To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 123 11th Avenue South in Nampa, Idaho, as the "Herbert A Littleton Postal Station".

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution H. Res. 427 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

I further ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 427 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 2187, the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the rule and the underlying bill. I thank Congressman Chandler, Congressman Loebsack, Congressman Kildee, Chairman Miller, and the entire staff of the Education and Labor Committee for their hard work in reintroducing this bipartisan, critical legislation to modernize and green American schools.

Every child in America has the right to an excellent education. This can only be achieved through the best teachers in safe schools and productive learning environments equipped with the resources required to succeed. Anything else is increasingly unacceptable in the 21st century.

Unfortunately, as a Nation, we are unable to meet this basic standard. According to the American Federation of Teachers, our schools fall short of being in good condition by an estimated $255 billion. The American Society of Civil Engineers gave our Nation's schools a D on the national infrastructure report card.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which we passed earlier this year, will go a long way towards correcting this horrifying statistic. However, we can't stop with the Recovery Act. This is too important an issue.

Overcrowding and crumbling and unsafe schools and classrooms are an everyday reality for students, teachers, and staff in too many parts of our country. In Colorado, the backlog of school construction and maintenance needs that has been documented has been estimated between $6 billion and $10 billion.

This backlog puts the health, safety, and achievement of our students at risk. Healthy students learn better and are better prepared to meet the high standards of the workforce. The students of today will be the professionals and citizens of tomorrow. They must be ready to meet unexpected challenges, such as today's economic crisis, and they must be empowered to bring America to the next level of innovation and discovery and the pathway to prosperity.

As a former superintendent, I can tell you that modern, environmentally friendly classrooms are necessary for teachers to perform and for students to learn. Research shows that high-quality school environments contribute to higher education achievement and lower teacher attrition. Yet, States and school districts are unable to keep up with these basic needs. This is especially true during the severe recession. This $6.4 billion investment will produce direct and major economic and environmental benefits.

This legislation represents a giant step forward in ensuring that school buildings are modernized, repaired, and renovated to meet students' and teachers' needs. This will be a positive impact on residential property values and economic development efforts. It creates an estimated 136,000 jobs in communities across the country at a time when we desperately need them.

By making schools more energy efficient and less reliant on fossil fuels, this bill will also help reduce the emissions that contribute to global warming, as well as cut energy costs, saving operational money for schools and local governments.

This bill will stimulate local economies, while protecting the environment. The added benefit of job creation in the areas hardest hit by the recession will be an important component of our economic recovery.

When I think about the devastation of the Gulf Coast, where schools have been overlooked for decades and, in many cases, were washed away by flood waters of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, it really brings home the need for passing this Federal assistance program.

The African America Environmentalist Association estimates that the legislation will support hundreds of thousands of new construction jobs and invest more than half a billion dollars for school facility improvements in the troubled region of the Gulf Coast.

In 2006, I had the honor of cochairing a successful campaign for a $300 million bond initiative for Boulder Valley School District in my congressional district to address their school needs. But many low- income districts in Colorado don't have the capacity to finance the necessary school upgrades.

That's why I'm particularly pleased that this legislation addresses income disparities by allocating funds to States and districts based on their share of students from low-income families. This way, we can ensure that the funding reaches the schools and students that need it the most.

Communities in my home State of Colorado will receive over $70 million, which will enable much needed improvements in our schools. I look forward to visiting these schools as they continue to work on making their improvements.

Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to visit schools in Adams County, Boulder Valley, Mapleton, and Westminster, and observed the progress that this bill will make possible for the children of Colorado.

Finally, I'd like to again thank Chairman Miller and the committee for ensuring that public charter schools receive their fair share of the funding as well.

On behalf of my constituents in Colorado, especially the students, parents, and educators, I'd like to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the bill and the rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hall).

Mr. Speaker, a few times I have heard reference to a closed rule. And I want to be entirely clear that what we are proposing is, in fact, a structured rule on this bill. There were 34 amendments that were submitted. We are forwarding for the consideration by the full House 14. So I do believe that arguments against a closed rule on this particular bill are not founded.

I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Klein).

Mr. Speaker, just this last week I had the opportunity in Colorado to visit a number of schools in several school districts across the district that I represent. I visited Adams County, Boulder Valley, Mapleton, and Westminster.

With regard to Boulder Valley School District, having recently passed a $300 million bond initiative, it was very exciting to see some of the renovations that were taking place. I had an opportunity to go on the roof of one of the schools and observe the solar panels that were being installed, as well as a device that focuses sunlight to provide natural light for the classroom. That is called a Sundolier, and what that encompasses is twofold. One, it saves the need for artificial light and saves energy for the school. Two, there are a number of studies that show that natural light can actually serve to improve learning. This was an item that Boulder Valley School District was able to purchase. There are four that are now pilot projects in Colorado. There are studies being done to document the learning impact. This is the type of activity that many school districts cannot afford to consider.

Mapleton School District, just 10 miles down the road, it has been on their ballot twice with bond initiatives, but they have been unable to get them to pass. They have a much lower local tax base and it is very difficult, and many of the constituents are struggling to stay in their homes. For that reason, this Federal money will be particularly welcomed in those districts that serve the most at-risk children, which is why I applaud the efforts of Chairman Miller and the committee and the sponsors to target this money to districts that serve a high count of low-income students using the title I criteria.

Mapleton School District, which serves just a few thousand kids, will receive $578,000 under this bill; Westminster School District in Colorado will receive $1.8 million; and Adams County 12 District will receive $2.36 million.

Mr. Speaker, a few folks have mentioned, Oh, this shouldn't be the Federal Government's responsibility.

The question I would pose is: Who, then, can repair these schools? Who can ensure that these classrooms are safe? Where can the money come from? Certainly there are many wealthy districts that can afford to do that themselves. But by allowing only wealthy districts to build classrooms for the 21st century, we are not only creating a divide on the operations side of school funding, we are actually making that considerably worse by creating an enormous gap on the capital front, leading to attrition of good teachers from dangerous and poor-quality schools in poor areas, as well as lower student outcomes because of lack of heating, lack of air-conditioning, dangerous conditions, et cetera. This bill will help reduce those disparities. We certainly have a long way to go, but this bill will help do that.

In addition, there are a number of schools that actually are dangerous and represent a danger for the teachers and for the students. For instance, there was an incident last year in Massachusetts where a roof fell in and actually injured a teacher. They had a leaky roof for decades in Billerica, Massachusetts. The district was not able to afford to repair or replace the school. In fact, when it rained, the principal would announce, Heavy rains are expected; clear the counters. The water damage had caused the floor to rot and a teacher actually fell through the floor and injured herself because of that. Some of the rooms are so hazardous they are closed to students and staff.

That is not an unusual phenomenon. In my district, I was at one elementary school where the gym has been closed for several years because pieces of ceiling are falling off the gymnasium and it is a danger for kids, so the school has not had a gym for those kids to use for several years.

In this school in Massachusetts, they have now moved the girls' locker room to the library, and there is so little space available because of the closure of the rooms that are dangerous that special education classes now meet in what was the boys' locker room. They are trying to use every available place that they have because of the unsafe nature of some of those schools.

School districts do a good job with what they have. They try their best. They approach their voters when they can, but there are districts in Colorado and, indeed, nationally that have very little local tax base from which to draw. In Colorado, we had a lawsuit a number of years ago which was ultimately settled by the State with regard to the failing state of our schools

and our capital infrastructure in Colorado school districts that had very little local tax base. The decision stated that the State had in fact not lived up to its responsibility of providing a safe, thorough and uniform education to all of its citizens.

Certainly every child in this country deserves the opportunity to succeed. They deserve a safe learning environment. This bill will go a long way towards doing that, along with the provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided funding in two main areas for education, both operational. One was IDEA, special education. And my colleagues on the Rules Committee will recall we had some discussion about special ed and IDEA in committee yesterday. I am proud to say that under this Congress, we have gone further than ever as a country in meeting towards reaching that unfunded mandate of making sure that the needs of all students, including special needs students, are met and increasingly funded by the Federal Government. We had a bipartisan consensus in our Rules Committee meeting yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that our Federal Government needs to do more with regard to funding special education. I am very pleased to say that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was the first step.

The second area of investment was in title I programs directed to schools that serve low-income families and families that face a lot of challenges that others don't. To help reduce those disparities, the opportunity disparity that exists, Colorado is a State that has a very strong equalization formula for funding schools. We are very fortunate in that regard.

Our poorer districts on the operational side receive roughly the same funding, in fact, sometimes even more funding because of their at-risk criteria than the wealthy districts. That is not the case nationally. There are other States where there are large operational disparities between large and small districts.

However, in Colorado, and indeed nearly every State, there continue to be large disparities on the capital front. That is why what passes for a school in one district would hardly pass for a school in another district. Schools with low tax bases, with voters that are struggling to stay in their own homes and are, therefore, unwilling or unable to pass another bond initiative, are threatening the education of their kids compared to some of the wealthier districts that are able to invest in some of things that I had the opportunity to see just last week in Boulder Valley School District due to their own $300 million bond initiative.

The needs, Mr. Speaker, are great. In fact, I dare say they are greater than this investment that we, if the House passes this bill today, will be making.

The rule, Mr. Speaker, is fair. Of the 34 amendments that have been offered, 14 have been ruled in order, including several from Members on the other side of the aisle, including one from Mr. Roe, who my colleague, Mr. Dreier, mentioned in his remarks. That was ruled in order, as well as an amendment from the ranking member of the Education and Labor Committee.

So this is not a closed rule. This is a structured rule that allows for nearly half of the amendments that have been offered to be considered by the full House and advances in there for that purpose, including several that were also incorporated into the chairman's amendment, who has worked with Members on both sides of the aisle to improve the initial piece of legislation.

Let me focus once more on the safety issue. There is an enormous backlog of capital construction--particularly in poor districts across this country--that puts the health and safety as well as the achievement of our students at risk every day. Students should be free of risk regardless of where in this country they attend school. Students have enough challenges to face. They need to be able to face the economic crisis, their family issues, preparation for college. The last thing students need to worry about are roofs falling in, ceilings collapsing, floors collapsing, or asbestos.

At the same time that we can accomplish this, as my colleague from New York (Mr. Hall) mentioned, we have the great opportunity to make some progress on the front by reducing our carbon emissions and greening our schools. This has, of course, beyond the environmental benefits, which are significant, they also have economic benefits because when you save money by reducing your power needs or producing power locally, you are freeing up more operational money to actually help educate kids, meaning lower class sizes, meaning better teacher training, meaning programs that can be continued or expanded because of the energy. One of the biggest complaints that I heard from districts over the last several years were the rising costs of energy and utilities as part of what they pay as a fixed cost. By investing in the capital side--and again, many districts don't have the capability of doing that themselves--we are able to save operational money for those school districts where truly some of the modernization and green investment can become the gift that keeps on giving.

Mr. Speaker, I am the last speaker for this side. I would like to urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and the rule.

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

The previous question was ordered.

I thank my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), for the time. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The condition of our public schools is increasingly becoming a troubling issue. Parents, students, and teachers feel that many schools are increasingly overcrowded, unsafe, and obsolete, detracting from student performance.

The deteriorating conditions in many schools has forced school systems throughout the Nation to spend progressively more of their budgets on school renovations and construction projects instead of on students and teachers.

Today, the House of Representatives is set to consider H.R. 2187, the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act. This bill will direct the Secretary of Education to make grants and low- interest loans to local educational agencies for the construction, modernization, or repair of public educational facilities. These funds will help school systems pay for renovations and construction projects so that they can dedicate more of their budgets to improving the education of our Nation's students.

It also requires the funds to be used only for projects that meet certain green standards, such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, known as LEED; Energy Star, or an equivalent State or local standard.

One of the central tenets of the majority party's campaign both in 2006 and in 2008 was that they would run Congress in a more open and bipartisan manner. For example, the distinguished Speaker said, We promise the American people that we would have the most honest and open government--and we will. However, that promise has yet to come to fruition, as the majority has consistently blocked an open process through their control of the Rules Committee.

A prime example of how they have consistently stymied openness and bipartisanship can be seen by looking at the virtual absolute lack of open rules that they have allowed since they took control of the House of Representatives in 2006. In nearly 2\1/2\ years, the majority has allowed one open rule--and that was over 2 years ago.

Instead of fulfilling their campaign promise, the majority consistently closes the amendment process and keeps Members from offering amendments to important legislation.

Earlier this year, the majority rushed through some of the largest and most significant pieces of legislation through a closed rule process, including the nearly $800 billion so-called stimulus and the over $400 billion so-called omnibus appropriations bills.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I bring up this lack of an open process and the continued use of the closed rule by the majority because later today the Rules Committee is expected to meet to consider yet another closed rule for fiscal year 2009, the War Supplemental Appropriation Act. That legislation will provide over $90 billion to fund the Department of Defense and related programs.

Now it is time that the majority lives up to its campaign promise and allows an open debate process. It's not

enough to allow amendments on generally noncontroversial legislation like the one we bring to the floor today that authorizes over $6 billion for school construction. They should allow an open process, Mr. Speaker, on, for example, the over $90 billion supplemental appropriations bill that we will consider later this week, and on energy and health care legislation expected to be taken up in the coming weeks.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will my friend yield?

I was talking about the process that does not permit amendments on the floor. That's what we're referring to when we talk about closed rules.

The fact that there were earmarks in the bill is a separate debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. Speaker, in case there was some confusion, we have not alleged that this is a closed rule. This is a rule that is known as a ``structured rule'' that permits, authorizes, some amendments to be debated and made other amendments not in order, in other words, did not authorize other amendments. We heard Mr. Kirk, for example, of Illinois, who had an amendment, proposed an amendment before the Rules Committee, and he explained it in detail. It was a bipartisan amendment. And it was not authorized. It was not made in order for debate today.

What we are pointing out is that on legislation like this, for example, that has passed the House before, that today will likely pass the House again with a bipartisan vote, it really does not seem logical, and Mr. Kirk was quite eloquent in describing it, that ideas brought forth by Members are not allowed to be considered by the House.

And with regard to closed rules, I pointed out that the rules that allow any Member to propose an amendment and have it debated, those are, as you know, Mr. Speaker, called ``open'' rules. And the majority, both in 2006 and 2008, promised an open process in their campaigns. In 2\1/2\ years, they have allowed one open rule. So that is a major contrast with the promise. The reality contrasts quite dramatically with the promise.

At this point, I would 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.)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friends on the other side of the aisle for their participation as well, obviously, as my friends and colleagues from our side of the aisle.

As I stated before, this is legislation that has passed before. It passed with some bipartisanship. There is some legitimate substantive debate on the underlying legislation, but I think more objection, certainly, on our part to the unfortunate nature in which the way the process, the debate in the House has been closed down unnecessarily by the majority. We had an example today, an amendment that was brought before the Rules Committee with bipartisan authorship, and yet it was not allowed for discussion and consideration by the full membership, and that is unnecessary and unfortunate.

Having said that, we will consider without any doubt this legislation even though I think the rule that brings it to the floor should have been an open rule, and the majority would have thus had an opportunity to double its record of open rules. Since they took the majority about 2\1/2\ years ago, they have allowed one open rule. That is something I would have never expected. I would have never expected. Certainly it is very different from the promise made to the American people of an open process. It is unfortunate.

But we move forward. Thank you for listening, Mr. Speaker, and for your fairness in guiding this process as always.

Having said that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2162) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 123 11th Avenue South in

Nampa, Idaho, as the ``Herbert A. Littleton Postal Station''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the United States Postal Service, I am pleased to present H.R. 2162 for consideration. This legislation will designate the United States postal facility located at 123 11th Avenue South in Nampa, Idaho, as the Herbert A Littleton Postal Station.

Introduced by my colleague, Representative Walter Minnick, on April 29, 2009, and reported out of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee on May 6, 2009, by unanimous consent, H.R. 2162 enjoys the support of both members of the Idaho House delegation.

Marine Private First Class Herbert A Littleton was born on July 1, 1930, in Mena, Arkansas, to his loving parents, Paul and Maude Littleton. He attended high school in Sturgis, South Dakota, where he played both football and basketball and was subsequently employed by the Electrical Appliance Corporation in Rapid City, South Dakota.

On July 29, 1948, Private First Class Littleton enlisted in the United States Marine Corps at the age of 18. He completed boot camp in San Diego, California, before receiving additional training at nearby Camp Pendleton, which was then responsible for training the country's fighting force for the Korean War.

Private First Class Littleton was deployed to Korea in December of 1950, bravely serving with the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve, Artillery Forward Observation Team, Company C, 1st Battalion, 7th Marines. His distinguished service and tremendous bravery during the conflict quickly earned him the admiration of his comrades and eventually resulted in his posthumous receipt of the Medal of Honor, the United States military's highest decoration. Private First Class Littleton also posthumously received the Purple Heart, the Korean Service Medal with one bronze star, and the United Nations Service Medal.

As recounted by the citation accompanying Private First Class Littleton's Congressional Medal of Honor, the young soldier exhibited conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life and above and beyond the call of duty, in action against enemy aggressor forces on April 22, 1951, in Chungchon, Korea.

Specifically, in response to a violent night attack against his company, Private First Class Littleton quickly alerted his forward observation team and immediately moved into an advantageous position in order to assist in calling down artillery fire on the hostile force. Shortly after the arrival of other team members, an enemy hand grenade was thrown into PFC Littleton's vantage point. Without hesitation, the 21-year-old private sacrificed his life by hurling himself on the grenade and absorbing its full impact. PFC Littleton's Medal of Honor citation goes on to recognize that through his prompt action, he not only saved the other members of his team from serious injury or death, but also enabled them to carry on their vital mission which resulted in their ability to resist the hostile attack.

Mr. Speaker, Private First Class Littleton's dedicated service is a testament to all of the brave men and women in the United States Armed Forces who have offered this Nation the ultimate sacrifice. It is for this reason that the community of Nampa, Idaho, Private First Class Littleton's residence at the time of his death, marks every April 22 by holding a flag ceremony at the city's Herbert A Littleton flag pole in remembrance of his brave act. And it is for this reason that the city of Nampa has also named the road adjacent to PFC Littleton's grave in his honor.

Mr. Speaker, let us further this brave soldier's remembrance by passing this legislation to rename the Nampa postal facility after him. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2162.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do want to say on behalf of Walter Minnick, who is the lead sponsor of this resolution who is flying in right now and did not have an opportunity to speak on

the floor, on his behalf I ask all Members to join with us. It is fitting, I think, that in this month of May, which marks Military Appreciation Month, let us join together once again to show our appreciation for all men and women in uniform by voting in favor of this resolution which would name this post office in memory of Private First Class Herbert A Littleton and pass H.R. 2162.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

I rise in opposition to this rule on what is a relatively noncontroversial bill just to ask the majority, What are you afraid of? You have a 78-seat majority in the House of Representatives, but you are afraid that amendments may carry. It is an astonishing admission of weakness by the leadership that you cannot withstand a House vote on amendments. As someone who has been here as a staffer and a Member since 1984, I will tell you that closed rules generally end speakerships over time.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

I stand corrected.

I would just say that closed rules generally end speakerships over time because what happens is if you do not let democracy reign on the House floor, what happens is big bills wipe out. And we certainly saw this in the end of Speaker Wright's service when on closed rules he misguided the rules on the Chamber and then collapsed entire huge pieces of legislation, by the way, reconciliation legislation, which then wiped out his speakership.

With a 78-seat majority, it is an astonishing admission of weakness that the leadership cannot win on amendment votes on the House floor and that they do not want to be subjected to scrutiny and feel that in the Speaker's office alone there is a judgment which will always carry the day on the House floor. And I will refer to the end of Speaker Wright's career, the end of Speaker Foley's career, even the end of Speaker Hastert's career, as a reflection that democracy is much better served if you can actually allow some controversial amendments or two. And to sit on a 78-vote majority and think you are going to lose on the House floor is an amazing admission on your part.

Now one of the things that is not being considered, because this legislation closes down amendments, is a bipartisan amendment by Congressman Carney and me. Now, what we wanted to do was simply open up eligibility under this legislation to the 44 percent of American schools that, under the terms of this legislation, are not eligible for funding. This legislation stands for the principle that only roughly 60 percent of schools in America can even apply for funding under this legislation and that 44 percent cannot apply.

In my congressional district, we have seen good green school initiative programs like at the Thomas Middle school in Arlington Heights, in which they assembled public and donor funds for a 1- kilowatt solar array on their roof and for conservation measures. They learned an important lesson. And by the way, the kids learned an important lesson that maybe solar power in Chicagoland did not have the greatest potential as in other parts of the country because we only have about 58 sunny days a year. It was an important renewable energy lesson where in the Windy City wind power might be the more appropriate solution. And I'm very happy that our students learned that lesson. And some of them may be inspired by their experience at Thomas to pick up a career in the field of science and engineering.

We had a similar program at the Elm Place middle school in Highland Park, Illinois, a greening project in which the students reported that despite all of the attention on the renewable energy side, they actually saved more money with conservation. These are important lessons that we know apply to the Nation, as well, and I'm very happy the students were able to learn this lesson.

Under our amendment that was rejected by this rule, we would have opened up just 1 percent of the funding in this legislation to the other 44 percent of schools, mainly suburban schools, which are locked out of any consideration of funding under this bill. In Illinois, there are 32 school districts that may not receive funding from this legislation. And I think that the other 44 percent should have been considered, that 44 percent of kids should have participated in green school projects, as the kids in my congressional district have done with their own money; and yet we rejected that possibility.

It is astonishing because I think the Carney-Kirk amendment would have carried, would have provided an opportunity for a lot of kids in America to learn some very valuable lessons about the future of the economy, but also astonishing that on a 78-vote majority in this House of Representatives, the Democrat leadership feels that they will still regularly lose in open debate on this House floor.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Miami for his management of this rule and his very, very thoughtful remarks and the way in which he addresses every single issue that comes before us. He has spoken very thoughtfully about the problem of shutting down the process and preventing Members who have an idea to come forward. He used the example of our friend from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

I want to talk, Mr. Speaker, about the overall thrust in which we are headed with this legislation. We had an interesting debate in the Rules Committee last night. And I will say that we all share the goal of ensuring that young people in this country have the best quality education possible, that they have a safe environment and that they have a comfortable environment in which to study. After all, if we are going to, as a Nation, remain competitive in this global economy, the single most important thing that we need to do is ensure that we have well educated young people to proceed with the challenges that exist in a global economy.

But, Mr. Speaker, there is something that we need to remember that was a hallmark of the vision that the Framers of our Constitution put forward. And that is the notion of federalism, the responsibility of things that fall at the Federal level here in Washington, D.C., and the responsibility of things that should remain at the State and local level.

My State of California is going through the toughest economic times that it has ever faced, I believe. We just received a report that the deficit itself is double what had been projected. And we have, I think, really difficult days ahead. But we need to remember, Mr. Speaker, that the number one priority for the number one budget item for our State of California happens to be the issue of education.

There are States across this country that are not faced with the difficulty that we are in California. The best example came forward by our new colleague, Mr. Roe, who was the former mayor of Johnson City, Tennessee. And he was able to outline in his role as mayor the success that they are having with the expenditure of $50 million to not only improve the physical quality of the schools themselves, but their effort to reduce energy costs, which I know is part of the greening goal here. They are saving money by using more efficient ways to heat and cool the schools, so they are actually witnessing a savings there. But this is all being done at the local level. That is the argument that we have here.

As we look at a budget deficit this year that is larger than the entire Federal budget was a mere decade ago, I think we need to analyze what responsibilities under this role of federalism the Federal Government should continue to take. No one is going to stand here and say that they don't want to ensure that the ceilings don't collapse in schools. They will not stand here and say that they should be air- conditioned in the winter and heated in the summer. No one is going to argue in favor of a less than perfect physical structure for students.

But what I believe we need to argue is how do you pay for that. And again, I believe very strongly that we, as a Federal Government, have reached way too far into so many different areas. Right now we are looking at doing this in the area of health care, energy, a wide range of areas. We are looking at dramatically increasing the exercise and scope and reach of the Federal Government. Today we have another example of that.

Now, there will be people who will argue that if you are not supportive of this measure that you somehow want substandard schools in this country. That is just absolute lunacy. We are just saying that the Federal Government can't do absolutely everything.

So in the name of fairness, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule which

does not provide Mr. Kirk and others the chance that they should have to offer amendments. I thank my friend for yielding.