Support for the Museum of the History of Polish Jews Act of 2007

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 813 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 813.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 813 provides for consideration of the conference report for H.R. 1429, the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007. This is the standard rule for a conference report. It waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. It also provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.

Madam Speaker, for over 40 years Head Start has served as the premier educational and developmental program for America's children, more than 20 million American children and their families. Head Start works. Head Start works because it is a well-researched, comprehensive initiative that combines all of the children's educational needs, their health care needs, and it requires parental involvement. Years later, after four decades of Head Start, the research shows that children that participate in Head Start are

more likely to graduate from high school than their peers.

Head Start is a comprehensive approach to child health nutrition and learning, and it is one of our best tools in the struggle to close the achievement gap. The achievement gap for children in poverty in America must be tackled, and Head Start tackles the achievement gap through cognitive social and emotional child development, each of which is a key contributor to entering elementary school ready to succeed.

Today, 20 percent of America's 12 million children under the age of 6 unfortunately live in poverty. We know that a family's income level greatly affects their child's access to educational opportunities. The reality of poverty for so many American children in poverty is tied to their low success rates in schools.

But in America, family income simply should not impede a child's educational opportunities, and this is where Head Start comes in to level the playing field. Back home in Florida in my community in the Tampa Bay area, over 5,300 children are served by Head Start. But we've got thousands of children that are eligible and are on the waiting list. Why are they on the waiting list? Because previous Congresses have failed to properly support our Head Start kids, and this White House has flat-lined budgets over the years; so our kids merely have been treading water.

There have been no improvements or increases in funding since 2003. And with inflation, it has been very difficult to maintain the well- known, high-quality elements in Head Start. But the good news is that this Congress will change that today and make the smartest investment in our country's future workforce. And the research statistics bear repeating; children that participate in Head Start are more likely to graduate from high school.

We're going to put more children on a path to success today when we pass this bill and this rule. We're going to improve teacher and classroom quality. We're going to strengthen the focus on school readiness. We're going to expand access so children that are on the waiting list can enter Head Start classrooms. We're going to strengthen those all-important comprehensive services of health care and nutrition. We're going to increase the number of children in early Head Start because the research also shows that it is critical for child brain development that they have interaction by the age of 3, when their brains are developing. We're going to focus on allowing more homeless children to enroll and do a better job for children who are just learning English.

This year marks four decades of success for this holistic wraparound initiative that empowers all of us. These children are eager and ready to learn if we give them the tools.

The administration's slow-motion cuts to Head Start will now be reversed because this Congress, in a bipartisan way, but led by Democrats, is committed to raising strong and healthy children, and Head Start prepares our children to succeed in school and in life.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, a member of the Education and Labor Committee and an outspoken advocate for America's kids, Ms. Woolsey.

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy hearing the ranking member from the Rules Committee, because 1 year ago, the American people demanded a new direction, to make America safer, to help restore the American Dream, to restore accountability and fiscal responsibility to the people's government. This 110th Congress has brought new faces, new energy and a steadfast commitment to a new direction.

In January, the first female Speaker of the House in American history gaveled open the Congress in honor of America's children, and we will keep that commitment today by acting on the Head Start bill in this rule.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I am happy to debate the record of this Congress under Democratic leadership. The Congress is focused on a new direction, first, to make America safer. We have already taken action to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations to protect America from terrorism. This Congress has passed the largest veterans health care funding increase in the history of the VA. We have adopted energy security legislation that will reduce the threat of global climate change. We continue to hold the White House accountable for this unending war in Iraq.

In addition, this Congress is restoring the American Dream because now the law of the land is the largest college age expansion since the GI Bill in 1944, where we raised the Pell Grant and we cut the interest rate on student loans. It has been this Congress, and this is important if you are keeping track of the record of this Congress, it was this Congress that raised the minimum wage for millions of Americans. We have also adopted an innovation agenda promoting 21st century jobs in a global economy. We have sent aid to the gulf coast for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and for the millions of Americans that continue to struggle day to day with the impact of those disasters. And we are fighting for health care, to expand health care to 10 million more American children.

Madam Speaker, we have also adopted a widely acclaimed and landmark lobby and ethics reform bill. And it has been this Congress that has returned to financial sanity and fiscal responsibility by adhering to pay-as-you-go discipline, no new deficit spending.

So I am very pleased to debate the record of this Congress on the floor of the House. We will work in a bipartisan way to build consensus. More than two-thirds of this legislation has passed in a bipartisan manner. We will strive to find common ground where we can, like here on the Head Start bill. But where we cannot, we will stand our ground, like on the Iraq bill that we will bring later today.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to continue the debate on this important rule, the bipartisan Head Start conference report, by recognizing for 1 minute a member of the Education and Labor Committee, my good friend and colleague from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).

Madam Speaker, I am the last speaker for our side, so I will reserve the balance of my time until the gentleman from Florida has made his closing remarks.

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

Madam Speaker, by passing the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007 and this rule, we will build on the great success of Head Start for America's hardworking families. I would like to salute the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, George Miller; subcommittee Chair, Dale Kildee; the ranking member, Mr. McKeon; and Congressman Castle from the committee, and all the committee members from Education and Labor for their wonderful work on this Head Start bill.

I would also like to thank the parents across America who are struggling to provide all that they can for their children. We are on their side. This Democratic Congress is charting a new direction with wise investments in education and health care for our kids, which are certain to pay dividends in the years to come.

Madam Speaker, this is an important day for America because Congress is going to keep the promise that it made four decades ago to children who are born with the same potential but, because of their life circumstances, are in need of a little extra attention, health care, nutrition and the guiding hand of a knowledgeable and talented teacher, which together provides them with a true ``head start.'' I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 813 Offered by Mr. Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. The House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the

bill, H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military

construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related

agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and

for other purposes, and agrees to the conference requested by

the Senate thereon. The Speaker shall appoint conferees

immediately, but may declare a recess under clause 12(a) of

rule I for the purpose of consulting the Minority Leader

prior to such appointment. The motion to instruct conferees

otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees

instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the

Speaker in the legislative schedule within two additional

legislative days after adoption of this resolution.

(The information contained herein was provided by

Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the

109th Congress.)

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous

question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.

A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote

against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow

the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an

alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be

debating.

Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of

Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the

previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or

control the consideration of the subject before the House

being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous

question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the

subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling

of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the

House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes

the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to

offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the

majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated

the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to

a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to

recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:

``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman

from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to

yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first

recognition.''

Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic

majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is

simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on

adopting the resolution . . . . [and] has no substantive

legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is

not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of

the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual

published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page

56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using

information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American

Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is

defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition

member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages

an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the

pending business.''

Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,

the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a

refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a

special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the

resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,

section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the

motion for the previous question on a resolution reported

from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member

leading the opposition to the previous question, who may

offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time

for debate thereon.''

Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does

have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only

available tools for those who oppose the Democratic

majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the

opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference report, and I want to join in commending first the managers on both sides of the aisle, our friends from Florida, Ms. Castor and Mr. Diaz-Balart, and of course Mr. Miller, Mr. McKeon, and Mr. Castle, and all those who have been involved.

The Head Start program is a very important program. It has proved to be successful. And I'm pleased that we have a measure that is going to, I believe, become law and ensure that we are able, as we look towards preparing children for that very critical K-12 education, which we all know is facing very serious challenges, the Head Start program can help as they launch into that challenge.

Madam Speaker, I want to take my time, and Mr. Diaz-Balart and I were just talking about an op-ed piece that was written by the former staff director of the Committee on Rules, Don Wolfensberger, and it got a response in today's Roll Call that I think is a very important one. And I think that, in light of the fact that we're debating rules here, this is a debate on the rule, and we've seen some real challenges when it has come to ensuring that the American people have their right to be heard here on the House floor. I think that I will share an article. And at this time, I would like to insert this article into the Record, Mr. Wolfensberger's op-ed piece.

[From Roll Call, Nov. 12, 2007]

Minority's Motion To Recommit Should Not Be Curtailed

(By Don Wolfensberger)

It is the height of political arrogance for the majority

party in the House of Representatives to dictate which

minority party motions are legitimate and which are not. Yet

that is exactly what the Democratic leadership is threatening

through possible House rules changes governing the motion to

recommit.

The motion to recommit a bill to committee with

instructions to amend it was originally used primarily as a

majority party device to make last-minute, minor corrections

before final passage. All that changed in 1909 when Speaker

Joe Cannon (R-Ill.) temporarily headed off a bipartisan

effort to amend House rules and remove him as chairman and a

member of the Rules Committee. Cannon recognized conservative

Democratic Rep. John Fitzgerald (N.Y.) to offer a substitute

amendment that, among other things, guaranteed the minority a

final opportunity to get a vote on its position using the

motion to recommit with instructions. (Cannon would still be

booted from Rules in a bipartisan revolt the following year.)

The minority's right was slowly chipped away when Democrats

last ran the House. Beginning in the early 1980s, Democratic

Speakers and their Rules Committee majority minions used an

obscure 1934 precedent to justify not only limiting the

contents of the minority's instructions but also eventually

denying them the right to offer any instructions. Republicans

fiercely fought these limits at every turn and vowed that if

they came to power the minority's right to offer its

alternative in a motion to recommit with instructions would

be fully restored. They fulfilled that promise upon taking

control of the House in January 1995, and the Democratic

minority enjoyed the right unimpeded over the 12 years of

Republican control.

Nothing in the guaranteed right limits the minority to a

motion that immediately adopts an amendment--the

``forthwith'' motion. The minority also may move to send a

bill physically back to committee with instructions to hold

more hearings, conduct a study or make specified changes in

the legislation. This latter device, to recommit with

instructions to report back an amendment ``promptly''

(instead of ``forthwith'') has been unnerving Democratic

leaders every time Republicans have used it to raise

politically sensitive issues. In two instances the majority

withdrew bills from the floor rather than risk having them

sent back to committee.

The most recent example was the leadership's decision to

pull the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act amendments in

the face of a likely GOP motion to recommit with instructions

to ``promptly'' report back an amendment to exempt from FISA

court coverage any surveillance of al-Qaida or other

terrorist groups.

Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (Md.) argues that

such motions are offered simply for ``political purposes''

rather than for the ``substantive purposes'' of ``trying to

change policy.'' At the same time he concedes that Democrats

used such tactics when they were in the minority. The only

apparent difference is that Republicans have had a higher

success rate with their recommit motions (though the only

ones to succeed so far have been ``forthwith'' motions).

The majority is attempting to impose its notion that the

only ``legitimate'' role of the minority party is to offer

substantive policy alternatives in their recommit motions for

instant incorporation in a bill. One way Democrats might try

to enforce this concept is to only allow the minority to

offer ``forthwith'' motions to recommit so that legislation

can move immediately to final passage after the motion is

voted. This ``amend it now or forever hold your peace''

approach overlooks one important role of an opposition party,

and that is to oppose.

Opposing legislation does not carry with it the obligation

to offer responsible policy alternatives that conform to the

majority's timetable for passing a bill (especially when the

minority is being blocked from offering any amendments on a

record-breaking 35 percent of major bills). Opposition may

include not only trying to defeat a bill, but also to slow it

down, including sending it back to a committee for more work.

Yes, a straight motion to recommit without instructions

would accomplish this same purpose. But who is to say that

the minority should not be able to score its own political

points by sending a bill back to committee with a message

attached? After all, the majority routinely gets plenty of PR

mileage out of reporting and passing bills on its political

agenda. To assert that the minority is playing politics with

its motions to recommit while the majority is somehow above

such things in advancing its bills is laughable.

The difference, the majority would have us believe, is that

it is achieving a serious public policy purpose for the

betterment of humankind while the minority is merely engaging

in ``cheap shot'' political tricks with no redeeming social

value. That may be true at times, but the minority should be

allowed to stand or fall on public and media perceptions of

its actions--whether they be seen as foolish or heroic. The

majority also will stand or fall on public perceptions of the

quality of its legislative enactments and may well look just

as foolish if well-intentioned bills produce bad results.

At a time when Congressional Democrats are under heavy fire

and record low public approval ratings for a lackluster

performance (including their inability to put even one of the

12 regular appropriations bills on the president's desk over

a month after the start of the fiscal year), they would do

well to spend more time honing their governance skills and

less trying to control minority party behavior.

This paper, Roll Call, which we all get around here on the Hill, has been very critical of whichever party has been in control. I will say that when we were in the majority, this paper was often very critical of us. And today they have an editorial. Again, this is not Republicans speaking. It's not Republicans whining. It's not Republicans claiming that their rights are being trampled on. This is from the editorial page of today's Roll Call, and the editorial is entitled as follows, Madam Speaker, it's entitled ``Let 'Em Move.''

``Embarrassed though House Democratic leaders may be by Republican

success in proposing, and, often, passing politically loaded motions to recommit, it would be an outrage for the majority to limit the minority's right to do so.

``Despite promises to manage the House on a more open basis than Republicans did during their 12-year rule, Democrats have been every bit as authoritarian, prohibiting any floor amendments, for instance, at more than double the rate of the previous Congress.'' I'm going to repeat that, Madam Speaker, ``more than double the rate of the previous Congress,'' the number of closed rules that they've had. ``Motions to recommit legislation to committees with instructions on how to alter it are often the only opportunity the minority has to affect the legislative process.

``When they actually win a majority on the House floor, because a number of Democrats vote with Republicans, they constitute a huge embarrassment to Democratic leaders. This has happened 21 times this year, versus practically never during Republican rule, and each time Republicans have crowed that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her team `have lost control of the floor.' '' And let me remind you, Madam Speaker, I am simply reading from the editorial page of today's Roll Call.

They go on to say, ``Democratic leaders routinely fume at the practice, as when House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer accused the GOP of using the motion `for political purposes, not substantive purposes . . . not to change policy, but to try to construct difficult political votes for Members,' meaning potentially vulnerable Democrats.

``As Roll Call reported last month, Democrats are searching for ways to change House rules to limit the minority's right to propose motions to recommit. They have done so before, so far without success--once, because Republicans halted proceedings on the House floor to protest the attempt. We suggest that Democrats just drop the idea and learn to live with the GOP motions as a legitimate part of legislative work in a democracy.

``It's certainly true that many of the Republican motions have been politically designed, especially repeated motions to deny government benefits to illegal immigrants. Any Democrat who cast a vote against the measure, even if government aid was already barred by law, might well fear that it would be used by a potential opponent in a political commercial.

``At the same time, many of the GOP motions have been substantive and have gained majority support because they contained popular ideas or posed politically difficult choices.'' Roll Call goes on to write, ``Examples include a ban on Federal funding to colleges that prohibit military recruiting on campus and an increase in funding for missile defense.''

Madam Speaker, this Roll Call editorial reads, ``On two occasions, GOP motions were so threatening to the Democrats' purposes that they actually pulled legislation on terrorist wiretapping and voting rights for the District of Columbia.

``Rather than limit one of the minority's few rights to affect legislation, we suggest that Democrats expand those rights by allowing Republicans to offer amendments on the floor. Would some of them be `purely political'? Of course. But more open and democratic debate also might produce better policy and reduce partisan rancor.''

Now, again, Madam Speaker, those are not my words. Those are the words of the editorial board of the Roll Call as printed in today's paper. I want to say again, this paper was often critical of us when we were in the majority, and they have now, I believe, been right on target in pointing to the fact that the notion of trying to deny the American people their opportunity to be heard through this motion to recommit would be a horrible thing. I believe the Democratic majority, Madam Speaker, should, in fact, follow this encouragement from Roll Call and allow more amendments to be made in order.

I also want to say that I will join with my friend when he seeks to defeat the previous question on this rule so for the 11th time, we will be seeking to bring assistance to our veterans to the floor. This is Veterans Week. We marked Veterans Day Monday. I will say that it is absolutely imperative that any Member of the House who wants to ensure that we have the resources necessary for our veterans should vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can, in fact, get that assistance that they so desperately need.

Madam Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

I would simply say to my friend, I joined in heralding the selection of my fellow Californian, Ms. Pelosi, as the first woman, the first Italian American Speaker of the House of Representatives. It was a great day for this institution. I should say she was the first Californian as well. But I will say this, the record that was outlined in today's Roll Call is one which can't be denied by either the Members of the majority or the minority.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss my vote on July 28 against cloture--to end debate--on the motion to proceed to S. 3297, the so-called Reid omnibus bill or ``Coburn package.'' As I stated on the Senate floor Monday, July 28, it is my inclination that the majority leader called for a vote on cloture on proceeding to this bill in order to dislodge the pending legislation on oil speculation. By using his position of power, he seeks to force the Senate to prematurely move away from the No. 1 issue facing the people from my State and the Nation namely energy legislation.

I did not support cloture to move to the Reid omnibus bill not because I do not support many of its provisions, rather because I believe we should complete work on energy legislation before moving on to other matters. Further, I am seeking my right as a U.S. Senator to offer amendments to a bill in a fair and balanced legislative process.

For instance, Senator Kohl and I had a bipartisan amendment prepared to offer to the speculation bill that would have brought OPEC nations under U.S. antitrust laws to prohibit them from meeting in a room, lowering production and supply, and thus raising prices. Unfortunately, this effort was denied by the majority leader's blocking of amendments by filling the so-called amendment tree, disallowing mine and a number of other amendments that ought to be considered.

This procedure is nothing new for this majority leader who has filled the amendment tree on 15 occasions in the current 110th Congress, surpassing all other majority leaders in modern history. As a result of the majority leader's curtailing Senate procedure and amendments, I have been faced with voting against cloture on measures I would have ordinarily supported including this past Saturday's vote on LIHEAP. I have also opposed cloture in instances such as the Lieberman-Warner global warming bill which was considered the first week of June--2 to 6. In that case, the majority leader filled the amendment tree at the first opportunity and filed cloture on the bill without ever allowing consideration of amendments. The 5-day debate culminated in a fait accompli cloture vote that failed on June 6.

Most recently, I voted against cloture to move to the Reid omnibus bill that was a conglomeration of legislation that has been described as non-controversial and may benefit a wide variety of interests. As I stated on the Senate floor on Monday, July 28, I am supportive of most, if not all of the substance in this bill. In fact, I am a cosponsor of six of the items.

I support and have worked to pass a number of the Judiciary Committee-related bills in the proposed omnibus. For example, I am an original cosponsor of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Protection Act, S. 2982, which makes changes in the grant program for centers for runaway youths. I am also a cosponsor of the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2008, S. 2304, which would provide grants for the improved mental health treatment and services provided to offenders with mental illness. In addition, I am a cosponsor of the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act, S. 535, which authorizes funding to solve pre-1970 civil rights crimes. Moreover, in committee, I supported a Federal commission to commemorate the bicentennial of the writing of the Star-Spangled Banner and the War of 1812, S. 1079.

Additionally, I voted in favor of the following child protection bills which were passed by the Judiciary Committee: The Combating Child Exploitation Act of 2008, S. 1738, which authorizes grants to combat child exploitation; and the Drug Endangered Children Act of 2007, S. 1210, which extends a grant program directed at drug-endangered children.

I directed my staff to work to clear the child exploitation bills from the omnibus package in the same manner I worked to pass the Adam Walsh Act without extraneous add-ons during the 109th Congress. To that end, my staff worked with Senator Coburn's staff to draft a proposed compromise child exploitation bill that includes the key provisions of the child pornography and exploitation legislation in the proposed omnibus, as well as important legislation to strengthen the powers of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the SAFE Act, which was omitted from the omnibus bill.

My support is also invested in efforts to maintain the natural beauty of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed while simultaneously preserving its resources for the communities it serves. S. 2707, The Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Water Trails Network Continuing Authorization Act, will permanently authorize appropriations for these vital programs. I cosponsored this legislation because I believe it is a critical organization whose mission to protect the bay is vital for the communities affected by this watershed.

Another environmental act I have fervently supported and of which I am an original cosponsor, is S. 496, the Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of 2008. The bill renews the Appalachian Regional Commission for 5 years--2007-2011--and authorizes $510 million to be appropriated over that timeframe for the Commission's economic development activities in distressed rural counties.

Numerous health care provisions I have worked hard for can also be found in this package, including S. 1382, which establishes a registry of those suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, ALS, better known as Lou Gehrig's disease. The registry will gather data about those who are diagnosed with the disease to better understand and research the illness. As Ranking Member of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education--LHHS--Appropriations Subcommittee, I support research and an ALS registry. I worked to provide $39 million for NIH research of ALS in 2008 and $2.8 million to plan the ALS registry.

I am also a cosponsor of S. 1183, the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act, to expand paralysis research at the National Institutes of Health, NIH, and set up a network to allow patients and their families to quickly learn the result of clinical trials on paralysis rehabilitation drugs. The LHHS fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill provided $64 million for NIH spinal cord research.

The package also included bills, H.R. 3112, S. 1810 intended to create a new Federal grant program to pay for information and support services regarding Down syndrome and other prenatally or postnatally diagnosed conditions. While awaiting these authorization bills, I have worked with Senator Harkin to get a jump start on these much-needed activities by including $1 million to establish the congenital disabilities program in the fiscal year 2009 Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations bill. In addition, the Labor-HHS Subcommittee provided almost $1 million to the CDC in fiscal year 2009 for awareness activities related to Down syndrome.

One of the bills, H.R. 477, would permit the issuing of grants to states for stroke care systems. As ranking member of the Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee, I have worked to increase CDC funding for heart disease and stroke activities in the States to over $50 million and NIH funding for stroke research to over $340 million in fiscal year 2008.

Another bill, S 1375, would establish a grant program for services to mothers suffering from postpartum depression. As ranking member of the Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee, I have worked with Chairman Harkin to include $4.9 million for a first-time motherhood initiative within the maternal and child health block grant.

I also support S. 675, the Training for Realtime Writers Act of 2007. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires 100 percent closed captioning for all new English broadcast programming by January 1, 2006. That deadline has come and gone. There are not enough real time writers and captioners to meet this unfunded mandate out in the workforce. Furthermore, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires 100 percent closed captioning for all new Spanish broadcast programming by January 1, 2010. America is very far from achieving this goal. S. 675 will assist with training the workforce to provide closed captioning for the 30 million Americans who are deaf or hard-of-hearing.

I support H.R. 3320, the Support for the Museum of the History of Polish Jews Act of 2007, which requires assistance from the Department of State to support the development of a permanent collection at the Museum of the History of Polish Jews in Warsaw, Poland. It is in the national interest of the United States to encourage the preservation and protection of artifacts associated with the heritage of U.S. citizens who trace their forbearers to other countries and to encourage the collection and dissemination of knowledge about that heritage. Most recently, I traveled to Poland on August 27, 2007, and observed fist hand the importance of museums that examine Poland in WW II, specifically the Polish uprising and the Home Army. The Museum of the History of Polish Jews will complement the current museum facilities in Warsaw by preserving and presenting the history of the Jewish people in Poland, which had the largest Jewish population in Europe at the beginning of World War II.

Having outlined a number of priorities and areas of support I have with this omnibus bill, let the record show that I support the package as a whole. However, as evidenced by my vote against cloture on the motion to proceed to the bill, I believe the energy situation is too important to set aside until we have completed or frankly even started our work on it by allowing amendments to be considered. It has been said on this floor that explaining opposition to this omnibus bill to our constituents will be difficult. While this premonition may have some merit,

I trust that the people of Pennsylvania and the Nation will support efforts to deal with high energy prices and encouraging the kind of open and fair debate that leads to better policies across the board.

I reinitiate my suggestion that the Senate stay in session during the month of August, if the majority leader would hold a legitimate session that provides the kind of deliberation that has led many to call the U.S. Senate ``the greatest deliberative body in the world.'' Members of this body should be prepared to work as long and hard as necessary in order to reach a solution to the energy crisis not based upon political appeasement, but results. It is time we allow debate and compromise to reverberate through this chamber as we find areas of agreement in the best tradition of the Senate.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It's important for the future of our children that they develop the skills and receive the education necessary to make them a success later in life. Unfortunately, many children begin their education without a proper foundation, putting them at a disadvantage that has long-term effects on their education. We must do all we can so that low-income children do not begin their education at a disadvantage, and that is why Head Start was created.

In order to give the children the proper foundation they need to begin their education, the Head Start program provides comprehensive early child development services to about 900,000 children from low- income families. These services prepare children to enter kindergarten with a proper educational foundation for their continued educational success to hopefully break the chain of poverty. The underlying bipartisan conference report builds on the success of the program and alleviates some of its shortcomings.

The bill authorizes over $7 billion in fiscal year 2008. For fiscal year 2009, it authorizes a 4.1 percent increase. And for fiscal year 2010, there's an additional 4.5 percent increase.

It is important that the children in Head Start receive the best education possible. There are several provisions in the conference report that will help with that goal. First, the legislation seeks to ensure that a greater number of early Head Start teachers are better trained and educated in early childhood development, with a focus on infant toddler development, no later than September 30, 2012. Additionally, the conference report requires that at least 50 percent of Head Start teachers nationwide in center-based programs have a baccalaureate or advanced degree in early childhood education or related field by September 30, 2013.

Madam Speaker, competition encourages better quality. As recommended by a 2005 GAO study, this legislation seeks to increase competition among Head Start grantees to help weed out poor performers and foster stronger programs.

There is also a need for greater oversight of the program grantees. This legislation requires Head Start agencies to create a formal structure of program governance for assessing the quality of services received by the Head Start children and families, and for making decisions related to program design and implementation.

The bill also seeks greater transparency and disclosure regarding how Head Start funds are spent. This will help prevent abuse and further ensure that Federal Head Start funds reach the disadvantaged children that they are meant to reach.

The conference report kept the House's unanimously passed motion to instruct language limiting the compensation of a Head Start employee to Executive Level II, which equals $168,000. This is to prevent Head Start employees from receiving excessive salaries and bonuses, like in some past experiences.

With regard to a child's eligibility in a Head Start program, the conference report allows Head Start agencies to serve children whose parents earn 130 percent above the poverty level. The conference report caps the amount of participants that can be served at the increased level to 35 percent of all participants, and only if the agency can prove that they are serving all eligible participants at the poverty level.

Other important provisions included in the conference report are to continue the eligibility of faith-based organizations as Head Start agencies. Head Start has a proud history of inclusion of faith-based organizations. Approximately 80 grantees have religious affiliations.

With regard to our children's safety, the conference report requires background checks for those who transport children to Head Start centers.

I wish to thank both Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon for their bipartisan work on this important legislation. This important legislation goes to show, Madam Speaker, that when we are willing to work together and compromise, we can bring forth good legislation with bipartisan support.

I urge my colleagues to support the conference report, which I believe is instrumental to the educational success of many children.

At this time, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier.

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

Madam Speaker, the record brought out today by the Roll Call editorial, that I am very pleased, by the way, that our ranking member brought forth and read into the Record, I think is important for a number of reasons.

Again, I was also here when the distinguished Speaker was elected in January. I recall the promises at that time and during the campaign, the electoral campaign that preceded that ceremony in January. The promises were, and I am sure they will be recalled, to have a more open process, a more transparent House. So the reason why I think it is most appropriate now to bring out the record that Roll Call in

an editorial has outlined is that instead of seeing, during this year, this first year of this Congress, a more open process, a more transparent process, a more democratic process, what we have seen is a more than doubling of the closed rules, of the gag rules, if you will, the gag rules that don't permit any amendments on legislation.

Since we are discussing the rule, by the way, on legislation that is an example of bipartisanship, the Head Start program is one that has been supported from its inception in a bipartisan manner, but we are discussing the rule, the means to debate this legislation, the procedure, if you will, to debate the legislation, I think it's appropriate to bring out the more than doubling by a majority that promised more transparency and more democracy in the running of the House, a more than doubling of gag rules that prohibit debate, that prohibit any amendments for debate. So I think that is appropriate to bring forth. And I commend Roll Call that, yes, was very critical when we were in the majority of many of the things that happened at that time. But a doubling, more than doubling of the impropriety, of the gag rules by a majority that promised more transparency is not only important to bring out but I think it is most unfortunate.

At this time, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to a distinguished colleague who has worked so much on this legislation in an admirable way, as he has on many issues of great importance to the American people, Mr. Castle of Delaware.

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege at this time to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Education Committee, Mr. McKeon of California.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and move toward passing a conference report on the bipartisan Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations act. The House passed this veterans affairs and military funding bill on June 15 by a vote of 409-2, with the Senate following suit and naming conferees on September 6. Unfortunately, the majority leadership in the House has refused to move the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. They have even refused to name conferees.

Why has the majority decided to hold off on moving this bill that has such bipartisan support? Well, according to several publications, including Roll Call, the majority intends to hold off sending appropriations bills to President Bush so that they can use an upcoming anticipated veto, actually, the veto of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, to serve as ``an extension of their successful public relations campaign on the SCHIP program.'' Fortunately, that purely political move failed last week when the Senate removed the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill from the Labor-HHS bill.

Recently the Republican leader, Mr. Boehner, took a step toward naming House Republican conferees. Now the Speaker must follow suit and take the steps necessary to ensure that work can begin on writing the final veterans funding bill that can be enacted into law.

Madam Speaker, every day that the majority chooses not to act on this bill, our Nation's veterans lose $18.5 million. Our veterans deserve better than that; they deserve better than partisan gamesmanship holding back their funding. I urge my colleagues to help move this important legislation and oppose the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass

the bill (H.R. 3320) to provide assistance for the Museum of the History of Polish Jews in Warsaw, Poland.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill and yield myself such time as I may consume.

First of all, I would like to commend and thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), my good friend and my colleague, for his sponsorship of this important legislation, and I also want to thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and the gentlewoman from Florida, our senior ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, for their support of this legislation.

This bill that was introduced by my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey, is a bill that seeks to preserve the cultural heritage of Poland's Jewish population. Mr. Speaker, the history of the Jewish people in Poland dates back over a millennium, when the country initially provided one of Europe's most tolerant homes for the Jewish people and housed one of the world's most vibrant Jewish communities. This tolerance waned from the 17th century onwards, as incidents of political and personal anti-Semitism began to increase.

However, when Poland regained its independence in the early 20th century, its Jewish population remained one of the largest in the world. Indeed, in 1939, over 3 million of the Jewish people lived in Poland, comprising the largest Jewish population of any country in Europe. Mr. Speaker, this situation changed radically when the Nazis occupied Poland, as over 90 percent of Poland's Jewish population was brutally killed or murdered and tortured during the Holocaust. Of the few who survived, around 200,000 people, most emigrated from Poland. Many came to the United States, while others fled to Israel and South America.

Mr. Speaker, estimates of Poland's Jewish population range from 3,500 to 15,000, out of a total population of over 38 million. This dramatically reduced post-war Jewish population has led to some false claims that there were no Jews in Poland. Given the long history of Poland's Jews, combined with the tragic decline of their population during the Holocaust, it is singularly important that steps are taken to preserve and protect their cultural heritage. Indeed, the nearly 9 million Americans who claim Polish lineage will benefit from visible reminders of their forebearers.

Mr. Speaker, for almost over 10 years now, a team of international experts has worked tirelessly to establish a Museum of the History of the Polish Jews for this very purpose. This museum aims to preserve the history and culture of Jewish people in Poland over the last 1,000 years, beginning with their 11th century emigration from Western Europe to escape persecution in their vibrant community between the world wars.

Mr. Speaker, the City of Warsaw and the Polish Government have been active supporters and contributors to this project. In 1997, the city donated the land near the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising Memorial on which to construct this new museum. This area is located in Warsaw's former Jewish quarter, which previously housed a thriving community of about 400,000 Jewish people.

Mr. Speaker, in 2005, two years ago, the city and the government donated 40 million zlotys, currently worth about $14.5 million, for the museum's construction. In the year 2005, again, two years ago, a Finnish architectural firm was selected to design the project. In June of this year, Polish authorities broke ground at the site. Construction is expected to take two years, enabling the museum to open by the year 2010.

This bill authorizes U.S. funding to assist in the development of the permanent collection of the museum. This money will ensure the protection of artifacts documenting the heritage of the Jewish Polish people and many of their descendants who currently live in the United States.

Museum organizers have already asked the people of Poland to donate memorabilia to the project, collecting photographs, documents, and other remaining items. One such object includes a penknife provided by a woman whose father, a forced laborer in a Nazi arms factory, obtained from a fellow prisoner who had received it as a bar mitzvah gift. American funding will help these efforts.

I strongly support this bill and ask my colleagues to join me in ensuring the preservation of such a rich cultural legacy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment and commend my good friend from New Jersey for a most eloquent statement. Whenever he speaks, I listen; not only as a great advocate and champion of human rights throughout the world, but I cannot think of a more appropriate piece of legislation where his mark is made to the fact that the persecutions that took place among the Jewish people during World War II. Again, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his efforts in bringing this piece of legislation to the floor for consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.