Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it may be in order at any time on Wednesday, March 7, 2007, for the Speaker to declare a recess, subject to the call of the Chair, for the purpose of receiving in joint meeting His Majesty King Abdullah II Ibn Al Hussein, King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

Mr. Chairman, today, the new Democratic Majority in the House has brought legislation to the Floor--the National Security FIRST Act--which will strengthen our national security by addressing a glaring deficiency that became public last year.

Many Members of Congress--and millions of Americans--were shocked when it was reported in 2006 that the Bush Administration had approved a deal allowing Dubai Ports World--a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates--to manage terminal operations at six major ports in the United States.

Let me be clear: There is nothing wrong with foreign investment in our nation. In fact, we have reason to encourage it. But what was shocking about the Dubai Ports World deal was that it was approved by the secretive Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States with only minimal review, and without the 45-day national security investigation that clearly should have occurred.

In fact, the deal was approved despite the fact that the Department of Homeland Security had raised security concerns. And, approval occurred without the input of senior Administration officials, such as the Secretaries of the Treasury and Homeland Security, and even the President himself.

Thus, today, I want to congratulate Chairman Frank of the Financial Services Committee for his strong leadership on this bipartisan legislation. In short, this bill addresses key failings in the current CFIUS review process.

First, it will require that in cases involving a company controlled by a foreign government that either the CFIUS Chairman (the Treasury Secretary) or the Vice-Chairman (the Homeland Security Secretary) certify that the transaction poses no national security threat, or that a 45-day security investigation occur after the initial 30-day review period. In cases where the second stage 45-day review applies, the bill requires the President to approve such transactions.

In addition, the bill improves CFIUS accountability to Congress. Recall that last year, Congress was not notified of the Dubai Ports World deal. Now, CFIUS must report to the committees of jurisdiction within five days after the final action on a CFIUS investigation.

Finally, this legislation requires that every transaction be subjected to an investigation by the Director of National Intelligence.

Again, this is important legislation that will strengthen our national security. I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to support it.

Madam Speaker, this year marks the thirtieth annivesry of the Charter 77 movement. Along with other colleagues from the Helsinki Commission, which I had the privilege of Chairing and Co-Chairing from 1985 to 1994, I rise today to commemorate Charter 77's extraordinary accomplishments, and to praise Vaclav Havel, a founding member of the Charter 77 movement and Czechoslovakia's first President after the fall of communism.

Twenty years ago this month, I led a Congressional delegation to Czechoslovakia--my first trip to that country. At that time, I was assured by Czechoslovak Government officials that Charter 77 was only a small group, and there was no need to have a dialogue with its members. In an apparent effort to underscore their point, the regime detained several Chartists to keep them from meeting with our delegation: Vaclav Havel, Petr Uhl and Jiri Dienstbier were all arrested in Prague; Miklos Duray was prevented from traveling to Prague from Slovakia; and although Petr Puspoki-Nagy made it to Prague, he was also immediately detained on his arrival.

Although I was deprived of the chance to meet these individuals in person, I was already well aware of their work. In fact, the Helsinki Commission's second hearing, held in February 1977, published the full text of the Charter 77 manifesto at the request of one of our witnesses, Mrs. Anna Faltus. We owe a special debt of gratitude to the late Mrs. Faltus, who worked tirelessly for decades as an advocate for a free Czechoslovakia. To this end, she made sure that the documents of Charter 77 and the Committee for the Defense of the Unjustly Persecuted were quickly translated and widely disseminated to policy makers and human rights advocates. Her effort made it possible for the Helsinki Commission to publish (in 1982 and in 1987) selected and representatives texts of the Charter 77 movement.

Looking back, the breadth of those documents is truly remarkably, touching on everything from the legacy of World War II to the country's economic situation; from contemporary music to nuclear energy. But the common thread that bound these diverse statements together was a commitment to promote and protect ``the right of the individual to know and act upon his rights.'' This right was freely adopted by the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic when Gustav Husak fixed his signature to the Helsinki Final Act in 1975.

It was, of course, with great interest that I discussed Charter 77, first with Czechoslovak officials during my February 1987 trip to Prague, then with Czechoslovak parliamentarians visiting Washington in June 1988 (a delegation which included Prague Communist Party boss Miroslav Stepan), and then with the Czechoslovak delegation to the 1989 Paris Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension. In these meetings, as well as in correspondence with the Czechoslovak Ambassador to the United, I was told that Charter 77 didn't represent public opinion. I was warned that siding with Charter 77 would not help bilateral relations, and I was assured that democracy was coming soon to Czechoslovakia--``socialist democracy.''

Needless to say, I was not convinced by my interlocutors: I was not convinced that Augustin Navratil was actually being treated for a mental health condition, rather than being persecuted for his religious activism. I was frankly disgusted when the Czechoslovak delegation to the Paris meeting baldly lied about Jiri Wolf, telling us he had been released early from his prison sentence as a ``humanitarian'' gesture, and then shrugging with indifference when they were caught in their lie. Most of all, I did not believe that Vaclav Havel was a criminal and Charter 77 merely an ``insignificant'' group.

In fact, in 1989 Senator Dennis DeConcini and I nominated Vaclav Havel for the Nobel Peace Prize. As Senator DeConcini said, ``[i]n spite of relentless harassment by the authorities, including imprisonment, repeated detentions, house searches, and confiscation of property, Havel has remained active in the struggle for human rights. . . Havel is now in prison, but he is not alone in his cause. In a dramatic move. . . over 700 of his colleagues--playwrights, producers, artists, and actors--signed a petition calling for his release and the release of others [similarly imprisoned]. For these people, like many others in his country, Vaclav Havel has become a symbol of an enduring and selfless commitment to human rights.''

Madam Speaker, on this 30th anniversary of the founding of the Charter 77 movement, I rise to commend and remember the courageous men and women, signatories and supporters, who paved the way for the peaceful transition from communism in Czechoslovakia and restoration of Europe, whole and free. On this anniversary, I give special tribute to Vaclav Havel, playwright and president, and his singular role in leading his country to freedom.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the balance of time on each side be enlarged by 36 minutes.

I think I have the authority to do that under the rule; it has been done in consultation with the minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 44, ``Honoring and praising the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People on the occasion of its 98th anniversary.''

Coretta Scott King once said that ``struggle is a never-ending process and freedom is never really won--you earn it and win it in every generation.'' And since 1909, generations of Americans who have fought for racial equality and the expansion of liberty have had a friend and advocate in the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

While its name entails that the NAACP seeks to advance the fortunes of African Americans, I believe that its true mission is to advance the goals of all Americans--for when we move closer to becoming a beacon of hope and opportunity for all people, regardless of race or ethnicity, we all reap the benefits.

When the light of social justice is shined in the dark corners where prejudice and bigotry still exist, our nation becomes stronger. When people who had been mistreated and oppressed become empowered to take steps towards the American Dream, our nation becomes stronger. And when we take actions that elevate the things that unite us above those that drive us apart, our nation becomes stronger.

And that is what the NAACP is all about--strengthening our nation by reminding us that while we have come a long way in our struggle for freedom and equality, we are not yet perfect, and must always remain vigilant in pursuit of a world where all men and women are treated with the respect and dignity that all human beings possess.

I'm proud to be a member of the NAACP. I'm proud to be from the state that the NAACP has called home for so many years. And I'm grateful that the NAACP has provided such strong and talented partners in working for social justice both in Maryland's Fifth Congressional District and throughout our nation as a whole.

I'd like to congratulate the NAACP on 98 years of promoting what is best about America--and I look forward to continuing to work together with NAACP members toward our shared goals of equality and prosperity for all.

I urge all Members to support this important bill.

Madam Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 165) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 166) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution 157, I demand an additional hour of debate on the concurrent resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on this legislative day, it adjourn to meet at 8 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, continuing on my unanimous consent, I would tell the Members that we do not intend to have any 1-minutes tomorrow, so that we will begin debate at 8 a.m. on this resolution.

Debate, of course, will conclude tonight at 1 a.m. so that the staff can get at least some sleep; not much, but some. And we will have continuing communications with the minority with reference to the balance of the schedule for Friday.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield my time for controlling the time to Mr. Andrews or his designee.

Mr. Speaker, 3 months ago, the American people sent a resounding message, a message for change. They voted for a new direction in our Nation, including a new direction for the war in Iraq, which will enter its fifth year next month.

This week on this House floor the Members of this great body can demonstrate that we not only have heard the voters' message, but also that we have the collective will to send one of our own.

The bipartisan resolution before us asks the Members one straightforward question to be answered. Do you approve of the President's proposal to deploy more than 20,000 additional troops in Iraq, or do you not? Thus, this resolution is a clarifying moment for the Members to say precisely where they stand on the President's plan.

There is little doubt that our Iraq policy is not succeeding. Our Commander in Chief, President Bush, acknowledged on this floor last month during his State of the Union address that, and I quote, ``Whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure.''

I voted for the authorization, and I did not vote for failure. But the policies being pursued by this administration have not led to success.

After nearly 4 years at war, after more than 3,100 of our finest sons and daughters have given the ultimate measure of sacrifice in Iraq, after more than 25,000 have been wounded, after the expenditure of more than $400 billion on this war effort by the American taxpayer, our success seems as remote as ever.

Not surprisingly, two-thirds of the American people oppose the President's escalation plan. So do many current and former senior military officials, and Prime Minister Maliki has expressed his disapproval as well.

I oppose the President's plan for several reasons. First, we simply cannot ignore the many miscalculations made by the administration about this war, from sending too few troops, to grossly underestimating the cost, to failing to properly plan for the postwar period.

The President repeatedly said that his policies were working. He was tragically wrong, just as he is wrong today, in my view, about this escalation.

Secondly, this troop escalation does not represent a new strategy. In fact, we have tried at least four escalations in the past, none of which has succeeded in quelling violence.

The time for more troops was 4 years ago, 3 years ago, perhaps even 2 years ago, but not today.

The fact is our commitment of forces has never, has never been commensurate with the risk the President says exists. Never has the President, the Commander in Chief, suggested the resources necessary to succeed. This is too little, tragically, too late.

Third, we cannot disregard the deep skepticism and warnings of our military leaders. General Abizaid, not just another soldier, but the former chief of the Central Command in charge of our effort in Iraq, has stated that, and I quote, ``More American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.'' That is the consequence General Abizaid believes of the President's policy.

Former Secretary of State Powell, one of the military leaders so successful in Iraq I, stated, and I quote again,

``I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for the purposes of suppressing the communitarian violence, this civil war, will work.'' That is General Powell.

And even Senator McCain, who supports the President's escalation nonetheless, said just last week, ``I don't think it enhances our chances for succeeding in Iraq.''

It is obvious that there is not a military solution to the violence in Iraq. We need a diplomatic surge, a surge of Iraqi responsibility.

We must implement an aggressive diplomatic strategy, as suggested by our friend, Frank Wolf, both within the region and beyond. The Iraqis must take the lead on security, and the mission of American forces must shift from combat to counterterrorism, training and logistics. And we must begin the responsible redeployment of our forces.

Now, let me close by urging Members to disregard the arguments of those who seek to mischaracterize this resolution. Some say that the resolution will demoralize our troops. In a democracy it is proper and essential that we debate the tactics and strategy we are employing when we are asking young Americans, and some not so young Americans, to be at the point of the spear. It is easy for us to talk about tactics and strategy, not so easy for those who are in harm's way.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Pace, says this debate will not adversely affect morale if we make it clear, as we have made it clear over and over and over again, that we will not abandon, we will not underman, we will not undersupply, we will not undertrain, and we will not defund those who we have put in harm's way. We will support our troops today, tomorrow and every day thereafter.

Some say that this resolution will demoralize our troops. Yet General Pace, as I said, says otherwise.

Others say that this resolution has not received adequate consideration. Yet, I tell my friends, in the first 6 weeks of this new Congress, we have held 52 House and Senate hearings. For the last 4 years this Congress has been absent without leave, and the American people know it. We did not demand accountability. We did not look at strategy. We did not question the President's policies. Fifty-two hearings have been held to date, and Chairman Lantos has announced that he will hold a full committee hearing on all pending resolutions related to Iraq when we come back from the President's Day break.

Some say that this resolution is merely symbolic. To them I simply state that the bipartisan expression of the will of this House, when it mirrors the views of the vast majority of the American public, cannot, must not, should not be casually ignored.

Some say that this resolution signals retreat in the war on terror. As one who is absolutely committed to prevailing in the war on terror, to protect our people, to protect our country and, yes, to protect my three daughters, my three grandchildren, and my great grandchild, I am absolutely committed to policies that will protect us from terror and defeat those terrorists who threaten us. Continuing to support failed strategy, however, weakens our efforts in the war on terror. It does not strengthen them.

Furthermore, our failure to implement an effective strategy in Iraq has clearly, indisputably, resulted in encouraging and enhancing the ability of terrorists to recruit and to spread their twisted, hateful, violent ideology.

Finally, my colleagues, some assert that this resolution is a first step to defunding our troops in the field. This is categorically false.

While the new majority will explore other opportunities to affect Iraq policy, our commitment to our men and women in harm's way is unwavering.

Mr. Speaker, there is not a Member of this body, not one, on either side of the aisle, who does not pray for our Nation's success in Iraq.

Our brave service men and women have performed there with valor and with great honor. They have done everything that a grateful Nation has asked of them since the beginning of this war. We will not abandon them. I say to them directly, we will not abandon you. We will support you and we will assure that you are trained and equipped for the mission that we give you.

This is a critical moment, I tell you, my colleagues, in our Nation's war effort in Iraq. The President's policy is failing and his most recent proposal promises more of the same. This resolution is a first step in our attempt to forge a new direction in Iraq, and I urge every Member to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. I was watching this debate from my office, and I was constrained to come to the floor.

There are legitimate issues raised by this resolution as to whether or not you support or do not support the escalation that has been proposed by the President. But no one ought to hide behind the troops. No one ought to come to this floor and say that this Congress, 435 of us, will not support whatever soldier or sailor or marine is deployed to Iraq. Whether it is today or tomorrow, they will have our support.

And when we say in this resolution they are serving, it means if they are serving, if the Commander in Chief has sent them there, we will support them.

And very frankly, for my friend from New Mexico to come to this floor and make the representation that somehow we have limited that support to those who currently are on the ground is not an honest representation, in my opinion.

There are those of us who disagree as to what supporting the troops means. My friend, the former chairman of the committee, just got up and said he has not gotten any calls lately, but we got a lot of calls in in 2003 and 2004 and 2005. And today, Chairman Murtha of the Appropriations Committee is saying we do not have the armored Humvees for these new troops that are going to be deployed or in the process of being deployed.

So when you come to the floor, my friends, debate the substance of this policy, but do not hide behind the troops, do not assert that anybody on this floor does not have every intention and commitment to supporting to whatever degree necessary our young men and women and, as I have said, some not so young, who are deployed in harm's way at the point of the spear. Because no one in this Congress, and our troops ought to know, that no one in this Congress will not support them when they are deployed at the point of the spear.

I will be glad to yield to my friend.

I was not referring to you, my friend. I want to make that clear.

I thank the gentleman for his observation. I am not sure the gentleman and I agree. I am not an expert in this area; I do not serve on the subcommittee or the committee. But the information that I have is that the troops that we sent in 2003 and 2004 on the ground did not have sufficient quantities of body armor for each one of them. Now, that may be inaccurate, and if the gentleman thinks that assertion is inaccurate I would be glad to yield.

Is that inaccurate?

Reclaiming my time.

Reclaiming my time, is the gentleman asserting that all of the troops who were in Humvees in 2003 and 2004 had armored Humvees or that they had all of the troops deployed in harm's way, and, by the way, being in Iraq is in harm's way wherever they may be, had sufficient body armor? Is that what the gentleman is asserting?

I thank the gentleman for his observation. But, of course, my assertion was not 1776 to 2000; it was 2003 and 2004.

But the point that I will make, and if I can conclude, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time. The point that I wanted to make, though, is irrespective of that assertion one way or the other, I believe every one of our colleagues, whatever their view on this resolution might be, all 435 have every intention and will in fact do whatever they need to protect and promote the safety of our men and women in harm's way. And the assertion, I tell my friend, that was made by the gentlewoman from New Mexico that the verbiage of this resolution says, because serving, it does not mean those who will serve, obviously, as soon as they are sent into theater, they are serving in Iraq and they are covered by this resolution. There ought to be no confusion on that issue by anybody on the floor or anybody who might be listening to this debate.

I will be glad to yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, I am glad that it is good news. I will repeat: No one in this Congress, not Chairman Skelton or Chairman Murtha or any Member on this side, will take any action that will put at risk the men and women whom we have placed at the point of the spear in harm's way. I make that representation to you, that assertion, and I make it as strongly as I can possibly make it.

This is about a policy, a policy as to whether or not we ought to send 21,000 additional people. And as the gentlewoman from New Mexico said she herself has great reservations about that policy, but rationalizes voting against the resolution which opposes that policy on an assertion that I think was not correct. And if she wanted that clarification, I am glad that I could give it to her. I thank the gentleman. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for rising, and I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

I said similar remarks, as the gentleman may know, last week. But I certainly want Karen to know, I want everybody in this House to know, that the opinions just expressed by Mr. LaHood reflect, I think, Karen, the opinions of everybody on this floor. You have done a wonderful job for the House of Representatives as an institution, a great job for your country, and we know you will be a great success in the future. And all of us stand ready to tell anybody who wants to know what an asset you have been to the House of Representatives.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the rule just recently adopted, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 63) disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, we entered today and we will be, for the next 4 days, involved in the most serious of discussions.

It is a heavy responsibility for any Member of Congress to determine whether or not to send our people in harm's way for the purposes of defending freedom. We should consider that with great solemnity and with great care. The reason for the extensive period of debate is because we believe that all Members of Congress ought to have the opportunity to express their view.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker of this House, Nancy Pelosi of California.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the balance of the time available to this side be jointly managed by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the chairman of the International Relations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I have had the opportunity to speak to Mr. Blunt, the Republican whip. I want to put Members on notice early enough so they will know before they run out of here. There are going to be votes, maybe two, at least, revotes when we come out of the Committee of the Whole and into the full House.

There will be at least two votes. In conjunction with the Republican whip, we have agreed that they will be 2-minute votes. The reason I am giving that announcement now, I want all the Members to know they will be 2-minute votes so that we can try to get Members out of here on time.

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further proceedings today in the House, the Chair be authorized to reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any question that otherwise could be subjected to a 5-minute vote under clause 8 or 9 of rule XX.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Republican whip for yielding.

On Monday the House will meet at 12:30 for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. There will be no votes before 6:30 p.m. as is our practice.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for morning hour, and at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m., and on Friday the House will meet at 9 a.m.

In addition to further suspension bills, a complete list of those bills for the week will be announced later this week, we will consider a small business tax relief bill, and a resolution regarding the war in Iraq.

Because we intend to make sure that every Member who wishes to speak to that matter will have the opportunity to do so, Members should be advised that we will have long days next week, meaning perhaps as late as midnight, and Friday could be a full day in order to complete our work for the week.

Mr. Speaker, we have told our Members that by Monday morning at 10 a.m. we ought to have that resolution available.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. There have been, I would tell the gentleman, some 22 hearings on Iraq by the Government Reform Committee, by the Armed Services Committee, by the International Relations Committee, by the Appropriations subcommittee and by the Committee on Intelligence. There have been extensive hearings on this bill. This is a resolution. It is being done in conjunction with the Armed Service Committee and the International Relations Committee. I do not anticipate that there will be a markup of the resolution.

That is what I anticipate, the leaders being Mr. Skelton, Mr. Lantos, and others. We expect there to be Members on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, we believe that the issue of the President's policy, which was announced some weeks ago, is an extraordinarily serious question confronting the country and the Congress. We expect the resolution to be very straightforward and very simple.

We expect the resolution to deal only with the proposal the President has made for escalation. We believe we should present that to the House of Representatives as an issue on which they can make their advice to the President of the United States and to the Executive Department.

So the answer to the gentleman's question is that we do not believe, as you have not in the past on similar resolutions, I remember your so- called Murtha resolution, we believe that there will be a direct question propounded to the House which every Member can speak to for 3 to 4 days, and then give their advice on.

We are grappling with this, I will tell my friend. We believe the American public, the American people, have the right to know where their representatives stand on the central and sole issue that the resolution will raise.

There may be other issues that you might want to raise at some point in time. And there are going to be at least three pieces of legislation, as you know, that will be coming down the pike on this issue: the supplemental, the authorization bill, and the appropriation bill for 2008.

We expect all of those bills to be relatively broad in their treatment of various different aspects. But I will tell the gentleman, frankly, because we feel this is such a critically important question and that the clarity of the question and the clarity of the response is so important that we are trying to carefully consider how we can assure that there is no confusion as to the answer that this House gives.

I thank my friend for yielding.

The gentleman is correct. On February 15, of course, the existing CR expires in terms of authorization for the funding of the departments that were unfunded in the budget cycle, in the appropriation cycle, so that we need to take action to keep the government operating for all agencies other than Homeland Security and the Defense Department.

We are trying to plan on the contingencies. Obviously, one of the alternatives you mentioned is one that we would hope might be followed, and that is the adoption of the House-passed CR, which we think is one that obviously a broad number of this House supported in a bipartisan fashion. We would hope that the other body would.

But if they do not move ahead, we are discussing the possibility of some short-term CR. But those discussions have not moved beyond the contemplation that they may be necessary. They have not come to any decision as to how long it would be.

Clearly, one of the problems, as the gentleman knows, is we are leaving for a week for the Presidents' Day District Work Period, so that we would not be here at least for the following week. One of the reasons obviously Friday may be a very long day will be because the CR will have expired if we don't pass something, and we may have to deal with it that day, as well as ending the debate that we referred to previously.

Will my friend yield?

I don't want to get into a long debate, but I do want to make an observation.

Mr. Dreier was critical that we put today's bill on the floor, and he indicated he thought it would take just a few minutes to pass and that everybody would be for it. The Members were hoping that would be the case. But you never can tell.

If the gentleman will yield.

I think the expression you saw was not on the merits of the amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. tomorrow; that when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning hour debate; that when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, February 13, 2007, for morning hour debate as though after May 14, 2007, thereafter to resume its session at 10 a.m.; and further, when the House adjourns on Thursday, February 15, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. on Friday, February 16.

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