Darrell Issa

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. I hereby make the motion that we do suspend the proceedings and go to----

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I join with the gentleman, of course, in supporting this bill. I too look forward to working with the gentleman as he returns in the next Congress. But my notes indicated he was leaving the committee. If that is not true, then I truly look forward to working with him on the committee. If he is on another committee, I look forward to working with him in his new role, but on his legislation.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1621 does what we should do in recognizing really great organizations for the work they do. Catholic Charities for 100 years has represented the best in charity, not as the name might suggest as Catholics or for Catholics, but Catholic Charities are people helping people regardless of their religion around this country. So I join with the majority in urging support for H. Res. 1621. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, time is short. I believe this will be unanimously passed. And whether it is Father Joe Carroll in San Diego or countless heads of various charities headed by clergymen or lay people around the country, Catholic Charities today, after 100 years, is being honored on behalf of the kind of outreach of people helping people that America does best. With that, I thank the gentleman for bringing this bill to our attention. I am glad we were able to do this in the 11th hour. I urge its support. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA

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

Mr. ISSA. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think we've both said what comes from our heart. We're losing a good Member who worked hard on our committee. This is not a good bill. This is not the bill he would have done. So I respectfully ask all Members to vote ``no'' on this. I will vote ``no'' not because of the author and not because of his effort, but because it simply isn't good enough. If we are going to spend even $75 million on new mandates, we have a standard that has to be a standard of excellence, a standard that truly makes improvements, and a standard that in fact does not simply allow the President to do what he already has the power to do. We can do this in the next Congress. We will do this. Again, Mr. Speaker, I express my interest in working with members of the committee now and members of the committee in the future to fashion a bill with this same name, and, if I'm allowed, even the same number, so that we can pass it in its original form or in an improved form in the next Congress. I reluctantly say we must oppose this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. Mr. Cuellar, you have been a good Member. You have worked hard on this. We worked together on this. When this number left the House, it was a different bill. In the first hour of the new Congress, I intend on working hard to bring up a bill that looks more like your original bill, has some additional learning experiences, and try to bring it back as quickly as possible. I cannot support your bill today. This is not the bill that left the House. It is also a bill that still has $75 million not paid for. But it's not the $75 million. As much as we talked about paid-for and PAYGO and offset and how do we do things, our real problem here today is that, as it came back from the Senate, it looks an awful lot like somebody just picked up your number and redid your bill. Now, I know you want this, and you deserve it for the hard work you did. But this bill is simply a series of mandates that codifies a management style that needs no legislation. This legislation does not create something that the President cannot and is not already doing. We, in Congress, want goal-setting. Historically, we look to OMB, and that goal-setting is intended to be objective, to hold agencies to standards determined not just by their own agency. As the bill is written today, basically, an agency sets its own goals, announces its own goals, and OMB has a secondary role. This does not create a real requirement for performance-based program analysis. The bill that left with an amendment that you very much helped carve, and we did it together, would have done that. I don't like the idea that, in the day after the day after the day after we probably should have long gone home but we are waiting for the CR, that they bring something on suspension. Given a few days of regular order, given one round-trip to the committee, we could change this. But if we changed it, of course we would be back with the Senate, which UC'd a completely different bill than the one you worked so hard on. It might pass today, but it won't have my vote, my support, and I will urge and am urging all the Members on both sides of the aisle to defeat the bill, not because you don't deserve a bill with your name on it on this subject. You have worked hard. But because this isn't the bill that you deserve to have become law. I know you are leaving Congress. You are a good Member who has worked hard on our committee, and I thank you for that. And I promise you, starting January 5, we will work together with you, if you will donate the time, to do the bill you wanted to do. And that, I guarantee you, will be my first priority, if it is not passed today. I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, it's been 8 years since this bill began being kicked around as a pilot. Some people would be less happy to announce it than I, but I would like to find them. Eight years ago when I began the dialogue with my colleagues, then the subcommittee ranking member, Mr. Berman, said, Tell me more about this problem. And I told him from life experience of the problem of these very talented judges, magistrates, and Federal judges who wanted to do a good job on patents, but it was almost always their first patent, and they lacked a support system to make it happen in both large and small districts. I told them how the southern district of San Diego had found ways to try to improve the system, gleaning some additional expertise from one or two judges who preferred these cases over some others and who actually sought them out. I also told some of my fellow colleagues about the horror stories of a magistrate ascending to the bench, finding that what he got from each of the other members were all their patent cases, and suddenly he had a backlog of these, had to find out what a Markman hearing was, had to start getting into technical issues, one on electronics, another on biotech, another one on telecommunications. So over the years, we have all been educated well beyond that initial anecdotal example. Then Orrin Hatch, Chairman Hatch, was supportive. Now Chairman Leahy is supportive. All along the way, my classmate Adam Schiff has been supportive, along with both chairman, and ranking member at times, Howard Berman. Chairman Conyers has continued to be supportive and has helped me, along with Ranking Member Lamar Smith, vote this out early on in this Congress. But I have a special thanks for Chairman Leahy who made sure this bill was pulled out of the comprehensive patent reform bill because its time truly had come to begin saying to judges throughout the country that, in fact, we were going to help them help themselves be better at this. Although it's called patent pilot, over the years it has been expanded to the number of jurisdictions that it could be used in to where it's become quite clear that this will be a challenge to be expanded countrywide in whatever format the study shows is best. I find that this Congress, in its lame duck session, has done a few good things. No surprise that this is one that I think is particularly good, particularly good because, as Congressman Schiff just said, we are, in fact, dealing in the lame duck session with a problem that has been pervasive since before Congressman Schiff and I became Members of this body 10 full years ago. So as I thank each of you for your passage of this bill, and with full confidence that this will become a broader consensus throughout the Federal system, I also join with my friend and colleague Adam Schiff in saying that the next Congress, in the early days, we must truly dedicate ourselves to comprehensive patent reform, to take each of the major issues that have been difficult and have, Congress after Congress, failed to become law, and find ways to resolve some or all of them for the good of the American people who find themselves spending 2, 3 or 8 or $10 million on what can often be a frivolous suit. Again, Mr. Poe, I thank you for yielding me the time. I ask all my colleagues to vote for this small but important change in patent law. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 628, a bill to establish a pilot program in certain United States district courts to encourage enhancement of expertise in patent cases among district judges. Congressman Adam Schiff and I have worked together on this legislation since the last Congress, and I am grateful for the chance to move this legislation forward today. The high cost of patent litigation is widely publicized, and it is not unusual for a patent suit to cost each party over $10,000,000. Appeals from district courts to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit are frequent. This is caused, in part, by the general perception within the patent community that most district court judges are not sufficiently prepared to hear patent cases. I drafted this legislation in an attempt to decrease the cost of litigation by increasing the success of district court judges. H.R. 628 establishes a pilot project within at least six district courts. Under the pilot, judges decide whether or not to opt into hearing patent cases. If a judge opts in, and a patent case is randomly assigned to that judge, that judge keeps the case. If a case is randomly assigned to a judge who has not opted into hearing patent cases, that judge has the choice of keeping that case or sending it to the group of judges who have opted in. To be a designated court, the court must have at least 10 authorized judges with at least 3 opting in, or certify that they have adopted local rules for patent and plant variety protection cases. The core intent of this pilot is to steer patent cases to judges that have the desire and aptitude to hear patent cases, while preserving random assignment as much as possible. The pilot will last no longer than 10 years, and periodic studies will occur to determine the pilot project's success. I am happy to say that H.R. 628 is supported by software, hardware, tech and electronics companies, pharmaceutical companies, biotech companies, district court judges, the American Intellectual Property Law Association, and the Intellectual Property Owners Association among others. This legislation is a good first step toward improving the legal environment for the patent community in the United States. H.R. 628 should not, however, be taken as a replacement for broader patent reform. We still need to address substantive issues within patent law, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on that broader effort as well. I thank Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers and Ranking Member Lamar Smith, as well Senators Hatch and Leahy. I also thank my staff and the committee staff who worked so hard to make this possible. I encourage all of my colleagues to support H.R. 628.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the exemplary service of Mission Viejo City Councilman John Paul Ledesma, who has faithfully kept the public trust since he joined the Mission Viejo Council in 1998. During his 12 year tenure, John Paul distinguished himself as a proponent of fiscal restraint and responsible public budgeting, a fierce advocate for personal property rights and a vocal opponent of excessive taxation. His efforts on behalf of the people of Mission Viejo have contributed significantly to the public safety and their quality of life. John Paul spearheaded the effort to make Mission Viejo the first city in Orange County to adopt an ordinance requiring its employees and contractors to participate in the federal E-verify system to insure that documents presented to establish employment eligibility are valid. He fought to protect the rights of citizens to religious expression and to protect children using computers in the City library from the dangers of the Internet. As Mission Viejo's representative on the Orange County Vector Control District he worked cooperatively with representatives of surrounding communities to protect public health. John Paul also served terms as Mayor in 2003 and Mayor Pro Tem in 2007. City ordinance limits council service to 12 years, and John Paul completes that term having maintained the trust of its citizens and leaving the community better off for his service. It is with gratitude and appreciation for work well done, that we commend John Paul Ledesma for his public service and wish him well in future endeavors.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the honorable civil service of Cathy Glaser and commend her tremendous career of thirty six years with the San Diego County Registrar of Voters Office. Joining the team at San Diego County in 1976 with the District Attorney's office, Family Support Division, Ms. Glaser began her historic tenure with the County that has made an impression on countless San Diegans. Transferring to the Registrar of Voters Office as a Senior Clerk in 1977, Ms. Glaser was soon promoted to Candidate Filing. She filled an invaluable role by assisting candidates in all their filing aspects. Starting with San Diego County at the age of 22, and now ending at the helm of Campaign Services, Ms. Glaser has worked for 8 Registrars' of Voters. She has seen 9 election cycles of Presidents, Governors, U.S. Senators, State Senators, State Assembly, County Supervisors, Mayors, City Councilmembers, Community College Boards and School Boards to name a few. She has supervised the ballot preparation for all of the candidates for these offices as well as state, county and local propositions and measures. Ms. Glaser has seen the transformation from the time of less than 5,000 Absentee Voters, voting on ``paper''; and when results were delivered on election night. She has since been at the forefront of change with now more than 700,000 Vote by Mail Voters. Under Ms. Glaser's guidance and expertise, San Diego County has won several awards for streamlining the election process. She also created the prominent ``Candidate's Guide'' which has become the ``go to'' guide for candidates, consultants, treasurers and campaign managers. Her work is often used as a model for other counties across the nation. It is an honor to recognize her three and a half decades of dedicated, professional public service. I offer Ms. Glaser my congratulations on her achievements. Madam Speaker, I ask you to please join me in paying tribute to Ms. Glaser's loyal service to the San Diego County Registrar of Voters on the occasion of her retirement.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), one of the early innovators that really brought telework to the Federal workforce. (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ISSA. I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, in the interest of fairness to one of our Members who has been very engaged in this issue, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. ISSA. Could I further inquire as to how many additional speakers the majority has?

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the former chairman of the full committee.

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the First District of Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, could I inquire how much time each side has remaining?

Mr. ISSA. I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I have said most of what has to be said, and I'm not going to use all of the time that the minority has. This bill, as I said, will probably pass, and it will be a shame. I would hope that all Republicans and Democrats who know this could be better and voted for it when it was better would also vote against it, not because the outcome is certain, but because we have an opportunity to say we're not going to produce a new bureaucracy without some reservation when we know it could have been better. This is not a bill that creates the opportunity for telework. Every agency that sees this bill will look and say, darn, I've got to create a special entity that is a telework czar entity. They will know that for what it is. What it doesn't do is it doesn't give them the kind of additional new guidelines that really would keep this from being, in some cases, just a mandate for a perk, and in other cases a mandate for an agency creation within an agency. I think that's the most dangerous part of what we do. We should never, never give the Federal Government a requirement to do something and not give them the guidance, authority, and statute necessary to make sure they do it right. We have that responsibility. The executive branch is, in fact, the administrative branch. For them to administer, we either need to give them the rules or require that they create rules that are sensible and then create oversight for it. That's not what this bill does today. As I said, in no case will this create one new telework job. It simply will create a new bureaucracy, and it does so without any of the protections the motion to recommit, widely accepted by the House, brought before the elections. Additionally, creating efficiency in government is now essential. When we reconvene in January, our problem will be $1.4 trillion worth of spending--spending greater than what the American people are willing to pay or are able to pay to fund our government. That means to us that we're going to have to find a way to have less Federal workers, Federal workers that cost less, Federal workers that need less facilities. So I will continue to support telework if it means that we're not building new Federal buildings, we're not causing the infrastructure to grow; in other words, Madam Speaker, that we're saving money. I'm sad to say that this bill, when it is signed by the President, will do none of that. But the President knows, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget knows, the Vice President knows, the House knows, and certainly the Senate knows that we have a long way to go when we talk about private sector telecommuting to be as efficient as the private sector. We are not. What we do is in fact we use the word ``telecommute'' often to say, Well, look, we're using the gadgets. We must be doing better. Madam Speaker, we can do better. We should do better. I understand this is an important vote to many people who feel that the Federal workforce needs a perk, a symbol that we're going to do something for them. Madam Speaker, this is not doing something for the Federal workforce unless the American people have confidence that the Federal workforce is becoming leaner, more efficient, more effective in doing what the people want done for them. In that case, Madam Speaker, I will recommend that all of my side and as many of those that will listen on the other side of the aisle vote ``no'' today as a symbol that in fact we can do better. The guidance from the Congress should be to increase efficiency and to describe that in a way in which the Federal workforce can have confidence that we're on the same team, we're on the same side. We want them to avoid excessive commuting. We want this to be more efficient and effective. But we also want to be a Congress that provides such guidelines as necessary rather than simply a mandate for a new bureaucracy in every agency that is now going to be the telecommuting agency. With that, Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle because we did work long and hard to try to get a better bill. We sent the Senate a better bill. We now, today, can only consider what has been brought before us. I recommend a ``no'' vote and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this is a bill, an underlying bill, an underlying concept that not only do I endorse and appreciate, but I knew and worked with extensively in the private sector. There's no question in the private sector telecommuting continues to grow. But there are a couple of things I would like to straighten up out here today in consideration of this bill. First of all, Madam Speaker, every Member of Congress has a Blackberry. So do most major members of the Federal workforce. Many of us have portable devices like this iPad. The fact is there is no shortage of telecommuting tools presently at use in the Federal workforce. We are not talking about the ability to telecommute. We are talking about a new bureaucratic mandate within the Federal regime that requires each agency have a specific entity for that purpose, and we are doing so without the safeguards that my motion to recommit offered and overwhelmingly was accepted before the election. When I say before the election, I think it's also important to note, this will be the first vote after the American people said ``no'' to government waste, fraud, and abuse; government growth, government spending. And yet the Senate, before the election, stripped out of this bill something as innocuous as each agency having to show that telecommuting additions were going to be net cost savings. In other words, with all the bravado about how this wasn't going to cost but it was going to save, what was stripped out of this was any kind of assertion, not an assertion that required an audit, but just an assertion by the agency head that their efforts were going to save money. I was here for the snowstorm of last year, and I just want the American people who may not have been able to be here in Washington, D.C., to understand that it was quite a snowstorm. And I appreciate the estimate of $30 million a day of savings. But I might also remind the American people that every restaurant was open and doing great business and the parks were filled with people having snowball fights. In fact, what really happened was the Federal workforce got a paid holiday while people who had to figure out how to make a buck found a way to get their people to work so they could still sell to those Federal workers who were having a holiday. It is, in fact, more common for the Federal workforce to say, go ahead, stay at home. That probably begs the question of telecommuting. But then the question is where in this bill do we require people who are telecommuting not to get a day off because it snows since they are in their home where the snow shouldn't be affecting them? We have a lot of safeguards not in the bill. I'm convinced today with the current majority that this bill will probably pass as it is. I intend to bring back in the next Congress additional reforms and hold oversight as appropriate to make sure that we improve that which is not being dealt with today. I expect I will have the same bipartisan support that we had throughout this process in the House. I am mostly disappointed that with an overwhelming, over 303 votes here in the House for the bill as it was, that it came back to us without things that we thought should be in it. Madam Speaker, I don't want to be a partisan. But I do believe it's important that we consider that one of the items that was in this bill when it left the House was a prohibition on basically union work outside of the cover of office. We have collective bargaining agreements almost universally within the Federal Government. We also have regulations about these people whether they have to do other work or not. This bill lacks the safeguard so that somebody can basically take a Blackberry and a notebook, disappear forever and be almost unaccountable as to whether they ever did any of their core work while doing their union organizing and running activity. That's not in the best interest of the taxpayers. It's not what the last election was about. It's not what I had hoped to see. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, a point of parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. ISSA. At the end of debate, isn't it appropriate to call for the vote prior to postponing for the yeas and nays? I heard no request for it. Are we postponing further debate, even though debate has concluded, rather than a House vote and then postponing a recorded vote?

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the public service of Councilman Bob Campbell on the occasion of his retirement from the City of Vista. I commend Councilman Campbell's distinguished career and offer my thanks for his more than 20 years of dedicated public service to the City of Vista. As a native Californian, Mr. Campbell received an undergraduate degree from Stanford University and a graduate degree from the Graduate School of Business Administration at the University of Washington. He also served eight distinguished years in the U.S. Coast Guard and Coast Guard Reserve. Prior to joining the City of Vista, Mr. Campbell worked with newspaper publishers for sixteen years before starting his own computer systems consulting firm, Buena Vista Services, Inc., in 1980. It was in 1985 that Mr. Campbell began serving as Chairman of a city panel. Under Councilman Campbell's leadership, the panel's redevelopment plan was successfully approved by voters in 1987. As Vista's Economic Development Director for nearly 10 years, Councilman Campbell's leadership resulted in the attraction of more than 500 firms and commercial and retail projects to the City. In 1998, Councilman Campbell also formed and spearheaded the San Diego North Economic Development Council (EDC) where he served for three years. In 2002 Mr. Campbell became a Vista City Councilmember. In this position Councilman Campbell fought for the construction of the new Vista Civic Center and two new fire stations. Councilman Campbell also worked tirelessly with Mayor Morris Vance and the City Council to lead the initiative in converting Vista into a Charter City to gain maximum local authority. Councilman Campbell has remained an active community leader having participated on the Board of Directors for the Vista Chamber of Commerce, the Vista Boys' Club, the Vista Rotary Club, the Economic Development Association, the Boy Scouts of America and the Vista YMCA. I offer Councilman Campbell my congratulations and may he enjoy a rewarding retirement with his family. Madam Speaker, I ask you to please join me in honoring Councilman Bob Campbell and his 20 years of admirable public service to the City of Vista.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the public service of Mayor Morris Vance on the occasion of his retirement from the City of Vista. I commend Mayor Vance on his 29 years of public service. Starting with a Bachelor of Science in Political Science from Brigham Young University and a Master of Public Administration from the University of Southern California, Mr. Vance began his career by serving in various local government positions throughout the Los Angeles area. He joined the City of Vista as City Manager in 1981, a post which he served for 17 years. In the role as City Manager, Mr. Vance led the establishment of the Vista Redevelopment Agency and Redevelopment Project area, establishment of the Vista Economic Development Association (VEDA) and Downtown Commercial Revitalization Program, as well as the development of a Business Park, Industrial Park and a multi-tier Capital Improvement Program and Budgeting System. Mr. Vance was then elected Mayor of Vista in November of 2002. At the city helm, he worked with officials to put the city on a course for success. Critical programs include the Ask, Share, Know meeting program which provides a forum for residents to meet face-to-face with city officials and council members to have their questions answered about current and pending city projects. Mayor Vance was also instrumental in establishing Operation H.O.P.E., a temporary winter shelter for homeless families and women by providing them an opportunity to get back on their feet and lead them toward self-sufficiency. To improve community spirit and safety, Mayor Vance led an effort to construct the new Vista Civic Center and two new fire stations. Along with the City Council, Mayor Vance worked to convert Vista into a Charter City to gain the maximum amount of local authority. Wearing many hats, Mayor Vance also serves on the board of directors for the Regional Transportation Planning Authority, the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, the Encina Wastewater Authority and is a longtime member of the Rotary Club of Shadowridge Vista along with other regional organizations. In 2009 he was honored by the Boy Scouts of America with the Distinguished Citizen Good Scout of the Year title. Madam Speaker, I ask you to please join me in honoring Mayor Morris Vance and his 29 years of admirable public service to the City of Vista.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the honorable civil service of Claire Harrison for her twenty-nine years of service with the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) of California. Joining the water district team in 1981, Ms. Harrison has been instrumental in working on critical projects for EMWD. She spent the last twelve years of her career in Legislative Affairs where she successfully managed that department and the federal legislative program. As a result, her leadership and direction secured federal support for desalination and recycled water infrastructure that dramatically improved the water supply reliability for southwestern Riverside County. Ms. Harrison embodies EMWD's mission and values of providing superior services to the community in an effective, proficient manner. As a leader in water management, she has made a remarkable impression on the community EMWD serves. Having worked with Ms. Harrison on water needs for the 49th District of California, she is a true professional that deserved recognition for her nearly three decades of invaluable contributions to the water industry. Madam Speaker, I ask you to please join me paying tribute to Ms. Harrison's dedicated and loyal service to the Eastern Municipal Water District.

Mr. ISSA

Mr. ISSA. I thank my friend and fellow ranking member. Chairman Frank, I am perfectly happy to work with you on this. I'm perfectly happy to be associated with you. When people who are considered at least in their own districts as smart come together and realize that we reached the wrong conclusion, we allowed a bill that we worked on hard, in which each of us had victories and failures, each of us would say something was flawed, to have a flaw that was not picked up by any of us or by countless staff. That is what Senate bill 3717 at least partially undoes. The Dodd-Frank Act was not envisioned to cause the problem that it clearly caused. We can find no evidence of anybody deciding that we would simply shut down the ability for FOIA, and yet that was the effect it had. When this was brought to congressional awareness, multiple bills, including one that myself dropped and also one that Chairman Towns put, plus Senate bills, all were feverishly put in in order to unring the bell. I would say today that we are considering an A version of the unring-the-bell type bill; but I am particularly pleased that on numerous occasions, working with Ranking Member Bachus and with Chairman Frank, we have agreed that this is only a first step. It's the one you can do in the latest days of a Congress, knowing that in fact follow-on legislation is required. This is in addition to the promise that Chairman Frank made me in open session when we were unable to get some of the provisions that Chairman Towns and I had offered, had been accepted, that were rejected by the Senate. So I am pleased today that when we look and realize that we have, as Ranking Member Bachus said, we have the chairwoman of the SEC on our side, we have the chairman of both the committee that I serve on, the Government Oversight Committee and the Financial Services Committee, plus both of us as ranking members saying that sometimes you just have to take ``yes'' for an answer. The Senate has moved and moved quickly. This is a step in the right direction. For all those entities who have historically filed and believed in good faith they were entitled to freedom of information delivery, we're taking a step back to where we were. I might note that only a fraction of those applications are ever granted and the SEC is but once ever reversed when they deny FOIA. So we believe this does not open Pandora's box, that section 929I will in fact still be intact for purposes of privacy, something that we think is important. We do note, and I think we're noting in every single statement, that we need to ensure that additional work is done to make certain that no one uses FOIA as a backdoor way to receive information in litigation or other matters that they would otherwise not receive. We certainly do not want to have the SEC be a place that you withhold by any means possible information even when you have nothing to hide because, of course, as we know, voluntary compliance is what allows the SEC to do what they should do which is look for those who are not following the rules. So in my support of Senate 3717, I certainly would say it's a big step in the right direction. It's one in which I believe all four of us, as chairmen and ranking members, are here today to say we support it. We are glad that it will be in front of the President in a matter of days. In the next Congress, we will put together, with all four of our staffs, the kind of additional follow-on legislation that the American people expect after any large piece of legislation. I, for one, would like to thank Chairman Frank. I do want to be associated with his intellect and hard work and immediate grasp that this and other matters need to be followed on. I don't know about the gentleman from Alabama, but I am happy to believe that smart people don't always reach the same conclusion. But if they are smart, they work on common solutions whenever possible.