them and that they capture revenue for but they are touching that many lives through their unique and vared programs. but out of all of those students it clearly understands the needs of these students and many come in with severe learning needs and five keys has taken it upon themselveses to actually hire staff that is trained to address those special needs but also a specialist in special education support and to develop that level of curriculum for those students to get them up to speed and get them to their goal, which is essentially a high school diploma. they offer g.e.d. and also a scholar's track now. so again going back to the budget, sorry i'm jumping all over the place. i'm trying to cover this altogether. a few of the items in the budget report and based on nancy's review again, one of her comments was around the revenue assumptions and she just wants to make sure that the charter was aware that the budget has not been finalized or adopted. if they are prepared to change their budget as well, which they are, they did submit a letter stating that after makings. the teachers salar

we believe that however the state legislation specifies under ceqa that there are and it vares from neighborhoodborhood to neighborhood. are you having trouble hearing? -- varies from neighborhood to neighborhood. are you having trouble hearing? the categorical exemption cuts out the seven historic districts and acknowledges that lightspeed network would have significant adverse environmental impacts on the seven historic districts. and then it says the alternatives for mitigating those, they would simply put the sidewalk boxes in other neighborhoods outside of the seven historic districts or put them on public right of ways and in doing so what they're doing is they're basically acknowledging that there is an environmental impact. as i said, it varies from neighborhood to neighborhood. in the richmond district, major parts of the richmond district, there's vareying instances there. the portion that would go in the richmond district would be in addition to a numerable number of other sidewalk cabinets that are already there to support at&t's landline telephone system. it would also be in additio

lungren: upon which you can make an argument is constitutional because it does not vare the pay given to these -- vary the pay either given to the president -- >> will the gentleman from georgia yield time? mr. woodall: i'd like to let my chairman finish. mr. lungren: i believe the regular order is to not interrupt at the time they're making the argument. maybe because it's difficult to hear the words of the white house about the unconstitutionality of that which the gentleman brings to the floor. if anyone wants this to act in vein it is the gentleman on the other side who has presented this motion to recommit because it is under any view, any view, unconstitutional. it violates the very terms of the constitution with respect to the president and with respect to members of congress. so if you want to exert any influence on members, if you believe this is the way to do it, would you accept the language that's in the underlying bill which does not attack directly the words of the constitution. i find it not funny, i find it tragic that on this floor we just heard the great arguments on

a vare right of studies have found that active involvement in church service serves as the kind of training center for important siic skills and all of these relationships hold true after controlling for various demographic and socio economic variables. beyond these kinds of claims you started to hear other evidence in the 1970s and 1980s that religious faith is impirkically associated with good things. social scientists who have no personal interest in vindicating religion and in fact who themselves are usually secular, have been building a rigorous literature on these issues and it turns out that most of the claims are true. and that includes a wide variety of benefits for the socialization of children. so i suggest that whatever your personal religious beliefs may be, full disclosure i am an agnostic who occasionally attends quaker meetings with my wife, you are on weak evidentiary ground if you think that the health of the american project is not affected by secularization. the main story line here is that secularization has occurred across all social classes. the hard core definition i

it's time they stop doing things the via vare day way and start doing things the right way. [speaking in a foreign language brackbrack the speaker pro tempore: -- [speaking in a foreign language] the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california, ms. chu, for five minutes. ms. chu: today i want to honor a man for his many years serving students in our public school system. ramon recently announced he was retiring as superintendent of the los angeles unified school district. during his distinguished 55-year career in education, he has served as superintendent of schools in los angeles, san francisco, san jose, pasadena, and new york city. i have the great privilege to work with ramon last year when the los angeles unified school district passed a resolution calling for the immediate passage of the dream act. but ramon was not only a superintendent and advocate, he was a teacher in my district and senior advisor to the u.s. secretary of education under president clinton. a lifelong educator, ramon has taught at every level in the public school system

lungren: upon which you can make an argument is constitutional because it does not vare the pay given to these -- vary the pay either given to the president -- >> will the gentleman from georgia yield time? mr. woodall: i'd like to let my chairman finish. mr lungren: i believe the regular order is to not interrupt at the time they're making the argument. maybe because it's difficult to hear the words of the white house about the unconstitutionality of that which the gentleman brings to e floor. if anyone wants thito act in vein it is the gentleman on the other side who has presented this motion to recommit because it is under any view, any view, unconstitutional. it violates the very terms of the constitution with respect to the president and with respect to members of congress. so if you want to exert any influence on members, if you believe this is the way to do it, would you accept the language that's in the underlying bill which does not attack directly the words of the constitution. i find it not funny, i find it tragic that on this floor we just heard the great arguments on the

lungren: upon which you can make an argument is constitutional because it does not vare the pay given to these -- vary the pay either given to the president -- >> will the gentleman from georgia yield time? mr. woodall: i'd like to let my chairman finish. mr. lungren: i believe the regular order is to not interrupt at the time they're making the argument. maybe because it's difficult to hear the words of the white house about the unconstitutionality of that which the gentleman brings to the floor. if anyone wants this to act in vein it is the gentleman on the other side who has presented this motion to recommit because it is under any view, any view, unconstitutional. it violates the very terms of the constitution with respect to the president and with respect to members of congress. so if you want to exert any fluence on members, if you believe this is the way to do it, would you accept the language that's in the underlying bill which does not attack directly the words of the constitution. i find it not funny, i find it tragic that on this floor we just heard the great arguments on t

lungren: upon which you can make an argument is constitutional because it does not vare the pay given to these -- vary the pay either given to the president -- >> will the gentleman from georgia yield time? mr. woodall: i'd like to let my chairman finish. mr. lungren: i believe the regular order is to not interrupt at the time they're making the argument. maybe because it's difficult to hear the words of the white house about the unconstitutionality of that which the gentleman brings to the floor. if anyone wants this to act in vein it is the gentleman on the other side who has presented this motion to recommit because it is under any view, any view, unconstitutional. it violates the very terms of the constitution with respect to the president and with respect to members of congress. so if you want to exert any influence on members, if you believe this is the way to do it, would you accept the language that's in the underlying bill which does not attack directly the words of the constitution. i find it not funny, i find it tragic that on this floor we just heard the great arguments on

lungren: upon which you can make an argument is constitutional because it does not vare the pay given to these -- vary the pay either given to the president -- >> will the gentleman from georgia yield time? mr. woodall: i'd like to let my chairman finish. mr. lungren: i believe the regular order is to not interrupt at the time they're making the argument. maybe because it's difficult to hear the words of the white house about the unconstitutionality of that which the gentleman brings to the floor. if anyone wants this to act in vein it is the gentleman on the other side who has presented this motion to recommit because it is under any view, any view, unconstitutional. it violates the very terms of the constitution with respect to the president and with respect to members of congress. so if you want to exert any influence on member if u believe this is the way to do it, would you accept the language tt's in the underlying bill which does not attack directly the words of the constitution. i find it not funny, i find it tragic that on this floor we just heard the greatrguments on the oth