Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my special order today.

Mr. Speaker, the week of September 10 was denominated National Historically Black Colleges and Universities Week by legislation introduced by our colleague and my friend, Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, and passed this past July, and I am honored to join my colleagues today in celebrating it.

The contributions made by HBCUs to the African American community, to our country and to our culture cannot be overstated. As President Clinton once noted, ``Generations of African American educators, physicians, lawyers, scientists, and other professionals found at HBCUs the knowledge, experience and encouragement they needed to reach their full potential.''

The alumni rolls of HBCUs read like a Hall of Fame list, Mr. Speaker: Martin Luther King, Jr., a graduate of Morehouse College; Booker T. Washington, Hampton University, who also helped found the Tuskegee Institute in 1881, what is now known as Tuskegee University; W.E.B. DuBois, Fisk University; and Wilma Rudolph from Tennessee State University.

The list, of course, could go on and on, and indeed I could mention Members of the Congressional Black Caucus itself. In fact, it probably will surprise no one that nearly half of our friends and colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus received their degrees Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Public service continues to be a hallmark of the graduate of black colleges and universities.

Today, Mr. Speaker, there are 103 Historically Black Colleges and Universities in our Nation, serving more than 260,000 undergraduate students, with 27 percent offering either a first professional degree or a doctorate.

HBCUs confer nearly a quarter of all bachelor's degrees awarded each year to African Americans, and they confer the majority of bachelor's degrees and advanced degrees awarded to black students in the physical sciences, mathematics, computer science, engineering and education.

The real story, Mr. Speaker, that underlies these figures, is the story of hope and opportunity. Before the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, African Americans were routinely and unjustly excluded from institutions of higher learning. It didn't matter how smart you were, it didn't matter how much talent or potential you had; the only thing that mattered was the color of your skin. What a failed, immoral policy. But out of that rank injustice, that indefensible racism, was born a fortitude and a determination to rise above, to overcome through education.

Thus, the first black college, what is now known as Cheyney University in Cheyney, Pennsylvania, was founded in 1837. To appreciate the magnitude of this, remember that Cheyney was created a full 28 years before the ratification of the 13th Amendment, to train free blacks to become school teachers. Today, Cheyney continues to serve with great pride as an avenue for African Americans to attend college.

Four of the 103 HBCUs are located in the State of Maryland, including Bowie State University in my own district, a college with which I have been working since 1967 when I was elected to the Maryland State Senate. Bowie was founded in 1865, and is the oldest Historically Black University in Maryland.

The others are a great institution in Baltimore City, Morgan State, and its sister, Coppin State, both in that great city, and the last is the University of Maryland-Eastern Shore, located in Princess Anne.

Let me say as a former member of the Maryland Board of Regents and as someone acutely interested in education and the needs of our youth, I see the manifest vision and the determination of HBCUs in practice every day. I see it in the faces of the children in my district, who know that they will have the opportunity to develop their skills and talents, whether they choose Bowie State, the University of Maryland at College Park or any other school.

I see it in the faces of the young professionals who have attended an HBCU who are now working hard to build their careers and contribute to our society. And, yes, I see it in the faces of those here tonight who appreciate the unique role and history of Historically Black Colleges and Universities and who understand the importance of their continued vibrancy.

We must recognize, Mr. Speaker, that our strength as a Nation lies not just in the quality of the University of Maryland at College Park, but in the excellence of Bowie State. We must realize while we celebrate the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, we also must take joy in the accomplishments of North Carolina A&T.

HBCUs have strengthened our country and enriched our culture beyond measure, and while they can take great pride in their glorious past, it is incumbent upon all of us to ensure that they enjoy an even brighter future.

Mr. Speaker, our commemoration of September 11 is a solemn occasion. It is a day of remembrance and a day of resolve. We remember those, Mr. Speaker, who perished or were injured 5 years ago in New York, Virginia at the Pentagon, and Pennsylvania due to the evil acts of men consumed by a murderous ideology filled with hate.

We mourn the loss of the innocent, and we pray for their loved ones. We also recall with pride, yes, with sorrow as well, though, the heroism of our first responder, and in many cases civilians turned rescuers, who put their own lives in harm's way as they sought to help others. Their selflessness on a day of fire, destruction and death reminds us of the courageous American spirit, and it renews our faith in humankind.

The commemoration of 9/11 also is a time for this Congress to express our collective national resolve. We resolved to protect the American people and our beloved homeland and to combat and defeat the perpetrators of terrorism and tyranny, and to fight for freedom, for democracy, for respect for human rights, and for the rule of law.

Now, the resolution before us today in many respects is not objectionable. Indeed, I will vote for this resolution. I do not quarrel, for example, with the propriety or the sentiments expressed in any of the resolved clauses in this measure. This resolution commemorating the worst terrorist attack on American soil in our history, a wound that has not yet healed, ought to be a unifying document that virtually every single Member of this House can support without reservation.

I regret, therefore, that in my discussions with the majority leader, and in Ms. Pelosi's discussion with the Speaker, that the Republicans did not see fit to make this a fully bipartisan resolution.

While I will support it, I lament the continuing partisanship which seeks to divide this House in sentiments that ought to see a unified House. I lament the fact that in the face of a Nation at war that we are not working to bring us together. But that effort was not made; and it is a failure of leadership, in my opinion.

Despite the fact that the Senate passed a 9/11 resolution this year by unanimous consent, and despite the fact that this body passed a 9/11 resolution last year by a vote of 402-6, the Republican leadership still attempts to gain political advantage through this measure. I think that is unfortunate.

I am going to support this measure, but there are conclusions in the ``whereas'' clauses with which I do not agree and which were not necessary for expressing our remembrance and our resolve. The majority presents a resolution that includes extraneous and inappropriate, divisive, self-serving and, in my opinion, politically motivated language. How sad that you would do that in a resolution that seeks to express the unanimous opinion of the representatives of the American people.

I ask my Republican friends what is the point of including a reference in this resolution to controversial legislation that has not even become law.

Specifically, I refer to the mention in the House Republicans' immigration reform bill. That bill was controversial in this House. That bill has not passed the Senate. That bill has been rejected, essentially, by the Senate. They have come together with a compromise with which the House has not agreed. Yet we reference in this resolution that which seeks to express our united opinion. How sad.

The reference to this bill, which is opposed by even many Republicans, has no place in a resolution commemorating this solemn occasion, not withstanding the importance of that particular issue.

It is deeply regrettable, Mr. Speaker, that on this, the fifth anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in our history, that the Republican leadership has made political expedience a priority. I lament that, but I will vote for this because I do not want any confusion among those whom we confront.

I want no confusion on those we confront. I want no confusion by terrorists who wish us ill. I want no confusion that we are not united, not just as a Congress but as a American people, and a resolve to defeat and deter terrorists and protect our people and our great country.

Like the Senate, we should be voting on a resolution designed to inspire and demonstrate unity, not division

I thank the gentlewoman. This is about politics not policy. The policy, I am going to support. This is about politics. It is about the election of one Member in a very hotly contested race in New York.

I hope the American public are tuned in. With all the pressing critical issues that confront our Nation, what is the one issue in the one-fifteenth of the session that we have left that we are according our time to? The Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. This is an important issue that should be considered. I do not mean to make light of the legislation. But is this the issue that the American people expect their elected representatives to be considering at this moment?

On Monday, we commemorate the fifth anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in our Nation's history. 9/11 is a day of remembrance and resolve, and it is also a time to recognize that we are not as safe as we should be. Apparently, horses aren't either. But people aren't as safe as they should be.

Just today, a former Republican Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, wrote, and I quote, ``Five years have passed since the horrific attack on our homeland, and still there is one serious undeniable fact we have yet to confront. We are today,'' said the former Speaker, Newt Gingrich, ``not where we wanted to be and nowhere near where we need to be.''

Yet one-fifteenth of the time we have left before the election is spent on horses. Osama bin Laden is still on the loose. This Congress has failed to enact the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. The nuclear threat from North Korea and Iran has increased. Afghanistan is backsliding, and Iraq simmers in a low-grade civil war, yet we are focused on this act.

Last week, I joined more than 20 of my Democratic colleagues in visiting New Orleans and the gulf coast, areas devastated by Hurricane Katrina 1 year ago. We observed incredible courage and optimism on the part of the citizens there, but we all saw an area that is still a shell of its former self.

In New Orleans, nearly 60 percent of homes and businesses do not have electricity. Much of New Orleans lacks a dependable supply of potable water, and only $44 billion of the $110 billion appropriated for rebuilding assistance to victims has been spent. Yet what are we doing today? Focusing on horses.

This bill was defeated 37-3 in committee. The Patient's Bill of Rights, cosponsored by Mr. Dingell, was supported by the majority of this House and the majority of the Senate, and it died in conference, for political reasons. This bill here is for political reasons.

While this body considers this legislation today, the Republican leadership refuses to allow an up-or-down vote on providing a long overdue increase for the minimum wage.

I thank my friend, the chairman of the committee, soon to be, maybe. Who knows. Mr. Goodlatte, I apologize for that.

The Republican leadership refuses to allow an up-or-down vote on the minimum wage. And that is not about horses; it is about 6.6 million Americans working every day and living in poverty. I have concern about these horses, but I have much, much more concern about 6.6 million Americans who are living in poverty while working 40-hour weeks.

We have still not passed legislation that moves our Nation towards energy independence, yet we focus on horses.

Reforms are broken in the immigration system, yet we focus on horses.

We have not addressed the fact that 46 million Americans do not have health insurance, yet we focus on horses.

We need fixes to the Republicans' flawed prescription drug program and reforms to our convoluted tax system, yet we focus on horses. I am concerned about horses, but I am much, much more concerned about the American people. That is what we ought to be focused on. That's where we ought to be paying attention.

That is why I call this the ``do less than `do-nothing Congress of 1948.'''

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come, and I yield to my friend, Mr. Boehner, the majority leader.

I thank the gentleman for bringing us up to date.

Am I to take it that when the gentleman indicated that the 29th would be the last day prior to the election, Members can still rely on that representation?

I thank the gentleman for that comment because there has been some discussion there may be another week, and we are glad to advise Members.

That happens, I have noticed.

With respect to the schedule that you have just announced, would it be fair to conclude that if we do not have additional conference reports, and you indicate that you will take conference reports if they are available, which I understand, but if there were not additional conference reports beyond those which you have referenced in your announcement, that the probability of Friday is not as great as it otherwise would be? What I am saying, before you respond, is essentially it would appear to me that based upon what has been noticed, that that work would probably be accomplished within the Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday period.

I understand.

On the following Friday, the 22nd, as the gentleman knows, Rosh Hashanah begins at sundown on that day. That is the first day of Rosh Hashanah. One of the problems, as you know, that we have is Members getting back to the West Coast in time to observe Rosh Hashanah appropriately. Friday the 22nd is currently on the schedule. Can you comment on that?

I thank the gentleman for that, and we look forward to discussing that with you.

You note in the announcement of the 9/11 resolution, and I was asked by the press, were we going to do something on issues that appear to be partisan, and I said no. On September 11th, we will not be here; we will be in our home districts, and it should be a day of remembrance and resolve; remembrance of the heroism of that day and remembrance of the loss of life on that day, and resolve to defeat terrorism and to defeat those who would put our country at risk and put our people in harm's way and at risk. I believe we are united on that.

I just saw the resolution, and I have not had a chance to read the resolution, nor as I understand it have we worked with your side on the resolution.

Mr. Leader, I would hope perhaps we could come together before the resolution is finally introduced. We passed last year's resolution with over 400 votes, very few ``no'' votes. I ask if we could work on this together to ensure that we have that kind of unanimity which I think is appropriate and would help to bring us together.

I thank the leader for that. And I did not know whether our Democrats had worked with people on your side of the aisle. If that is the case, then when I read the resolution, I am sure I will be pleased. But if there are questions, I will bring them to the attention of the leader.

Mr. Leader, of course we have next week's schedule. Next week's schedule does not include the only appropriation bill that we have not yet passed. As you know, we have passed 10 out of the 11 appropriations bills. The Labor-Health bill was passed through the House Appropriations Committee and ready to report in June. So it has now been pending for approximately 60, 75 days.

Do you have any expectation that the Labor-Health bill will be brought to the floor within the foreseeable future?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for that observation. He refers to one or two of the issues in the bill. Obviously, one of the issues is the so-called Hoyer amendment, the Miller bill, which raises the minimum wage. We would hope that that would be brought to the floor. As you well know, we considered it with another bill. A number of items included in it. It went to the Senate. It didn't pass. We believe that the 6.6 million people on the minimum wage are hopeful that we will act before we leave here for the election.

I am very hopeful and I know our side is very hopeful that we could bring that bill to the floor with that amendment protected, voted up or down. If the Members think that we ought not to do it, fine. If the Members think we ought to do it, fine. And pass that bill to the Senate so we can complete the appropriations process.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Leader, of course I appreciate your reiterating what we did and we all understand what we did. There are different perspectives on what we did. But I would reiterate this side's strong desire and hope that we would consider the issue of minimum wage on its own merits, as was done in the committee. As you know, it was passed in a bipartisan fashion in committee with one- fourth, I think, or maybe one-fifth of the Republicans in the committee voting for it.

I would be glad to yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his comment. I understand what the rules are, and both sides have relatively regularly waived those rules when it wanted to do something. And if we want to raise the minimum wage for our workers, we can do it. That is our perspective. But I certainly appreciate the gentleman's further education on what the rules require.

Let me ask you this. It is not on the schedule for next week. Do you anticipate any additional legislation prior to the 29th of September which would further implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission? As you know, there are some 19 recommendations which Governor Kean and Congressman Hamilton have observed we have not acted on. Can you tell us whether there is any anticipation of scheduling action on those issues?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his observations, while I think we disagree on the substance of the reports and the merits of the recommendations that have not yet been passed. I know on our side, Mr. Thompson, who is our ranking member on the Homeland Security Committee, and others are very hopeful that we can move forward on those. But I understand what the gentleman has said.

I will not ask the gentleman further questions. But, Mr. Speaker, under my reservation I would say that we on this side of the aisle are very hopeful that we can consider legislation before we break on the 29th of September which would give the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to negotiate lower prescription drug prices for our seniors. We would hope that we would see legislation which would restore the deep cuts in college tuition assistance that were included in the deficit reduction bill that we passed some months ago and that we would reconsider the tax cuts that we gave, deep tax cuts, that we gave to oil companies apparently to spur further investment in exploration for new sources of oil. A worthy objective. But I think, happily or unhappily, depending upon your perspective, whether you are an oil company or whether you are a driver of automobiles and have to pay the gasoline prices, the companies are making great profits and could have great incentive because of those great profits to develop further sources of energy.

I would conclude by saying that we would hope the majority would seriously consider bringing to the floor all of those issues prior to the 29th.

I yield to my friend, the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his observations, and perhaps I will take him up on that offer. That might be instructive for both of us and perhaps for the American people as well. I understand the gentleman's perspective. We differ. That is not surprising, I am sure, to the viewers.

But I will say this, Mr. Leader, if I can, that this is about discussing the schedule. We have a very short time frame. We have 14 days left that are scheduled in this session before the election, and we are coming back for a lame duck session. I understand that. But I was simply inquiring of you whether or not those matters which we believe are important might be on the schedule. I am not debating their merits or demerits at this point in time. I can do that and, as a matter of fact, look forward to discussing that in a Special Order with you. But we do believe it was in the realm of a discussion about what might be scheduled.

And I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman

Mr. Speaker, the tragic death of a young soldier from Anne Arundel County, Maryland, who gave the ultimate measure of sacrifice in the global war on terror, saddens all of us. As we continue to fight this war, the loss of each and every service member is a tragedy.

Anne Arundel County, the state of Maryland, and our Nation lost a great hero when Army Staff Sergeant Christopher Swanson of Rose Haven was killed in Anbar on July 22.

More than 50 of Maryland's bravest have now died in the war in Iraq.

Christopher Swanson was completely dedicated to protecting his fellow troops. He wrote on his personal website, ``I would do anything for them even if it means giving my life to save theirs.''

Swanson was highly regarded in his family and community. As a teenager, he traveled on mission trips with members of the First Baptist Church in Upper Marlboro, providing the hope of a better life to gang members in West Virginia and Ohio.

He was the captain of his soccer team at Southern High School, where faculty remembered a ``happy go-lucky kid that was always lending a hand.''

In August of 1999, Sergeant Swanson enlisted in the Army, even as others tried to talk him out of it. He served in Kosovo as a member of the 82nd Airborne Division, and was part of the initial assault on Iraq in March of 2003, the first of three tours.

Sergeant Swanson was awarded two purple hearts, one after being injured by an improvised explosive device just weeks before he was killed. He persevered, telling his brother Kenneth that he would not be sidelined.

Christopher Swanson gave his life for all of us. As his representative in Congress, I am grateful for his patriotism and his sacrifice. The Fifth District of Maryland and all Americans join the Swanson family in mourning the loss of this fine young man, a real hero.

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts. I agree with what the gentleman has just said. The Republican leadership is opposed to raising the minimum wage, opposed to lifting 6.6 million people out of poverty. No Member of the House should harbor any illusions about what the Republican leadership is doing, therefore.

Today, the Republican leadership is engaging in a political stunt, in my opinion; a cynical sham, a cruel ploy to undermine a long overdue increase in the Federal minimum wage, an increase that would benefit literally millions of American workers and their families. Democrats have continually fought for a clean up-or-down vote on increasing the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour over 2 years, the first increase in 10 years.

Hear me: Groceries have not been frozen in price. Gasoline hasn't been frozen in price. Rents haven't been frozen in price. But wages of minimum-wage workers have been frozen for 10 years, and we continue to fight today about this.

The fact is, I believe a majority of the Members of this body support an increase in the minimum wage, even if the Speaker, the Majority Leader, and the majority of the House Republicans do not. But the will of the House will be thwarted today if this rule passes.

On June 12, the Appropriations Committee adopted on a bipartisan vote an amendment to the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriation bill that would increase the minimum wage by $2.10 per hour over 2 years. That bill has been languishing unconsidered for the last 2 months. In response, the Republican leadership has refused to bring that appropriation bill up for a vote.

On July 13, 64 Republicans joined all Democrats in indicating their support for an increase in the minimum wage by voting for a Democratic motion to instruct on the vocational education bill. But instead of providing for a fair up-and-down vote on the minimum wage, the Republican leadership today has combined an increase in the hourly rate with an estate tax cut that will benefit the heirs of the wealthiest estates in America and drive our Nation hundreds of billions, approximately $800 billion further into debt.

If nothing else, Mr. Speaker, this bill certainly tells the American people precisely where the Republican priorities lie. Their priorities lie with Paris Hilton and other heirs of the super wealthy, not the hard-working Americans who work 40 hours a week earning a minimum wage and are living in poverty in the richest Nation on the face of the earth.

Mr. Speaker, this Republican bill wreaks of cynicism. It is a political stunt designed to give vulnerable Republicans in tough elections the opportunity to say they voted to raise the minimum wage, even though they know this bill is a shell game. We will give with one hand and take with the other.

The estate tax will not pass. It has not passed. We have already passed it. We don't need to pass it again. But it is put on this bill as a poison pill to kill it because the Republican leadership opposes raising the minimum wage. What a shame.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in opposition to this bill and to lament the fact that we did not do what 250 Members of this House want to do.

Mr. Speaker, 250 Members of this House have indicated they want to see a raise in the minimum wage, that they want to see it now, and they want to see it in a simple straightforward bill to say to those working at the lowest rungs in America, doing what we expect them to do, working day to day, week to week, month to month, year to year to support themselves, their family, and contribute to the welfare of our country. We expect them to work; we ought to pay them. We ought to pay them a wage that does not leave them in poverty.

We could do that, because 250 of us would vote for such a bill. But, unfortunately, once again, we are playing a game. This bill was referred to as an Estate Tax Bill, not a minimum-wage bill. Minimum wage is included in the Estate Tax Bill. But that is the reason you put this bill on the floor, to pass a bill you have already passed but can't pass the Senate, or at least has not passed the Senate.

Therefore, attaching the minimum wage, which 48 of your Republican colleagues say they want to be for, is to design a process for failure. Not a failure for us, none of us work for the minimum wage; but a failure for 6.6 million people and, indeed, some 12 million more people who rely on help from those earning the minimum wage to support themselves and their families.

How sad. How sad that a 250-Member majority of the House of Representatives cannot summon the will or the courage or the good sense to offer simply a bill which does what we want it to do, to raise from $5.15 the minimum wage over three increments to $7.25.

If a minimum-wage worker was earning now what he or she earned in 1968, they would be earning $9.05 an hour. This bill simply has an increase to $7.25, the bill that we proposed. Now, we will have that available in a motion to recommit, along with the extenders that everybody is for, which could have passed on a separate suspension bill, I suspect. But the fact of the matter is that this bill is designed to fail because the majority leadership opposes raising the minimum wage. How sad. How shameful.

Mr. Speaker, the tragic death of a young soldier from St. Mary's County, Maryland, who gave the ultimate measure of sacrifice in the global war on terror, saddens all of us. As we continue to fight this war, the loss of each and every service member is a tragedy.

St. Mary's County, the State of Maryland, and our Nation lost a great hero when Army Corporal Matthew Wallace of Lexington Park died from his injuries after being hit by a roadside bomb on July 16th.

Matthew Wallace is the 50th Marylander killed in the war in Iraq.

Matthew told his family that he dreamed of becoming a soldier. Today, a grateful Nation thanks him for sacrificing his life in the pursuit of enduring freedom.

He served in the Army's 10th Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division at Fort Hood, Texas. Often working at the front of his larger unit, he earned distinctions as a marksman and earned the Army Achievement Medal.

In correspondence with his family, Wallace expressed his hope that he was helping the Iraqi people. Unquestionably, his efforts gave generations of Iraqis the dream of democracy.

Wallace attended Great Mills High School, earned his GED, and worked at several local businesses in his hometown of Lexington Park, including Linda's Cafe and a local convenience store where his co- workers praised his maturity and sense of commitment. He enlisted in the Army in early 2004.

When he deployed to Iraq in December, he was well aware of the danger he would be facing. ``He chose to do this,'' his mother said proudly. His sister Jessica recalled flying home from Basic Training with Matthew, who was still in full uniform, and a man came up to him and thanked him for his service. His older sister said she then realized, ``he was now America's son, America's brother.''

Matthew's service to our Nation was source of great pride to his parents, Keith and Mary, as well as his sisters, Jessica, Abigail and Micah. Matthew was a Top Gunner for a Bradley Vehicle for his unit in Iraq who once told his mother ``he was going to fight the war on terror so his sisters' children never had to.'' He felt compelled by the events of September 11 to do something more for his Nation.

Indeed, Matthew Wallace gave his life for all of us. As his Representative in Congress, I am grateful for his patriotism and his sacrifice. The Fifth District of Maryland and all Americans join the Wallace family in mourning the loss of this fine young man a real hero.

Mr. Chairman, Democrats worked with the health care and technology industries to write a bill that would lead to the widespread use of information technology in medicine, a necessity. The effective use of it can reduce medical errors, health care costs, and save lives.

Mr. Chairman, we should be taking up the Dingell-Rangel bill today, a bill that was virtually identical to the bill that passed unanimously in the United States Senate. Instead, we are voting on a Republican bill that fails to provide for the development or adoption of interoperability standards, that fails to provide funding to help providers transition to an electronic medical records system, and that fails to strengthen privacy protections.

What a shame. What a missed opportunity. We should oppose this bill, and we should bring the Rangel bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I think this bill, the Fuel Conservation Education Act, is a worthwhile piece of legislation. I am going to support it. This bill calls for a public education campaign by the Department of Energy and industry groups to provide U.S. motorists with information about measures that they may take to conserve fuel. I think that is important information.

Many of the measures, from observing speed limits to keeping tires properly inflated, of course, are already well known.

I believe that even the cosponsors of the bill acknowledge that it is no substitute, however, for a real, proactive energy policy that seeks to wean our Nation from its dependence on foreign oil.

Thus, today, I want to take this occasion to call the Members' attention to legislation that seeks to do precisely that. I call it the PROGRESS Act, a program for real energy security.

I, along with others, unveiled this proposal yesterday, along with the dean of the House, Congressman Dingell; the ranking Democrat on the Transportation Committee, Congressman Oberstar; and Congressmen Udall, Herseth, Holt, Blumenauer, and Schiff.

In short, the PROGRESS Act seeks to initiate a robust, vigorous, focused national program, akin to the Manhattan Project, this one focused on energy independence.

The PROGRESS Act would establish a National Energy Security Commission, bringing together government, industry and academic leaders to develop consensus national goals on energy.

Well, that sounds very good, another commission. But it is, in fact, like the Base Closure Commission, because they will then submit through the President its proposals, and the Congress will have to act on those in an expedited fashion, as is true with Base Closure.

It would establish as well a new Manhattan Center for high efficiency vehicles, seeking to double the current average vehicles' efficiency, and to diversify fuel types. America, the greatest innovator on the face of the Earth, ought to be producing cars that are 60-, 70-mile-per-gallon cars, and selling them to India and China, as opposed to the other way around.

It would establish a national biofuels infrastructure development program, establishing a grant program to encourage the private sector to invest in wholesale and retail biofuel pumps, tanks, and related distribution equipment.

It will do us no good to produce biofuels if we cannot deliver them to biofuel-capable vehicles. The PROGRESS Act calls for a stimulus package to upgrade the pipeline for biofuels. You cannot ship them through pipelines, they are a different chemical make-up and they eat up pipelines.

The freight rail system, while also providing grants to promote conservation alternatives, such as public transit and commuter rail, the freight rail systems are critical.

This bill would also increase the use of alternative fuels in Federal fleets. Federal fleets are the largest users of petroleum products in the world. The largest single user in the world. Many of our vehicles are flex fuel vehicles. The problem is, there is no delivery of flex fuel infrastructure in place, and therefore they do not use it.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members to review the PROGRESS Act, this program for real energy security, which will be introduced tomorrow.

Energy independence is inextricably linked to our national security, our economic well-being and our environmental integrity. So, from a security point of view on national security, from an economics point of view in terms of the growth of our economy and from an environmental standpoint, we must apply America's technological capability to producing clean-burning alternative fuels that are energy efficient and sell them to China and India. Because if China and India do not have that capability as well, they will choke us to death. So it is not just what we do but what these two behemoth societies, growing industrial societies in our globe are doing. We must act now.

That is the point the gentleman from Massachusetts was making. I disagree with him on whether we are for or against this bill. I am going to vote for this bill. There is nothing wrong with this bill. Educating consumers is a good thing to do. To the extent that they are more knowledgeable in saving fuel, that is a positive step for us to take; and I am going to vote for it.

But the point that the gentleman from Massachusetts was making is it is not enough nor is it a substitute for very focused, comprehensive action. That is what the PROGRESS Act is all about. I hope that you will look at it, and I hope that you can help us pass it, perhaps not this year but in the very early part of the next session of the Congress of the United States.

I thank Mr. Lantos for yielding the time, Mr. Chairman. I support this important bipartisan legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

It is critical to note that this bill creates a two-vote process for Congress to approve this Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement with India. While the bill allows the necessary waivers to the Atomic Energy Act for this pact, it also requires that the President submit a final agreement to Congress for a second up or down vote. I want to congratulate the gentleman from California for getting us a process that gives us that opportunity.

In short, I believe a Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement with India will serve America's strategic interests and strengthen global nonproliferation regimes by bringing the majority of India's nuclear reactors under International Atomic Energy Agency oversight for the first time.

In addition, this bill will strengthen the relationship between our two great democracies. A civilian nuclear agreement will help India's burgeoning economy continue to grow, and it will provide India with a clean source of energy.

Now, it is true that India is not a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, an international accord that I strongly support. But it is also true that India has honored the spirit of that treaty and has been a responsible nuclear nation for the past 32 years, unlike Pakistan, North Korea and Iran, I might observe.

Under this bill, the President is allowed to waive provisions of the Atomic Energy Act only after he sends Congress a determination that India has a credible plan to separate civil and military nuclear facilities. The President must also send to Congress a determination of an agreement between India and the IAEA requiring that agency to safeguard in perpetuity India's civil nuclear facilities, materials, and programs. In addition, the legislation requires detailed annual reports on the implementation of this agreement.

Mr. Chairman, I believe the House bill represents a policy that recognizes our Indian allies' responsible actions over more than three decades and our two nations' strong and deepening relationship. I thank the gentleman from California and Mr. Royce for their work on this bill and rise, as I said at the outset, in support of it.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor Tim Friedman, a great friend a great public servant. Next month, Tim will officially retire from the House of Representatives following 30 years of outstanding public service.

Tim grew up in Lackawanna, New York, and came to Washington, DC in 1976. That year, he began his distinguished career with the U.S. House of Representatives under the former Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Dan Rostenkowski. Tim served as a Doorkeeper in the Democratic Cloakroom for the Honorable James T. Molloy from 1976 until 1982, when he began working for the Honorable Jack Russ. In 1985, Speaker Thomas P. ``Tip'' O'Neill appointed Tim as the Assistant Manager of the House Democratic Cloakroom.

In 2003, Tim married his wife, Colleen Early. Tim and Colleen are dedicated golfers and are building a home in Wallace, North Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, it is a little-known fact outside of Washington that the Democratic and Republican Cloakrooms are vital to Congress' functioning. Dealing with Members of Congress on a daily basis is not an easy task, but Tim has kept our members running on schedule, kept us fed, and kept us smiling for years now, and he will be sorely missed.

I am grateful to Tim for his tremendous service to the House of Representatives, and I wish Tim and Colleen the best of luck in his well-deserved retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank Mr. Shaw and Mr. Cardin for proceeding on this debate, as well as Mr. Moran. I think I have voted with all three of them on various different occasions.

Mr. Speaker, I have been a strong advocate for free trade and open markets. I believe strongly that American businesses and workers can compete and win in the global economy.

Increasing global interdependence is a reality in the 21st century, and it presents our Nation with an opportunity to promote democratic reform, the rule of law, and respect for basic human rights.

It is incumbent, however, upon us to foster global trade, to engage our partners in a system based on rules and law, and to work to raise the living standards of working men and women; and not to recoil from the rest of the world.

Philosophically, I count myself a proponent, a strong proponent of free trade, and have voted for many of the trade agreements that have come before this House.

This agreement, I think, is relatively insignificant as it relates to trade and the volume of trade and the impact on our domestic economy. It may have a much more substantial impact, obviously, on the Oman economy. But in terms of our own economy, it will have, I think, relatively little impact.

However, the Oman Free Trade Agreement I believe is flawed, and it undermines fundamental worker rights. Thus, I intend to oppose it.

What this debate, from my perspective, is about is the criteria that we will tell the world is necessary for us to enter into agreements with them. In many respects, as I understand it, those trading partners with whom we might enter into agreements are not in opposition to that which we are seeking. In fact, it is my understanding that there are Members of this Congress and members of the administration far more opposed to the issues that I will discuss than are the partners who enter into agreements with us.

Oman today does not meet the five basic International Labor Organization standards, including the rights of association and collective bargaining, bans on child labor, slave labor, and discrimination in employment. They say they are going to meet those, but they have not yet met them.

Americans, I believe, feel very strongly about all of those provisions in our own domestic law and in international law.

And it seems to me appropriate that we pursue agreements in that context. There are no labor unions in Oman today. The only labor organizations are, essentially, management labor committees. And while 70 percent of workers in Oman are expatriates, there is little, if any, participation by foreign workers in administering such committees. In other words, most of the workers are from outside of Oman. But almost all of those who participate in any kind of discussions with reference to labor issues are within Oman, Omani citizens.

For 8 months Oman has failed to take a number of steps to ensure that its practices immediately comply with ILO standards and to bind those commitments under the agreement, as was done by Bahrain last year.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Research Service confirmed just yesterday that the trade agreement would make it more difficult to protect U.S. ports and block a takeover by foreign government-owned companies such as Dubai Ports World. That raised a tremendous amount of concern just recently when the CFIUS process did not work as we thought it ought to.

It is regrettable that Republicans on the Rules Committee rejected amendments offered by my good friend, Congressman Cardin, that would have closed this loophole, and it would have at least subjected it to full and fair debate. These are serious issues, and they should be debated fully and fairly. The Rules Committee, however, failed to give us that opportunity. It would have, indeed, insured compliance with ILO standards as well before this agreement goes into effect. But that amendment was not made in order.

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, there is no reason that we cannot negotiate agreements that advance the cause of free trade, promote the rule of law, generate economic development of countries in great need, and extend to workers, farmers, and businesses the advantages of expanded trade to new

markets. None. This flawed agreement, however, fails to accomplish those objectives.

For that reason, so that we can set a benchmark for future, much more consequential trade agreements for our country, I believe today the Congress of the United States ought to set that benchmark and say to the administration, say to the USTR, and say to those with whom we will negotiate in the future for trade agreements that this is the essential element of our agreement because we believe, this country believes that as we want to lift our own workers, as we want to lift our own trade viability, and as we want to lift the viability of trade of other countries, we also want to ensure that we lift workers in that process.

That is the right thing to do. It is the best thing to do. It is the best policy thing to do, and therefore, I will oppose this agreement, but hope that as agreements come before us in the future, that I will be able to support them in the best interest of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come; and at this time, I yield to my friend, the majority leader, Mr. Boehner of Ohio.

Reclaiming my time, I was very pleased to hear that we are going to be dealing with the Horse Protection Act. I am sure that all of us are concerned about that. I say that seriously.

But can you tell me when we might be doing the Worker Protection Act, particularly those that are working at the lower end of the scale, the minimum wage act?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman, and I meant that seriously on the Horse Protection Act. I am sure it is an important piece of legislation, but we are very concerned and continue to be concerned, many, many Members on your side of the aisle continue to be concerned, about the 9 years that have transpired since we adjusted the minimum wage, no cost of living attached to it, and we are very hopeful that the majority leader and your side of the aisle will see fit to bring that forward.

We hope that you will bring it forward in a fashion that will not dilute the attention and focus on the workers, and by that I say attaching it to a tax bill or some other piece of legislation. We would hope that that would be a clean vote on the floor, and we think the majority of this House are for it. We think it is a very, very important piece of legislation, and we ask you to very seriously consider bringing it up next week if possible, but as early in September as possible.

September 29 has been put in the press as the target date at least. You mentioned one of the pieces of legislation that might be on in September. Can you tell me how definitive or definite a date that September 29 may be for the possible adjournment prior to the election?

I yield to my friend.

That is going to be the date?

November 13. There are all sorts of things I could say about post-election.

We will be happy when we get back here on the 13th.

To proceed with whatever legislation we decide ought to be considered, realizing we won't be sworn in until January as the majority party.

Yes, it will undoubtedly be a lame duck session, I tell the majority leader.

We could go on a long time on this. We probably ought to move along with the schedule because you and I have a different view as to who is going to be lame and who is going to be the duck and other issues of great importance to the American people.

On the issues, the Labor-Health bill, obviously the minimum wage is one of the issues on that bill, but there are a lot of other issues on that bill as well. Do you have any expectation the Labor-Health bill will move either next week, I know it is not on the calendar, or in September?

I yield to my friend.

Moving on to the pension conference report, there have been some reports that there may have been some progress in the pension conference, but I want to tell the leader again, very seriously, I read in one of the journals that the conference, or a group, had been meeting. There had been five Republicans and two Democrats.

I want to tell my friend, in all seriousness, and I have asked you to engage on this, not one Democrat from the House of Representatives has been engaged in these meetings. The two Democrats that are mentioned in that story are both Democratic United States Senators. They may be very fine United States Senators. This is a two-House, bicameral Congress.

The gentleman made a representation to me, and I take him at his word, I believe he means it, that a conference is better or a discussion on where we are going on this pension bill, a critically important bill that has been pending now for almost half a year or longer, I suppose, the gentleman knows the exact date of that, and has not moved, and during that period of time, Democrats from the House of Representatives have not been included in the pension conference. I have been, I think, pretty polite on my request to you, Mr. Leader, but this is not the process that we ought to be following.

I yield to my friend.

I hope that is the case, Mr. Leader, and again, I take you at your word. While you are not the chairman of the conference, you are the majority leader of the majority party in the House of Representatives.

Reclaiming my time, one option, of course, is the Republican Members from the House of Representatives that are participating in these meetings indicate to our Senate colleagues that they are not prepared to proceed unless there are Members of the minority party present in those meetings to discuss issues of critical importance to literally millions of people in this country.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

The gentleman who just spoke previously on the other side of the aisle was wrong, and he misstates the position of the Democrat Party. Indeed, he misstates the need for this bill. There is no court case that is pending that has shunted this aside, of articulation of ``under God.'' In fact, the Supreme Court said the litigant did not have standing.

Madam Speaker, I believe that our Pledge of Allegiance with its use of the phrase ``one Nation under God'' is entirely consistent with our Nation's cultural and historic traditions.

I also believe that the United States District Court in Sacramento, in September of 2005, holding that use of this phrase is unconstitutional is wrong. I want the gentleman to hear me. I believe the decision was wrong.

As a matter of fact, as the gentleman knows, 383 people on the floor of this House, overwhelming numbers of Democrats and Republicans, said it was wrong. The gentleman may recall that resolution.

But this court-stripping bill is not necessary. In fact, the Department of Justice is seeking to overturn the district court's decision. For political reasons, the other side of the aisle does not want to allow the judicial procedure to continue as our Founding Fathers perceived it to be in the best interests of our Nation, a Nation of laws.

Yet today with this radical court-stripping bill, our Republican friends completely overreact to this lone district court decision, which I believe is clearly likely to be overturned.

This legislation would bar a Federal court, including the Supreme Court, from reviewing any claim that challenges the recitation of the Pledge on first amendment grounds. If we are a Nation of laws, we must be committed to allowing courts to decide what the law is.

Let us be clear. This bill is unnecessary and, I believe, probably unconstitutional. It would contradict the principle of Marbury v. Madison, intrude on the principles of separation of powers, degrade our independent Federal judiciary, which, by the way, is a pattern of the majority party that is constantly wanting to undermine the judiciary. It is an end run.

Furthermore, Madam Speaker, the House should not be spending its time today addressing a single Federal court decision that should be overturned on appeal. My goodness, how many bills we would have to have to disagree with every court opinion that comes down.

What we should be doing, Madam Speaker, is taking up legislation providing a long overdue increase in the Federal minimum wage, which has stood at $5.15 per hour since 1997, the longest period of time that we have not raised the minimum wage since Ronald Reagan and George Bush were President of the United States, in which case it was a longer period of time.

An estimated 6.6 million, indeed some estimate as many as 18 million people, are impacted by the minimum wage. Yes, we are raising this issue now because it is the right thing to do whenever you do it, in whatever forum you do it, at whatever time you do it. It is time that we take people working in America every day, playing by the rules, take them out of poverty. Let's do it now. Give us this opportunity. Give them a chance.