Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, in February of 1913, an extraordinary lady was born and 42 years later she refused to give her seat up on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama. Her actions had an extraordinarily positive impact on America and on focusing Americans' attention on the fact that they were, as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said, not fulfilling our Nation's promise of equality and justice. And so we note the passing of Rosa Parks at the age of 92. She made an extraordinary contribution, not just to our country, but to the concept of equality and dignity of human beings around the world.

Rosa Parks was a civil rights icon and a national treasure. Her simple, dignified act nearly half a century ago--defiance of a racist law that denied her humanity--helped galvanize the civil rights movement and delivered a moral body blow to segregationist laws that stain our Nation's history.

Ms. Parks' life is a testament to the truth that one person with courage and an unshakable will can change a Nation and begin to right wrongs. Her legacy will endure not only through her personal acts of courage and strength, but also through the thousands of activists who were inspired by her.

Ms. Parks risked everything, including her life, for a cause that she knew in her heart was right. We are a better Nation today as the result of her courage and vision. And, we should honor her memory by continuing the fight for equality, decency and basic human rights.

Mr. Speaker, the problem is, I tell the former Speaker from the Florida legislature, you do not have the courage of your convictions on your side. You are not prepared to put your proposition to a democratic vote on your side.

Mr. Speaker, once again this House majority is resorting to heavy- handed tactics that are designed to do one thing only, to achieve a preordained result by shutting down a full and fair debate in this House.

Let me remind my colleagues what the chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier, said on this floor 12 years ago, in March 1993: ``Frankly, it seems to me that the process of representative government means that a person who represents 600,000 people here should have the right to stand up and put forth an amendment and then have it voted down if it is not supportable. We are simply asking that we comply with the standard operating rules of this House.''

Why will you not do that today? Because you do not have the confidence you have the votes. Again, today, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and his Republican colleagues are violating their own promise to allow free and fair debates. It is another stark example of the arrogance of power and the abuse of power.

This Republican majority has blocked Mr. Frank's amendment, as well as other Democratic amendments, and thus stifled, shut down, democracy and stifled debate.

The manager's amendment, among other provisions, will prohibit nonprofit organizations from using their own funds, I tell the gentleman from Florida, their own funds, from voter registration drives or get-out-the-vote activities for a period beginning 12 months before a grant application until it is over.

Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous that this House would take such an action, any action that would inhibit or prevent anyone from engaging in nonpartisan voter registration, unless, of course, you fear the wrath of the voters in response to your abuse of power. Let us be clear. This provision is nothing more than a transparent attempt to disenfranchise voters who otherwise may not register to vote.

The gentleman mentioned the Catholic Conference. Let me read just two sentences, I hope I have the time to do it: ``Proposals that would limit eligible recipients to organizations that have as their primary purpose the provision of affordable housing would effectively prevent Catholic dioceses, parishes and Catholic charity agencies from participating in affordable housing programs.''

That is the Catholic Conference of Bishops speaking. They say it would force Catholic agencies, not ACORN, would force Catholic agencies to choose between participating in affordable housing fund programs, or engaging in constitutionally protected voter registration and lobbying activities with their own funds.

This is Catholic bishops, I tell my friend, speaking. These provisions are an outrage, and this process is an outrage. As one Member of this body complained, once again the vast majority of Americans are having their representatives in Congress gagged by the closed-rule committee.

That was the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the now-chairman of the Rules Committee. This undermines democracy in this the People's House. What a shame.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, so the public understands and our colleagues understand, what I indicated was that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking Democrat on this committee, who has been here over a quarter of a century, wants to offer an amendment that was supported in the committee; and he has been precluded from offering that amendment.

To that extent, the Republicans have undermined the free and fair debate on this floor. That was my point. And I believe I was absolutely correct.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I often talk with great pride about the University of Maryland, both as an outstanding academic institution and as my alma mater. Today is no different. While this latest achievement revolves around the concept of games, it is not Gary Williams or Ralph Friedgen who are bringing home the hardware. Instead, it's Thomas Schelling, a University of Maryland professor and 50-year expert in the concept known as ``game theory,'' who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences last week.

The Fifth Congressional District congratulates Professor Schelling, whose contributions to economics will influence generations of policy- makers, diplomats, and strategic thinkers. Schelling is best known for his book, ``The Strategy of Conflict,'' a groundbreaking effort to deter the use of nuclear weapons. Schelling used his ``game theory'' to explain how the Cold War could effectively be prevented from turning into a nuclear holocaust. As Michael Kinsley recently noted in the Washington Post, Schelling's theory was born to deal with interdependence. ``The other side had to be confident that it could survive and retaliate if you went first,'' he said. ``Otherwise, in a crisis, it would be sorely tempted to go first.''

Fortunately, the world averted disaster in the case of the Cold War, but many modem day security threats remain. With nuclear terrorism the most glaring and preventable

homeland security challenge of our time, world leaders would be wise to consider Professor Schelling's theory wherever possible.

Professor Schelling has spent the majority of his adult life championing the most patriotic of causes: applying behavioral and economic sciences for the promotion of peace. The Nobel Academy rightly recognized his distinguished career, and the Nation should be proud of his accomplishments. As a native of Maryland and an alumnus of the place Schelling calls home, I take special pride in saluting his success.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that manufacturers or sellers of weapons should be liable for injuries, which result from the use of their products in criminal ways, simply because they produce and distribute their products.

The manufacture, distribution and sale of firearms is legal in our Nation. And unless a manufacturer or seller of arms acts in some wrongful or criminal way, holding them liable effectively as insurers-- I believe is inappropriate and probably a violator of the Constitution's Commerce Clause.

For example, I believe that the lawsuit pending in Federal court between the District of Columbia and Beretta and other gun manufacturers is an example of a claim that would effectively make gun manufacturers insurers for wrongful conduct. I expect the manufacturers to prevail in that case.

However, the bill before us goes beyond this premise, and overreaches in key respects.

First, I oppose the ``look back'' provision in this bill that requires the immediate dismissal of civil liability lawsuits against gun manufacturers that are pending on the date of enactment.

As a matter of principle and as a matter of policy, I do not believe that Congress should pass legislation that interferes with on-going civil lawsuits. This is tantamount to changing the rules in the middle of the game, and I generally believe this approach is inappropriate.

And second, I am troubled that, as the American Bar Association has pointed out, the legislation would preempt State product liability laws with a new, higher standard that would protect the gun industry even if it failed to implement safety devices that would prevent foreseeable injuries, so long as an injury or death suffered by a victim resulted when the gun was not ``used as intended.''

Today, manufacturers must adopt feasible safety devices that would prevent injuries caused when their products are foreseeably misused, regardless of whether the uses are ``intended'' by the manufacturer, or whether the product ``fails'' or ``improperly'' functions.

If perfected, I might well have voted for this bill. However, no amendments were allowed by the Republican Majority to answer the concerns I have expressed. Therefore, I will vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman: the bill which you just indicated would be on the floor next week and you asked for amendments to be filed in a timely fashion is a very important bill. It came out, as you pointed out, with overwhelming bipartisan support. I think you said 65-7. Since that time, it is my understanding that there has been some change in the bill. In particular, I refer to the provision which deals with the ability of those who may receive dollars under the provisions of the bill for the purposes of constructing affordable housing, that if they receive Federal funds that they will be unable to thereafter participate in encouraging voter registration drives or getting more people on the rolls to vote. That is something that I think the whole House ought to address.

I believe the ranking member is going to ask that that be struck from the bill so that there not be a preclusion on voter registration drives or participation. The Catholic Conference is very concerned about that. I would presume a number of faith-based organizations are very concerned about that provision. I may have a discussion briefly with the acting majority leader on that issue as well.

But can the gentleman tell me whether or not he believes the Rules Committee will allow the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) to offer an amendment which would put the bill back in the position which 65 people in the committee supported at the time it was reported out.

I thank my colleague for yielding and would ask him if he can give us some thought on that issue, which we feel very strongly about, and hope that that amendment can be protected and made in order by the committee and that we will have a full and fair debate on the floor of the House with reference to that amendment.

I thank the gentleman for that information. There has been some suggestion, I understand, however, that although the bill may be in the same shape now, that there is a manager's amendment proposed and that the vote on the manager's amendment, which we presume, we have not seen it, would cover a multitude of subjects that are in the bill; that the vote on the issue that I have raised could be made on that manager's amendment. Therefore, you would have to vote against the manager's amendment if it changes the provision to which I referred.

I would hope, and this is not a question, just an expression, that the majority would make in order an amendment so that we could have a debate on that issue if in fact the manager's amendment does what we are concerned about and some people are proposing undermining the ability of some groups, faith-based groups. That is why the Catholic Conference is so concerned about it, faith-based groups or other groups who would build affordable housing, get money under the bill and then be precluded from participating in any efforts, not partisan efforts but nonpartisan efforts to get people on the rolls.

I would just urge the gentleman, who is a distinguished member of the Rules Committee, to consider, very hopefully, favorably the request of Ranking Member Frank to have made in order an amendment to deal with that subject. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the distinguished acting majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule for the week to come.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, on behalf of all the parents and grandparents, the acting majority leader and I had a brief conversation about my 3-year-old granddaughter, who this past weekend had the opportunity to show me the costume she is going to be wearing on trick or treat night, and she said, Hey, Pop, can you go with me? And I appreciate the gentleman's making that time available on behalf of his side and my side for all of us who might be doing that. That is a treat early, not a trick, and we appreciate that very much.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, the leader heard me have the discussion with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) of the Committee on Rules. I wonder if perhaps you could comment. We do not know the status of the manager's amendment, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) indicates. The acting majority leader does not know the status of the amendment, and I presume that is being worked on. But we have concerns that a very critically important provision of the bill, an overwhelming bipartisan bill, 65 to 7, might be changed and might have added to it a condition for the receipt of money by faith-based charitable organizations, nonprofit organizations to receive money to build housing; that if they received such money that a condition of the receipt of that money would be that they could not participate in voter registration efforts.

We have a letter from Catholic bishops very concerned about that. Other faith-based organizations are very concerned about that. I am sure nonfaith-based organizations are concerned about that. And, obviously, if the position is left in place as it now exists or as it existed when it passed out of the House, we would think that, without that preclusion, without that condition attached, we would be obviously not offering an amendment because we all agree with that. On the other hand, if the manager's amendment somehow changes that and puts that condition into the bill, then we would very much hope, Mr. Speaker, that the majority would allow all the Members who think perhaps that condition should not be attached to the bill to have a free shot at making that policy judgment on a separate amendment rather than just as a vote against the manager's amendment, which seems like somewhat not only a clumsy vehicle but very conflicted because there will be some issues in the manager's amendment, most of which I am sure the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) will probably agree on, but I would hope that the acting majority leader could work with the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), with his leadership to ensure that we have a freestanding debate on that issue. It is an important issue, and I think it will serve the House well if we do that.

I would be glad to yield to my friend for any comments he might have.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think he made the case that they would listen and make a determination. We are hopeful that they will make a determination that if they are going to change the bill by the manager's amendment they will allow the full House to consider whether that change is appropriate. But I thank the gentleman for his information.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, if I can, we appreciate very much the action on Halloween, on that Monday, October 31. I think that was appropriate. As the gentleman knows, the following week, November 8 is election day for a lot of people: New York City, the State of California, obviously very large jurisdictions; Virginia, a major election going on there. All of us are watching that election go on. New Jersey gubernatorial, as is Virginia and Ohio. So a very large number of people in America will be confronting elections and, therefore, a large number of our Members.

Has the majority considered the possibility of making sure that we do not have votes until later on in the day, Tuesday, so that we can free up our Members in those jurisdictions, A, to vote and, B, to participate to the extent that they feel it necessary to do so?

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his information. Perhaps we can talk about that further. I understand the problem. We are running out of time. We have got to use the days that are available. That is a very practical problem. I did not have Missouri on my list, but obviously a large number of States. Maryland does not. Maryland does not have elections this Tuesday other than municipal elections, so that is not a real problem for our State. But I understand the time problem, and perhaps we can discuss it a little further and see if there are some other times that we might utilize.

Finally, I would like to inquire further on the schedule for the balance of the year. Our target adjournment date, as I understand it, is November 18. I hope we can make that. As the gentleman pointed out, we do not have total control. The other body has to do things as well for us to get there.

If we do not make November 18, am I correct that the week of Thanksgiving, the Members can be assured that they will not be here the week of Thanksgiving, and am I correct that the probability is that the week after Thanksgiving, which I think starts either the 28th or 29th, that Monday, would not be weeks that we would be here but that, if need be, the week after that and perhaps the week after that in December would be weeks that we would be utilizing?

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his answer. I think that is very helpful for Members who are trying to plan.

Mr. Speaker, the PATRIOT Act, we were told that we might go to conference on that bill this week. That did not happen. Does the gentleman know when we anticipate perhaps going to conference on the PATRIOT Act?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate his answer.

Reclaiming my time, on appropriations conference reports, prior to the Thanksgiving recess, can he tell us how many he anticipates might be ready, obviously realizing that the other body's actions are difficult to determine, but does he have any thoughts on what appropriations conference reports we might be considering prior to the November 18 date?

I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his answer.

Lastly, we were expecting today to have a budget amendment, or an amended budget, on the floor today. That did not happen. He referenced it in his opening discussion of the schedule.

Does he expect that bill to come to the floor next week, and if so, does he expect it to call for reconciliation cuts above and beyond the $35 billion that was in the original budget?

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information.

Mr. Speaker, James B. Hunt--the four-term Governor of North Carolina, is not only a model public servant, a proud democrat and a long-time dear friend, he is the rare visionary who actually knows how to implement his vision and get demonstrable results.

The ``No Child Left Behind Act'' was an historic bipartisan achievement for our Nation. And it was a signal accomplishment for President Bush and Members on both sides of the aisle in Congress.

But the fact is, governor Hunt was in the vanguard of the movement for education reform in the States and his hard work helped inspire the enactment of this important Federal law.

When it comes to education, Jim Hunt not only put North Carolina on the map, he has helped move the Tarheel State toward the top of the heap.

His smart start program--a public-private partnership in each of North Carolina's 100 counties--helps provide quality child care, health care and family support for each child who needs it.

The ``Judy Centers'' in Maryland--named for my late wife, who was a strong advocate of early childhood education--provide many of the same services.

Jim Hunt helped set up North Carolina's primary reading program. He helped reduce class size, and create a dropout prevention program.

And, he established the State's school of science and mathematics, the Microelectronics Center of North Carolina, and the North Carolina Biotechnology Center.

He also helped put in place one of the most rigorous, approaches to measuring student performance, requiring mastery before promotion and graduation and providing assistance to turn around failing schools.

When it comes to education reform that gets results, no one in America has had a more profound impact than Jim Hunt.

He didn't just claim victory after signing these initiatives into law. He demanded--and received--results.

For example, The Rand Corporation reported that North Carolina Public Schools improved test scores more than any other State in the 1990s.

And, the 1997 national education goals report showed that North Carolina had the most impressive improvements toward reaching educational goals outlined by the panel, and made significant progress in science and math.

But Governor Hunt's contributions have been felt far beyond the borders of North Carolina.

They have been felt throughout the Nation.

As the founding chair of the national board for professional teaching standards, Jim Hunt has been a driving force in improving student achievement by raising teaching standards.

Quite simply, the national board helps teachers improve their skills, so that they can better serve their students.

Governor Hunt has always recognized that the key to a first-rate education is first-rate teaching.

And, through the national board he has helped raise the bar, striving to give professional educators the respect and training that they deserve.

Finally, let me say that Jim Hunt has always understood and focused on the nexus between educational achievement and economic success.

Today, figures from across the political spectrum--Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, Bill Gates and the U.S. Chamber--recognize and are talking about that nexus.

``We are living in a world,'' said President Clinton, ``Where what you can earn is a function of what you can learn.''

This issue, the centrality of education and knowledge in today's global economy, unites all of us.

And Jim Hunt has recognized that for more than 25 years.

A few years ago, the Raleigh News and Observer stated that, ``Jim Hunt served his State with practical accomplishment and with forceful leadership in times of crisis. Of that, he, and we, can be proud.''

Governor Hunt is a trailblazer who has lit the path to personal fulfillment and professional accomplishment for literally thousands of North Carolinians and men and women all across this Nation.

His insight has been invaluable. His determination has been essential. And his leadership has been practical, productive and profound.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I would like to make an observation to the chairman at the outset.

Mr. Chairman, had we had hearings on this bill, perhaps your questions could have been answered. But your side decided not to have any hearings, not to explore the facts. Your side decided to go ahead, in my opinion, for political purposes. I do not question your motives, because my understanding is you were acting under instructions, and we all understand that.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are being pummeled at the pump by high gas prices, and they are being told to brace themselves for record heating costs this winter. And what is this House majority doing to reduce the consumers' pain? Nothing.

Let us be clear: this bill is not a panacea; it is not even a solution or a plan. But do not take my word for it, just listen to the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Science, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). In a letter that he sent today, after the Committee on Rules reported the manager's amendment late last night, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) wrote in a Dear Colleague: ``Please join me in voting no on H.R. 3893, which will increase the deficit, harm the environment, undermine the States, and give charity to the oil companies while doing virtually nothing to help consumers.'' Chairman Boehlert's remarks.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this Republican majority is exploiting the disruption to our Nation's refining capacity caused by Hurricane Katrina and Rita to push many of the same provisions that they could not pass in the Energy Policy Act we passed in July.

This Republican bill, for example, would create a fund that would pay oil companies if they are sued, even if they lose in court. It would enable cities with dirty air to delay meeting clean air requirements, and it would preempt State and local zoning regulations related to the siting of refineries.

What do these provisions have to do with reducing gas prices today? In sharp contrast, the Democratic substitute, sponsored by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) would put some bite in the Federal Trade Commission's bark. It would give the FTC explicit authority to stop price gouging, not just for gasoline and diesel fuels, but for natural gas home heating oil and propane as well. It provides for enhanced penalties for price gouging, explicitly outlaws market manipulation, substitute Enron activities, if you will, and empowers State attorneys general to enforce the Federal law.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the substitute would establish a strategic refinery reserve. The fact is our national security and economic strength are susceptible to private industry decisions that are motivated primarily by profit, but not by national security issues. This Congress has a duty to address this vulnerability.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this substantive substitute, and I urge further, that if the substitute passes, maybe vote for the bill; but if it does not pass, to vote against this bad bill, which is bad for the consumers of our country.

The parliamentary inquiry would be how long, under parliamentary procedure, will this vote continue?

We have passed that, is my understanding, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the tally clerk that every Member of Congress who is in town has voted. Has voted. Has voted.

I do have a parliamentary inquiry. In that instance, is it not appropriate, once the people have spoken through their representatives in this House, to bring the vote to a close?

I do not think that is hypothetical. That is the fact.

I thank the Speaker. I am disappointed at the response, but I understand it.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. WAXMAN (during the vote). Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. When a bill does not have a hearing----

Mr. Speaker, there are many good provisions in this conference report, and I intend to support it.

I am pleased, for example, with the $110 million appropriated for the SAFER Program--and was proud to have worked with Congressmen Weldon and Sabo on an amendment to provide additional SAFER funding.

The President's budget zeroed out this program of hiring grants, which help achieve adequate staffing levels and improve the safety of our firefighters and communities.

I also am pleased that the conference agreement contains $545 million for the Fire Grant Program--representing an increase of $45 million over the President's request.

Nonetheless, even this funding level is $100 million below last year's level.

The Fire Grant Program is authorized at $1 billion, and we must work to increase--not decrease--funding that ensures that firefighters have modern equipment and advanced training.

However, none of us should delude ourselves.

This Republican Congress is simply not doing enough to address our unmet homeland security needs.

The inept Federal response to Hurricane Katrina--almost 4 years to the day after the terrorist attacks of 9/11--has only heightened concern about this Nation's ability to respond to another catastrophe.

Democrats would meet our first responder needs. Yet, this conference report cuts three of the four first responder grant programs.

Democrats would meet our needs for port security. Yet, with this conference report, we have funded only 12 percent of the amount needed for ports to comply with the Maritime Transportation Security Act.

Democrats would meet our needs for rail and transit security. Yet, while an estimated $6 billion is needed to improve rail and transit security, this conference report provides only $150 million for fiscal 2006.

Mr. Speaker, this Republican Congress--despite its proclamations otherwise--simply is not addressing our Homeland Security priorities.

I intend to support this conference report. But its flaws ought to give all of us pause.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. The time is insufficient, not only to explain my position, but also the time for consideration of this bill has been insufficient.

Thirty-two years ago, we passed a bill that a Republican President, Richard Nixon, signed to protect and conserve species in danger of extinction. Unfortunately, though, the underlying bill, which has been fast-tracked since its introduction, would substantially undermine the Endangered Species Act. That is what this is about.

For example, this bill would undermine the ability of the responsible Federal agencies to ably perform their oversight roles, and it fails to recognize the importance of sound science to species recovery and restoration.

The bill also creates a fiscally irresponsible, open-ended entitlement program that effectively pays landowners to comply with the law.

In contrast, the bipartisan substitute offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) has a far more reasoned approach.

It ensures consultation between the Secretary and other Federal agencies with proposed actions that may jeopardize species. It strengthens the definition of what constitutes jeopardy and requires the Secretary to ensure that proposed recovery plans identify and include areas necessary for species survival.

I urge support of the substitute and opposition to the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman. Thirty-two years ago, Congress passed and a Republican President--Richard Nixon--signed the Endangered Species Act to protect and conserve species in danger of extinction.

Today, there are 1,268 species listed as endangered or threatened in the United States, including 26 in the State of Maryland.

This law is not perfect, but it has been very successful. Roughly 40 percent of listed species have witnessed the stabilization or growth of their populations.

And, less than one percent have been declared extinct since the law's enactment.

The fact is, this law has enabled the very survival of some of our most vulnerable species--including the bald eagle, the gray wolf, the California condor, and the whooping crane.

Unfortunately, though, the underlying bill--which has been fast- tracked since its introduction last week--would substantially undermine the Endangered Species Act.

For example, this bill would undermine the ability of the responsible Federal agencies--the Departments of Commerce and Interior--to ably perform their oversight roles, and it fails to recognize the importance of sound science to species recovery and restoration.

The bill also creates a fiscally irresponsible, open-ended entitlement program that effectively pays landowners to comply with the law.

In contrast, the bipartisan substitute offers a far more reasoned approach.

It ensures consultation between the Secretary and other Federal agencies with proposed actions that may jeopardize species. It strengthens the definition of what constitutes jeopardy and requires the Secretary to ensure that proposed recovery plans identify and include areas necessary for species survival.

The substitute also creates conservation programs that would provide technical and financial assistance to landowners committed to efforts that protect species.

Mr. Chairman, we have a responsibility to protect our environment--as well as the diverse forms of life that share it.

The bipartisan substitute will help us achieve the goal. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the leader, for the purpose of informing us of the schedule for the week to come.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished majority whip and acting leader.

Mr. Leader, so that Members can be certain as to the schedule for next Thursday and Friday, on Thursday the House will begin business at 10 a.m., I understand, with no votes to occur before 2 p.m., and we will consider suspension bills and the conference report on the Homeland Security appropriations bill, and then the House will meet on Friday at 9 a.m. to consider the energy bill. Is that accurate?

Reclaiming my time and thanking the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman could tell us, because we have discussed with our Members from California, from Washington State, Oregon, and others, if they take a 7:40 a.m. plane, they do not get here much before 4 or a little after 4. Therefore, if those votes are started at 2 p.m., that requires some of our Members to leave the night before.

Some of our Members, as you know, because of their religious observance, cannot leave until after sundown, requiring them to take the red-eye. I discussed this with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) last week, and I am wondering whether or not, because I am sure Members on your side, well, I guess they do not, now that I think about it, have similar problems. But the fact of the matter is that it causes some difficulty for our Members traveling. I wonder if there is a possibility of starting at 10, continuing debate, but rolling votes until after 5 rather than after 2.

I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and perhaps the gentleman and I can discuss this after the colloquy.

I appreciate those problems. Perhaps we will discuss that.

I thank the gentleman for that information, and I am sure the Members will be pleased about that objective as well.

The week of October 17. I know that is some time away, but we will not be having a scheduling colloquy next Friday, probably. Can you give us any indication as to what bills may be on the floor?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information.

Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest cliches in sports is that you do not want your team to be number two.

However, the same does not hold true in other areas. That is why today I want to congratulate the entire St. Mary's College of Maryland community, including the students, alumni and parents and President Margaret O'Brien and the extraordinary faculty, for being ranked the number two public liberal arts college in the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, it will surprise no one that St. Mary's College is in my district. Furthermore, for full disclosure, I am on the board of trustees of St. Mary's College. It is an extraordinary institution of higher learning.

In fact, according to the latest college rankings by the magazine U.S. News and World Report, St. Mary's College is again one of the top 100 liberal arts colleges in the Nation, rising to 84 from 87 the year before. So not only is it number two of small colleges; it is number 84 in the entire Nation of all colleges.

When it comes to public liberal arts colleges, St. Mary's finished only behind the Virginia Military Institute in the U.S. News rankings.

Those rankings are based upon several criteria of academic excellence, including graduation and retention rates, faculty resources and peer assessment.

And this year, St. Mary's peer assessment rose to 2.9 out of a possible 5.0, and the freshmen retention rate rose to 88 percent.

Mr. Speaker, with roots going back to 1840, St. Mary's College is the State of Maryland's only public honors college, offering the academic excellence of a top private college with the openness and affordability of public education.

Today, about 1,950 men and women from 35 States and 23 countries attend St. Mary's, and the average SAT score for the entering freshmen is 1,252. The faculty also has distinguished itself, and more than 94 percent hold doctorate degrees.

By combining the virtues of public and private education, St. Mary's provides a unique alternative for students and their families. This special identity underpins the college's success and its reputation for excellence, in a waterfront setting in the heart of the Chesapeake Bay region just 70 miles southeast of Washington. It is an extraordinarily beautiful setting for an extraordinarily excellent college.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the college's board of trustees since 1995, I have seen this wonderful institution flourish over the last decade, and I am particularly pleased to see St. Mary's is winning national recognition among it peers. This is not the first time that has been the case, but it is a continuing affirmation of the excellence at St. Mary's.

Our 34th President, John F. Kennedy, once said: ``Education is the mainspring of our economic and social progress. It is the highest expression of achievement in our society, ennobling and enriching human life.''

Mr. Speaker, St. Mary's College of Maryland truly enriches southern Maryland and our entire State. I want to congratulate the entire St. Mary's College community on receiving this latest national recognition. Well done, well deserved.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

I am pleased that we have a bipartisan bill here. I want to congratulate the chairman, congratulate the ranking member, and congratulate the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for coming out with a bipartisan bill.

Unlike the bill considered by the House in 2003, this legislation does not attempt to block grant Head Start programs, which was controversial. I think that is good for the passage of this bill. Furthermore, it strengthens academic content, improves teacher quality, promotes better coordination between Head Start and other early childhood programs, and it strengthens accountability.

My wife supervised Head Start in our jurisdiction for many years. There are 24 Judy Centers around the State of Maryland right now, many of which include Head Start.

This bill was reported out of committee almost unanimously, if not unanimously. Unanimously. While the underlying bill contains long- standing nondiscriminatory provisions, and I congratulate the committee for that, there is an amendment lurking that will undermine that bipartisanship and, not only that, undermine an extraordinarily fundamental principle in our country: we do not discriminate. We do not countenance discrimination.

The previous gentleman indicated he does not know of any instance where there has been discrimination. I agree with that. I have never had anybody contact me ever, and this is my 37th year in public office. Never, from 1967 to today, have I had somebody come to me and say this is a problem. The committee has seen fit to report out a bill which does not allow discrimination. Why? Because there is no problem here. Frankly, the gentleman from Louisiana is trying to create a problem where there is none. We ought to reject that amendment.

If we do not reject that amendment, the overwhelming majority of us on this side of the aisle are going to vote against this bill. That is unfortunate because we are all for Head Start. It is a program that works. It is a program that is important. It is a program that we ought to reauthorize. And I urge us to support this bill, but reject a crippling amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the chief deputy whip for the purpose of ascertaining the schedule for the following week.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chief deputy whip for that information.

If I could call the gentleman's attention to October. Clearly, the first two weeks in October, as we all know, have a number of holidays, including Columbus Day holiday, which have impacted the schedule. It has been announced that we will not have votes the second week of October; but we still do not have, as I understand it, a clear picture of the first week of October.

We have a number of Members from the west coast who indicate that they will not be able to travel on Wednesday. There has been some discussion about possibly meeting Thursday and Friday. Could the gentleman give me his thoughts or the thoughts of the majority with reference to that particular week, particularly as it relates to Wednesday which, as the gentleman probably knows as well as any of us, is a problem for some of our Members. I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me ask the gentleman, if we are in session on Thursday, again, because many of our Members will not be able to travel on Wednesday, would I be correct in assuming that votes would be delayed until 6:30, as they usually are on a travel day? I yield to my friend.

Would that be 6:30? I hate to press the point; but, obviously, Members, for purposes of planning and travel and reservations, need to have pretty precise knowledge of when they have to be back here for votes. I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information and for that concern. I think that would be appropriate.

Might I suggest that by next week we have some more precise advice in terms of time so Members can plan accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, there was thought that we might meet tomorrow; that is obviously not happening. It is my understanding Friday is on the schedule for next week. Can the gentleman tell me how likely it would be that Friday, while there for contingencies, the likelihood of our meeting on Friday? Does the gentleman have any thought on that? I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, given that assumption, can the gentleman tell me when he would expect to have on the floor a continuing resolution, in light of the fact we clearly will not have passed most of the appropriations bills prior to the end of the fiscal year? I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if am I to understand about the discussions then as to what would be in the CR, the advice I would have, for whatever it might be worth, is that we try to consider it prior to Friday, in light of the fact that Friday is the last day, and if a glitch occurs, for whatever reasons, I would hope that the majority would bring a CR to the floor either Wednesday or Thursday, so that if we have a problem that we may be able to deal with that either Thursday or Friday.

But if we have not considered it until Friday and a glitch occurs, we are going to be in a bad spot with reference to the end of the fiscal year and the lack of funding authority for many agencies at that point.

I do not know whether the gentleman wants to comment on that or not, but I yield to him if he does.

I thank the gentleman. I have noted that all of my suggestions are taken with great solemnity and consideration on your side of the aisle, and I very much appreciate it.