit, at least one bite at the apple, and in most cases a substitute; so at least two bites at the apple in most cases. But we very, very firmly made that commitment to the motion to recommit. Now, what is it that's happened? We lost the majority in last November's election.

Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, since I'm managing the time here, Mr. Speaker, I could reclaim it by saying I have already spoken about the fact that I recognize Mr. Arcuri's belief that this is a constitutional bill, and I share his commitment to fairness of the bill itself. I am not here talking about the bill. I am here talking about the procedure, which is blatantly unfair, that is undermining the opportunity for this House to work its will on this issue. When I yielded to the gentleman, it was to talk about our procedure here. I think that it is very, very unfortunate that for the first time in the over 200-year history of this institution, we are going to be taking this very precious right of a motion to recommit and killing legislation. With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, let me just say the thing that is most troubling is the decision to pull this bill was not a decision made by the minority. It was made by the majority leadership when that happened before this break. The reason that decision was made was that there was a sense that a majority in this House, a majority in this House might have been supportive of that motion to recommit that we were about to vote on. Never before, never before had we seen, as general debate, as the debate had been completed, all of a sudden the bill was pulled from the floor.

Mr. DREIER. I am happy to yield to my friend, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.

Mr. DREIER. Would the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, let me just say at the outset that I am happy to yield to my friend from the District of Columbia at any time whatsoever, and I want to once again praise her representation and the passion that she shows in her commitment to this issue. As I said, I spent a great deal of time residing here in the District of Columbia, and I feel she very ably represents the District of Columbia and I am proud to have her as a colleague, Mr. Speaker. Now, let me say this. I feel that the passion that she has shown in arguing in behalf of the legislation itself is something that I recognize and revere. I said to Mr. Arcuri, Mr. Speaker, that I believe there can be recognition that there are diverse views on this question. I have come down on the side of recognizing that those words in the Constitution, ``the several States,'' mean that if we are going to do this, we should do it through a different route than the one that we are pursuing.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I rise in the strongest possible opposition to the rule, recognizing full well that there are a wide range of views on the constitutionality of this question. I have listened to Mr. Arcuri, the gentleman from New York, make his argument that he believes very much in the right to representation, which I obviously completely concur with. And the people of the District of Columbia, I think, are very ably represented here right now by our distinguished friend, my Delegate who represents me very well, since I seem to spend more time here than I do in California, Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton. But the fact is, Mr. Speaker, as we look at this question, Thomas Jefferson was the one who said ``Two thinking men can be given the exact same set of facts and draw different conclusions.'' And so I recognize that there are some who come down on the side of believing that it is constitutional for us to proceed with this. I read the Constitution in a little different way. When I see those two words, the ``several States'' as being the criterion for representation here, or at least one of the criteria for representation here in the House of Representatives, it says to me that there need to be changes to the U.S. Constitution if in fact we are going to proceed with the action that the majority in this House, the majority leadership in this House, wants to take on. So I recognize that there are disparate views on this, Mr. Speaker. The thing that troubles me most is the procedure around which we are considering this measure. And what I would like to do, I would like to engage my good friend from New York, Mr. Arcuri, the manager of the rule, in a colloquy, if I might, just to consider this procedure around which we are going to be debating this question. Actually, from what I can tell, in our analysis of this rule, we are blazing completely new ground here when it comes procedurally to this institution. I have heard a lot of criticism over the years of the tenure that I had as chairman of the Rules Committee, and one of the points that I would like to make is it wasn't really about what we did, but it was about promises that were made about fairness, promises that were made about the way every Member of this House, Democrat and Republican, was going to have an opportunity to participate. So the question that I have is, I know that under regular order, if the House agrees to a straight motion to recommit the bill to the committee, or such a motion with instructions that the committee promptly report it back with an amendment, the bill then, when that motion to recommit prevails, does in fact go back to the committee and it must naturally assume that the committee will follow the House's instructions. And I wonder if the gentleman could tell me if that is in fact going to be the case under our consideration of this rule that we are going to be voting on, the one that we are debating right now.

Mr. DREIER. The rule contains two motions to recommit, one for each bill. My question is whether or not the success of a motion to recommit would in fact send this measure back to committee, or would it in fact do something that has never, ever been done before, based on my reading of the rule: Would it in fact kill the bill itself?

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Dallas and thank him for his superb management of this rule on our side. As I listen to the arguments propounded by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, including the distinguished Chair of the committee, the conclusion that I have drawn here is, we have here a solution that is really looking for a problem. I continue to hear great praise for the action that our former colleague Chris Cox, the now chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, has taken in doing something that we regularly called for in this institution when it comes to our work here: transparency, disclosure, and accountability. Under this regulation that has been promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, it calls for full disclosure of the compensation packages for the top five executives. What it means is, we are empowering shareholders and any other interested party with more information, with a better understanding of what it is that we are trying to deal with here. So why now, after the Securities and Exchange Commission has done what the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Frank, has just said is actually going beyond what it is that we are doing, why do we need to take action here in this institution on this issue? Now, while I know that my friend from Massachusetts and my friend from Alabama, the distinguished chairman of the committee and the ranking member, had this exchange on nonbinding resolutions and the impact that this might have, I think most have concluded that there is a very deleterious potential impact that this legislation could have; and that is, it quite possibly will dramatically enhance the number of potentially frivolous lawsuits being brought forward by shareholders. Now, I find that very troubling in light of the fact that we have in a bipartisan way in the past been able to pass legislation which has been trying to focus on the tremendous cost burden that is imposed on the American consumers, shareholders, taxpayers, all the way across the board, with the number of frivolous lawsuits that we have seen. And, again, we want very much to see the market run its course on this issue. I think that this is bad legislation. I think it is poorly crafted. And I think, again, based on the action that the Securities and Exchange Commission has taken, let's see how that works. Let's let it go into place. Let's let the entity which has responsibility for this deal with it, see them work and see this information come forward, and see if we still have what is seen by many to be a problem. I also argue that as we look at these compensation packages that have existed, and there are a heck of a lot more than any of us in this body make, that is for darn sure, but the fact of the matter is, these are decisions that boards of directors make. And one of the precious rights that we have as American citizens is the right not to own a stock. There is no one that I know on the face of the Earth who is compelled to purchase a share of stock, and I think that the right not to own a stock is a precious one. And, you know, if I don't like the decision that the CEO of a company that I own a stock in or that the board of directors of that company makes, you know what, I will sell that stock. And I am happy to sell that stock, and that is my right to do it. If I don't like the decision that a board of directors has made, a decision that a board of directors has made when it comes to compensation for their executives, if that really is driving me and I am convinced that the stock should be much higher, I will sell it. So I believe that it is a real mistake for us to make this kind of overreach. And, Mr. Speaker, I also have to say that I am very troubled with what we are seeing here now as the new definition for rules that have come forward. Now, I entered into the Record of the Rules Committee last evening back to the 103rd Congress when our distinguished former colleague, Joe Moakley, was chairman of the committee and he had in his survey of activities of the Rules Committee the definition of rules. This rule that has come forward is defined as an open rule with a preprinting requirement, but, Mr. Speaker, it is much more than that. Traditionally, an open rule that has a preprinting requirement has been known under Democratic and Republican Congresses as a modified open rule. Our colleagues, in their quest to say that they have had more and more open rules, have redefined what an open rule is, but the thing that troubles me is not just that they have done that. But they, by passage of this rule, have actually prevented Members of Congress from being able to participate in this under an open amendment process. Why? The majority leader has apparently announced that we are going today to begin consideration of this shareholder bill, and then we are going to consider it on Friday. So what it means is, as we proceed with the amendment process today, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately what we are doing is we are saying to Members of the House of Representatives who want to amend this bill on Friday that any amendment that they might be offering had to have been printed in the Congressional Record last night, 3 days before the measure is considered on the floor, and they are trying to define that as an open amendment process. Mr. Speaker, if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it is a duck. And you know what? This is not an open rule. I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and to oppose the underlying legislation.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of H.R. 988, the Lieutenant Todd Jason Bryant Post Office Building Designation Act. Todd Bryant, a First Lieutenant in the United States Army, was killed in action on October 31, 2003 when his Humvee encountered an explosive device on the road between Fallujah and Baghdad. He was 23 years old. He is a recipient of the National Defense Service Ribbon, the Purple Heart, the Iraqi Freedom Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal and the Bronze Star. Bryant, a 2002 graduate of West Point, was a member of Company C, 1st Battalion and 34th Armor Regiment of the 1st Infantry Division at Fort Riley, Kansas. Todd Bryant was deployed to Iraq in September 2003, a few days after he married his wife Jenifer. Todd was born at the Long Beach Naval Hospital. Although he grew up in Riverside, he attended La Canada High School, located in La Canada- Flintridge, California, one of the cities I am privileged to represent. While at La Canada High, he participated in the band and played for the Spartans football team. Todd came from a military family. His parents, Larry and Linda, prior to both working at Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Canada-Flintridge, both served as Captains in the U.S. Air Force. His older sister Tiffany is a fellow West Point graduate and his older brother Timothy is a U.S. Marine. Although Todd excelled at being a solider, he also had other interests. He volunteered as a Congressional intern in Congressman Ken Calvert's office and he spent a summer participating in Service America at West Hills Elementary School in Bremerton, Washington in 2001. Learning more about Todd's interests and actions, one can not come away without noting the extraordinary impact he had on his friends, family and community. Today, his friends and family are still reminiscing about his humor, his love of In-N-Out burgers and his charisma. Mr. Speaker, without question, Congress and the American people will continue to honor and remember the men and women who gave the ultimate sacrifice in this war. We hope this small act of memorializing Lieutenant Todd Jason Bryant at the Rubidoux post office honors his memory and serves as a reminder to those in the community of the remarkable heroism of Todd and his family.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues Mr. Hinojosa and the Mrs. Biggert, for introducing H. Res. 273, a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of Financial Literacy Month. As a member of the Financial and Economic Literacy Caucus and a cosponsor of this resolution, I am proud to support this measure. In this 21st century economy, more Americans have access to financial services and products than ever before. With the click of a button, consumers can perform a variety of financial activities over the Internet, from paying bills to managing investments. Increased availability of credit allows more people to enjoy the benefits of easy access to capital and enhanced purchasing power. Today, half of all American households own stocks. This growing number of ``investor class'' Americans are participating in financial markets through retirement plans, investment vehicles or Internet trading accounts. Yet, as this resolution recognizes, we must do more to ensure that American citizens not only have access to these important financial services, but are equipped with the knowledge to make critical financial decisions as they plan for the future. Whether it is buying a home, paying for college, starting a small business or planning for retirement, it is imperative that we help individuals develop a solid foundation in personal finance. We must also continue efforts to ensure that individuals are equipped with the proper tools to make smart financial decisions from an early age. Reading, writing and math, the traditional cornerstones of our education system, need to be supplemented with a curriculum that will equip America's youth to meet the real-life demands of the 21st century. In the fast-paced and increasingly complex world in which we live, teaching our students about personal finance issues, from basic spending decisions to investing and saving for retirement, is critical. The efforts of organizations like Visa USA, Citigroup, the Credit Union National Association, the American Bankers Association and the Securities Industry Association have helped to bring financial literacy programs to our Nation's youth in classrooms, after-school programs and libraries. I am proud that in my own district, Bonita High School, the Boys and Girls Club of the Foothills and the Glendora Public Library have had the opportunity to benefit from these programs. It is also important to note that efforts to enhance financial literacy should not just be confined to our own country. As we strive for expanded trade and investment with our global partners, the financial ups and downs in world markets have a greater impact on our local economies. Helping to spread financial and economic literacy to emerging markets is critically important to establishing stability in developing nations. For example, in 2004 Citigroup and the Citigroup Foundation provided more than $22 million in support of financial education programs in activities that reached millions of people in more than 40 countries. These activities included community development projects to support the expansion of thrift and credit-based cooperative groups in India and the development of a micro-finance industry in China. Ultimately, expanding access to the financial system and knowledge of its workings provides individuals with greater choice when managing finances, building wealth and making investments. These activities in turn lead to increases in economic activity and growth that benefits our entire Nation. I urge my colleagues to recognize the importance of financial literacy and support this measure.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, as I listened to my colleague on the other side of the aisle, the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), speak about the need to expand spending in a wide range of areas, I could not help but think about why it is that I chose to run for Congress and why I know my Republican colleagues stepped up to the plate to run for Congress. We want a defense capability that is second to none, but we also, Madam Speaker, want to do everything that we possibly can to reduce the size and scope of government, encouraging individual initiative and responsibility. One of the things that troubles me as I listen to the arguments propounded by so many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is that they talk about a need that is there. We all want to make sure that we address the very important societal needs that are there. We want to put into place entitlement reform in the area of both Medicare and Medicaid. Why? Not only so we can save taxpayer dollars but so that we can ensure that the Medicare and Medicaid programs are more effective and provide needed assistance to those who are out there who truly are in need. The problem that I have is, as they talk about all of these programs, it undermines, it undermines initiative and responsibility. What we want to do with our budget, Madam Speaker, is everything within our power, as Mr. Sessions said so well, to make sure that we keep taxes low. One of the things that I find to be very troubling is that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle hate most, hate most the taxes that have actually created a surge in revenues to the Federal Treasury. We all know that the budget that they are going to be bringing forward puts into place the largest tax increase in American history. We always held up the 1993 Clinton tax increase, that not one Republican voted for, as the largest increase in history; and I am proud that when we won our majority in 1994 we brought about major changes that, in fact, repealed large parts of that 1993 tax increase. But, Madam Speaker, that 1993 tax increase, which has been held up as the model, as the largest tax increase in American history, pales in comparison to this $392.5 billion tax increase that they are advocating in this budget. Madam Speaker, when I say that they hate most the tax cuts that have created the greatest surge in revenue, I am referring, of course, to capital gains. I have been one who has long advocated a zero capital gains tax rate. One of the things that we found is that reducing the top rate on capital gains has not done what virtually every green eyeshade prognosticator looked at as what happened. They said there would be a loss in revenues to the Federal Treasury. We found, of course, that there has been a surge in revenues to the Federal Treasury. Why? Because it has encouraged economic growth to the point where the deficit this year is actually $73 billion lower than it was last year. And that is as we have cut taxes, met the very important funding priorities of homeland security and national security, and we still have been able to actually reduce the Federal deficit. As a percentage of our Gross Domestic Product the deficit today, which everyone decries, Democrats and Republicans alike decry, is in fact lower as a percentage of the GDP than almost ever. In light of that, Madam Speaker, I think it is very important for us to recognize we have a strong, vibrant, growing economy today. I was very surprised when the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules last night, late last night when we were reporting out this rule, talked about how devastating the economy is. Madam Speaker, I will tell you it is a devastatingly good economy. Just this morning, we got the report that there has been an increase in durable goods purchases. We have a 4.5 percent unemployment rate: 146 million Americans, more than ever in the history of our country, are working today. That is not an accident. We have gone through terrorist attacks, corporate scandals, the economic downturn; and, because of the policies that we put into place, we have the strongest, most dynamic, $13 trillion economy that we have ever seen in the history of the United States of America. Madam Speaker, I talked to an economist last night who said to me, ``You know, I had no idea that they would move this quickly to increase spending and increase taxes.'' And that is exactly what they are doing, and that is why we need to reject this rule and clearly do everything that we can to reject the tax-and-spend budget that they have propounded and support Mr. Ryan's alternative.

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, in 1859 that great philosopher and religious leader John Stuart Mill wrote: ``War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.'' We have yet to hear from the other side of the aisle about how we are going to win the global war on terror. We haven't heard, as my friend, Mr. Lungren, just said to me, the ``V'' word. How are we going to be victorious in this war? I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. This is the largest supplemental spending bill in the history of this planet; and it is being brought up under a closed rule. Our colleagues in the other body will have an opportunity to amend and discuss and debate this. Only a few Members of the Democratic leadership fashioned this measure, Mr. Speaker. It is unfair. It sends the wrong message to our troops. We must be victorious in this war. With that, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and if they pass this rule, a ``no'' vote on the underlying legislation.

Mr. DREIER. 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. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentlewoman if there are any further speakers on her side.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the former attorney general of California, my friend from Folsom, a hardworking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Lungren.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman from Indianapolis, Mr. Burton.