David Dreier

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), a member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. (Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, on September 11 this Nation and the world faced one of the most extraordinary challenges in our Nation's history. It was a tragedy that caused tremendous loss of life and suffering all over the world. People from 80 nations were in the World Trade Center when we saw the attack that took place. In the days and weeks and months that have followed September 11, it has been very gratifying to see a silver lining in that dark cloud of September 11. That silver lining has been the sense of solidarity among the American people, and that has been represented very well here in the United States Congress, the greatest deliberative body known to man. We saw President Bush act swiftly following September 11 by asking our former colleague, Governor Tom Ridge, to lead the effort to deal with homeland security. We have now taken that next step to begin today to put into place an effort which will establish a Department of Homeland Security. As the President has said, it is not designed to expand the reaches of the Federal Government. Instead it is designed to take these multifarious agencies which fall under the rubric of a wide range of entities and bring them together, consolidate them, so that in fact there will be a level of accountability, accountability so that in fact our homeland security will be more effectively addressed. In 1854, Henry David Thoreau said, ``For a thousand hackings at the branches of evil, it is worth nothing to one strike at the root.'' Mr. Speaker, we have seen our great President, the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, our national security adviser, the Secretary of State and others focus on that root of evil, the al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations around the world. What we are doing here with the Department of Homeland Security is we are focusing on these branches that still need to be addressed because we are working diligently to get at the root, but at the same time we still face a threat here in the United States. I believe that the vote which we are going to take momentarily will be the first step towards dealing with this very important issue of establishing a Federal Department of Homeland Security. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), who has long been a hard fighter on behalf of our homeland security and other national security questions.

Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just say very briefly, in response to the gentleman's statement, that I believe in my opening statement I made it very clear that while we want to do this in an expeditious manner, we want to make sure that it is done right. We have certain constraints with which we have to deal if we are going to successfully meet the September 11 goal that was first set forth by the minority leader. And in light of that, the July 12 deadline, then our goal of trying to begin reconciling differences as we head towards the August break are dates that have been put forth. But I do believe that first and foremost, as I said, we must do this correctly. So in that light, I do agree with my colleague.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Irving, Texas (Mr. Armey), the distinguished majority leader, for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the resolution allows us to move decisively in a bipartisan manner to establish an empowered Department of Homeland Security. I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and my colleagues on the Committee on Rules for helping us proceed in a bipartisan manner in dealing with this issue. Mr. Speaker, the President's proposed legislation to create this new Cabinet-level agency represents a call to arms for each of us. It is the battle cry of a Nation determined to preserve its hard-won and fundamental belief that its people have an inherent right to freedom. Today, we take the first important step in answering that call by readying our government to confront a faceless enemy, an enemy attempting to penetrate our borders, threaten our towns and cities and, overall, to rob families and communities of the sense of security that they enjoyed before the attacks of September 11. This is an unprecedented category of war on the home front, and it requires a new approach to securing our Nation. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is about protecting American lives, not protecting the turf of those here in the Congress. I take very seriously our institutional responsibility to protect the integrity of the congressional oversight process and the ability of committees to exercise their will on matters within their jurisdiction. This resolution facilitates our ability to fulfill those responsibilities without compromising our ultimate and most critical objective of keeping Americans safe from terrorism. Mr. Speaker, as we know, terrorism is an ever-present enemy. This resolution ensures that we are moving forward with a sense of deliberative urgency, permitting the House to condense the legislative process in a way that will foster a thoughtful and carefully crafted legislative product. In so doing, it establishes a process for considering the President's initiative similar to one that was used a quarter of a century ago by Speaker Tom O'Neill in addressing the energy crisis. The resolution provides a clearinghouse for ideas, an ad hoc body with the expertise to resolve jurisdictional disputes, and the authority to compile a final package. Instead of potentially lengthy struggles on overlapping jurisdictional issues, the select committee will operate as a type of conference committee for all relevant committees of jurisdiction. Every committee is ensured to have a voice in the process. Mr. Speaker, with very few exceptions, regular order will be applied to the select committee, meaning it will have to comply with all rules of the House. The select committee is limited in its scope, authorized only to consider legislation creating a Homeland Security Department, and will dissolve once that duty has been completed. The membership will be a small group comprised of elected leaders from both sides of the aisle. In the President's transmittal message to Congress accompanying the homeland security initiative, he referenced President Truman's previous reorganization of our military forces under the new Department of Defense as an analogy to today's homeland security initiative. What is also somewhat similar is the philosophy laid out earlier by the first Hoover Commission established in 1947 to study the organization of the executive branch and to come up with recommendations for its reorganization. The commission noted in its report on the general management of the executive branch that ``we must reorganize the executive branch to give simplicity and structure, the unity of purpose, and the clear line of executive authority originally intended.'' Mr. Speaker, one of the commission's underlying principles was that policy-making and standards-setting should be centralized by the President, central management agencies and department Secretaries, rather than controlled at the individual agency level where bureau and subdivision fiefdoms had evolved to create a mass of policy and functional confusion. While there was no direct or pending security threat at the time, it is appropriate to compare the philosophy of the Hoover Commission to the motivations of the homeland security initiative. The President notes a number of similar themes in his message: ``Our Nation needs a unified homeland security structure;'' ``transforming the current confusing patchwork of government activities into a single department whose primary mission is to secure our homeland;'' the Department ``would have a clear and efficient organizational structure . . .'' And finally, ``history also teaches us that critical security challenges require clear lines of responsibility and the unified effort of the U.S. Government.'' Mr. Speaker, it demonstrates that America is the great Nation that it is because we have been able to look inward at the appropriate times and unify to transform to and adapt our government to changed circumstances. We have an opportunity to implement a framework that will produce effective and functional changes to the organization of our Federal Government's national security infrastructure. That is why it is absolutely essential that we work together, both here in the House and with the other body, to proceed as expeditiously as possible. Mr. Speaker, even more important, we must do it the right way, in order to guarantee that our end product is the best solution for addressing our Nation's security needs. Right now, agencies charged with protecting our borders, enforcing our laws and keeping Americans safe are grouped with those responsible for overseeing the Nation's finances and maintaining the Federal highway system. For instance, the Customs Service plays an important role in protecting America's borders, in the air, on land and at sea, and it has its own intelligence component. Yet, it is housed under the Treasury Department where the primary mission is to manage the government's money and promote stable economies both here and abroad. Another well-known example is the overlapping roles of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the State Department when it comes to regulating permanent and temporary immigration to the United States. While the INS has overall responsibility for immigration matters, the State Department is in charge of issuing visas to foreign nationals coming to the United States. The homeland security initiative moves both the INS and the State Department's control over visa issuance to the new Secretary. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Coast Guard is the principal Federal law enforcement agency with jurisdiction in both U.S. waters and on the high seas. It is also prepared to function as a specialized service within the U.S. Navy, and it has command responsibilities for the U.S. maritime defense zones. Yet it reports to the Secretary of Transportation, whose primary mission is to oversee the formulation of national transportation policy. Without a doubt, securing our homeland is going to require more than the creation of a new agency. Yet there is no question that we must establish an entity that is singly devoted to that purpose, with no distractions and no conflicting objectives. Rather than the multitude of agencies and bureaus that currently hold homeland security authority, the President's plan charges one agency with responsibility for securing our borders, accessing and analyzing intelligence information, working with local and State governments to manage Federal emergency response activities, and developing chemical, biological and radiological and nuclear countermeasures. Mr. Speaker, this presidential initiative represents bipartisanship at its best. As we address the security needs of our homeland, passage of this resolution is a bold and important step toward that end. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman.)

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 449 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, today a Dear Colleague was sent to all Members informing them that the Committee on Rules is planning to meet the week of June 17 to grant a rule which may limit the amendment process on H.R. 2114, the National Monument Fairness Act. The bill was ordered reported by the Committee on Resources on March 20 and the committee report was filed on April 15. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Committee on Rules in room H-312 in the Capitol no later than 12 noon this coming Tuesday, June 18. Amendments should be drafted to the text of H.R. 2114 as ordered reported by the Committee on Resources. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are properly drafted and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain that their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from South Carolina has just chosen to recognize the 227th anniversary of the United States Army, I think it is important for us to note that President Bush has come forward with a very important proposal. We saw, as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) mentioned, the tragic loss of life in this war on terrorism that has just taken place, and we continue to see this struggle move forward. Just yesterday the President made it very clear in his statement, we are in the midst of a war on terrorism, and that war has been brought to our homeland. The President has, I believe, come forward with an extraordinarily bold proposal. That proposal is designed to ensure that the Federal Government, working in concert with State and local governments, is in a position to secure our homeland. For the first time, we have seen men and women in uniform now fighting international conflicts, not simply as men and women wearing military uniforms. We have seen firefighters and law enforcement officers on the front line in this struggle. The President's proposal for homeland security and establishing a new Department is a right one; and I hope very much that we are going to do the right thing, be careful about it, but do it just as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, when we talk about those who are directly impacted by repeal of the death tax, if we think about those men and women who are middle-income wage earners whose jobs are jeopardized because of a loss of estates because of that tax, they are the ones that are being hit most by this. And that is why to say that it is a very small portion is misleading.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and in strong support of this legislation. It is all about fairness. And I listened to my friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings) talk about the issue of job loss. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that 70 percent of the family-owned businesses in this country don't make it to the second generation; 87 percent of the family-owned businesses do not make it to the third generation. And, Mr. Speaker, when you focus on the issue of job creation and economic growth, seeing small family-owned businesses fail in large part due to the very punitive death tax that exists in this country is one of the things that costs jobs. And as we talked about the very important need for a flow of revenues to deal with what the President will call for tonight, and that is the establishment of the Homeland Security position as a Cabinet-level post, we are going to need revenues for that, and that is why economic growth is so important. Mr. Speaker, it was preposterous when we saw the plan put into place for the phaseout of the death tax over a 10-year period require at the end a reversion to what is current law. What will that mean? That will mean that anyone today, any member of this body today who votes against making permanent repeal of the death tax, will be voting in favor of one of the largest tax increases in the history of this country. Why? Simply because when this measure does in fact phase out in 2011, we revert, as I said, to current law. That is wrong. And what is it doing? It is jeopardizing the ability of the American people to plan, to make long-term plans. People have said, gosh, let us wait for 5 years and see what the budget situation will be like at that point. Mr. Speaker, people engage in estate planning. People look towards the future. People plan for their children and their grandchildren, and that is why the idea of saying you have to live with this uncertainty over the next decade is a gross disservice to the American people who are out there working hard, trying to get this economy growing. Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is very important for us to take this step. It is very important for us to allow those who are creating jobs and creating opportunity for Americans to have the chance to plan. So I urge a yes vote for this very fair rule which does in fact provide a substitute for the Democrats and a motion to recommitting so they will have two bites of the apple, and at the end of the day I am convinced that we should defeat their measure that is a substitute and, of course, the previous question, and overwhelmingly pass this very important and very fair proposal.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I would like to join my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), in extending congratulations to the U.S. Soccer Team. Clearly, the greatest upset of the World Cup tournament has been this win of the U.S. team over Portugal. Coach Arena was extraordinarily bold in putting two great 20-year-olds in to ensure that they would have the chance to play a role in leading this team to victory. Landon Donovan and DaMarcus Beasley are two new players who are obviously fighting very, very hard on behalf of the United States. As we head into the quarter finals, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) said, there are a billion people around the world who are following the World Cup, and I hope very much that more Americans are among them as we see a spectacular U.S. victory.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, that certainly was a charming assessment of the work product that we have here. Let me say what we are going to be doing right after we pass this rule with enthusiastic support from our side of the aisle. We are going to have something that did not exist when the wonderful party of Thomas Jefferson controlled this institution for the four decades before we won the majority in 1994. What we are going to have is a motion to recommit that will be offered by the minority party. How can it be called corrupt to guarantee a right to the minority? James Madison talked about that right as an extraordinarily important right. And I will tell you I was privileged to serve in this institution in the minority for 14 years before we won the majority; and I have been very proud to have fought for minority rights. And I am not going to accuse either side of being corrupt. And I will tell you that I am proud of what it is that we have done. What we did with this rule is we provided an open amendment process so that any germane amendment could be offered. We said that we could have a full and lively debate. Well, it ended up being nothing more lively, Mr. Speaker; and it was lively but not full; and it was not full because we had vote after vote after vote which clearly delayed the opportunities for us to, in fact, have the kind of opportunity to get the assistance to our men and women in uniform who desperately need it. And, yes, we have addressed a few other issues that we needed to address in this bill. That is what happens. And I do not think that any Member of the now-minority could stand up and say that when they were in the majority they did not address any of the concerns that existed for their Members. So, Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important for us to, on the eve of the Memorial Day celebration, when most of us will be in our districts going to honor the men and women who have given their lives for the United States of America, to pass this rule and pass this very important wartime supplemental appropriations bill so that we can do what every single American and every freedom-loving human being on the face of the Earth wants to do, and that is to win this war.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time, and I congratulate him on his management of this rule. This is obviously a great challenge. It is important to note that this rule is for consideration of a wartime supplemental appropriations bill. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) described this before our Republican conference yesterday very appropriately as a wartime supplemental appropriations bill. What has happened in the last 24 hours? We have seen an increased threat of terrorism. We have seen instability in a wide range of areas in the world; and this administration is, I believe, doing the best job possible to deal with this. The President months ago asked for a supplemental appropriations bill that would provide Israel with the resources necessary. Now, a number of people who have been speaking against this have talked about some other issues. Let us remember, 99 percent, Mr. Speaker, of this legislation deals with supplemental appropriations for our war efforts. Now, we have heard talk about what some have said is an unprecedented use of the deeming process. Well, my Democratic colleagues had something known as the Gephardt amendment which regularly deemed an automatic increase in the debt ceiling. We, in the past several years, have had three occasions, had a deeming of the budget, of parts of the budget before. So I think it is very important to note that this is a very challenging time. We are dealing with a situation which will begin here and then move to a joint House/Senate conference. My friend, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), raised the issue of Egypt. We know that this administration is determined to do everything that it possibly can to bring about peace and stability in the Middle East. It is a challenge. Administrations in the past have tried and failed. But we know under the stellar leadership of President Bush, Vice President Chaney, the National Security Advisor, Dr. Rice and Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld, that we have a wonderful team working on this. That is why I believe it is important for us to provide the support the administration wants. And, yes, he is right that the administration did not make the additional request for aid to Israel, but there is no indication that the President would not be supportive of what is taking place here, because we clearly stand by our ally, the State of Israel, the one democratically elected government in the region. What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that I believe we need to realize that our number one priority is to win the war on terrorism. And to do that, as the President and others have said, we have to have the resources necessary to win that war. And that is why every Member of this House should vote in favor of this rule and in favor of the supplemental appropriations bill.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his announcement. I would like to close this debate, Mr. Speaker, by just making a few points. For starters, if you look at the Great Society welfare program that was put into place, we have seen $5.2 trillion expended from the early 1960s up until the implementation of the 1996 welfare reform bill; $5.2 trillion. And we saw the poverty rate go from 14.7 percent to 15.2 percent during that period of time. So we saw those huge expenditures, obviously, do nothing but increase the poverty level in this country. Now, I have been listening to rhetoric from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claiming that we do not care. Well, we care enough that we want to do the single most important thing for the American people who are struggling. We want to give them an opportunity to have a job. The 1996 Welfare Reform Bill is responsible for 7 million new jobs created for people who otherwise would have been relegated to poverty. One of the most important parts of that bill has been the Child Development and Child Care Act, the provisions that have provided $4.8 billion. If you look at the $4.8 billion that is being provided for child development and child care, this President and this bill calls for an additional $2 billion in expenditures in the area of child care. And so I believe that this is a measure which does show compassion; and it does that most important thing, it is encouraging people to get on to the productive side of our economy. They want to be there. They want that kind of opportunity, and that is exactly what we are doing. We are building on the great success that we saw in the 1996 bill. Let me make a couple of comments about this rule and the procedure through which we have gone. It is true that we have struggled to ensure that we maintain the opportunity for our Governors across the country for States to have flexibility when we look at the programs that have emerged from five authorizing committees that have worked on this. And I believe that it is the right thing for us to do, to provide flexibility for the States. But, Mr. Speaker, it is also very important for us to maintain our article 1, section 7 prerogative of our control of spending; and we, over the last day or so, have been working on that. That one provision which consists of 26 lines of a 140-page bill has been modified, and that led us to pass a rule calling for same-day consideration of the measure. Well, based on the announcement that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) has just given, we will not be considering this bill tonight. We will be considering it during the day tomorrow. And so we are going to have a full opportunity for debate. Now, someone said, why are we not making in order a wide range of amendments? One of the five authorizing committees involved in this process, Mr. Speaker, happens to be the Committee on Ways and Means. When a measure emerges from the Committee on Ways and Means, what is the procedure that both Democrats and Republicans alike have put in place for management of that measure on the House floor? It is a modified closed rule. We allow a Democrat substitute, which happens to be authored by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means. And so this is a very fair and standard rule in that way. So, Mr. Speaker, we are doing one of the most important things that we will address in this Congress: taking the American people who are struggling and we are going to enhance the opportunity for them to get on to the productive side of our economy, and we are going to be considering it in a very fair and balanced way, with 2 hours of debate tomorrow, another hour of debate that we will have on the rule itself; so there will be ample opportunity for Members to raise their concerns and talk about this. But I have one message: we care, Mr. Speaker. We care because we want people to have the dignity of a job, and that is one of the most wonderful things that we as a body will be able to do. I urge support of this rule.

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time, and I congratulate her for being the author of this extraordinarily important piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by yielding to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the distinguished majority leader, for the purpose of making an announcement. (Mr. ARMEY asked and was given permission to speak out of order.) Legislative Program

Mr. DREIER

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

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I congratulate her on her management of this rule. Let me say that as I listened to my friend from Dallas describe this rule, it is not quite the one that I recall our having crafted late last night. In years past, we have had 150-plus amendments filed to the Committee on Rules on this legislation. The success of passage of this Bob Stump Defense Authorization Act, which is very appropriately titled for our colleague who is going to be retiring at the end of the 107th Congress, in fact brought a total of 83 amendments, the lowest number that I can ever remember. And I am very pleased that of those 83 amendments filed, we have made in order 25 amendments. There are 10 amendments authored by Democrats, there are 12 amendments authored by Republicans, and there are 3 bipartisan amendments that have been made in order. So we are clearly going to have the opportunity to have a full debate on this issue. In years past, Mr. Speaker, we have had sometimes 2 weeks of consideration of this measure because it has been so contentious. This is probably the least contentious, the least divisive defense authorization bill that we have had, again, in a long period of time, in large part due to the fact that we have come together as a Nation to win the war on terrorism and to make sure that we have a defense capability second to none so that we do not face the kinds of tragedies that our country has faced in the past. So I believe that we have a very good rule here that allows for a full debate on a wide range of issues. This rule, I am happy to say, is going to enjoy bipartisan support. I know there are concerns that have been raised by a number of people, but one of the things we know in this institution is that we are never going to make everyone happy when it comes to the process of amending legislation. But I do believe that this measure is a very appropriate one. The structure for this rule was in fact designed by our late former colleague, Les Aspin, who put into place this procedure that we are using right now, the former chairman of the Committee on Armed Services and the former Secretary of Defense Mr. Aspin. So I believe that we have done this in a very fair and a very balanced way. I want to congratulate, along with the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), my friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), my home State of Missouri as well, who has made a number of proposals to us. And I know he has some concerns, but I am very pleased that we will, as I said, enjoy bipartisan support for this rule and will have very strong bipartisan support for this measure at the end of the day.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, today a ``Dear Colleague'' letter will be sent to Members informing them that the Committee on Rules is planning to meet next week to grant a rule which may limit the amendment process for H.R. 4546, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. The bill was ordered reported by the Committee on Armed Services yesterday and is expected to be filed tomorrow. Any Member who wishes to offer an amendment to this bill should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment by 5 p.m. on Tuesday, May 7, to the Committee on Rules in room H-312 in the Capitol. Amendments should be drafted to the text of the bill as reported by the House Committee on Armed Services, which is expected to be available on Friday, May 3, tomorrow. The text will be available on the Web sites of both the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Rules. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure their amendments are properly drafted and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time and I congratulate him on his superb management of this measure. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I believe it is important for us to realize that we faced what clearly was one of the most devastating and horrible business failures in our Nation's history with the collapse of Enron. I know that there was a temptation by many to politicize this issue and take what clearly was a business failure and somehow determine that it was a political failure and that there were some political figures to blame. I think that the work that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the Committee on Financial Services has done is a very clear demonstration that there is recognition in a bipartisan way of this substitution that there was a business failure. And the debate that we will proceed with today makes in order two substitutes from our Democratic colleagues and three amendments from our Democratic colleagues which will allow for a full airing of this question. I think that with the vote that came from the committee, Mr. Speaker, by a margin of 49 to 12, demonstrates that Democrats and Republicans alike have come together to deal with this very serious problem. As my friend, the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Sessions) mentioned, there are tremendous numbers of Americans who are members of what is called the investor class. In fact, many believe that over half of the American people are involved in 401(k)s, individual retirement accounts, or some other kind of investments. And it is obvious that there have been some problems with accounting and auditing. That is clearly an understatement. We have seen some very serious problems come forth and we have seen some abuse that has been reported by executives juxtaposed to employees in companies when it has come specifically to the blackout period of time when executives have been able to sell their stock and employees have not been able to. This legislation is designed to address some of the very serious problems that exist in the area of accounting and auditing, and it is also designed to provide, once again, a level of confidence forever for those members of the American public who are part of the investor class. It is my hope that we will see more and more Americans participate as members of the investor class. Our goal is to try and make sure that there is enough opportunity for everyone to be part of what President Kennedy loved to call that rising tide that lifts all ships. I think that this bill will go a long way towards instilling that level of confidence that is necessary. The rule, as has been acknowledged by both sides, is very fair. We in the majority have again turned ourselves inside out to make sure that we provide an opportunity for those in the minority to be heard on this, and they clearly will have that opportunity as we proceed with debate today. I urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to vote for the rule and for the underlying legislation and we will have a full and rigorous debate on all of the amendments that will take place between now and then.

Mr. DREIER

Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.