Global Warming Education Act

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from California for yielding me time.

He made a couple of comments earlier, I won't try to repeat everything that he said, but he asked a question; he doesn't know why we're here dealing with this bill that normally would be under suspension and certainly wouldn't be a rule bill, but I agree that we know why we're here: it's to fill time because the majority has so little of consequence for us to deal with when we should be dealing with consequential things such as the American Energy Act.

However, I want to also point out the fact that this bill is not going to solve all of the problems of the world. It's not going to create the alternative energies that we need. I read the Constitution. I read it fairly frequently. Yesterday we celebrated Constitution Day. And I have searched in vain for the word ``education'' there. Nowhere did our Founding Fathers just think that the Congress of the United States should be involved in education. That was an issue that they thought best left to the States, and I think it is best left to the States and is not something that we should be dealing with here in the Congress.

Almost every day someone from the majority party comes to the floor and decries the deficit that we're facing. Well, one of the reasons that we're facing a terrible deficit is because the majority party is involved in everything and many things it should not be involved in, especially in education. That is something we should leave to the States. If we did that and left the hardworking people's money at the State level, we would be able to do a lot more than we're currently doing.

But I want to point out the fact that we should be dealing with the American Energy Act. We had a chance this week to do that, and we refused. Bipartisan passage of the American Energy Act would demonstrate to the world that America will no longer keep its rich energy resources under lock and key as the Democrats want to do. Not only will it help bring down the price of gasoline now, but it will make needed investments in the alternative fuels that will power our lives and our economy in the future.

Now as my colleague also mentioned earlier, there's been a very fine survey done. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit the entire survey for the Record today. I want to just point out some of the things that came out in the survey that my colleague had not pointed out.

This survey was launched in July by the Republicans on the Education Committee. It was provided via the Caucus Web site and was sent to education stakeholders all across the country. We asked those people to give us their reactions and the impact on the high cost of energy to the schools. Ninety percent of the people who responded indicated that high gas prices are having an impact on schools in their community. Ninety-six percent of these respondents demanded that Congress do more to address the energy crisis.

``Nearly half of the respondents reported that high fuel costs have forced schools in their community to cut field trips and after-school activities; one-third of respondents reported that high costs forced schools to limit bus routes, and nearly a quarter of respondents reported that rising energy costs have led to higher school lunch prices.''

We don't need to create more programs to encourage students to go on field trips. They're not going to be able to go on field trips because there's no

money to buy gas for the buses to take them on field trips.

This is just one of the most ridiculous things that we've been talking about in this session of Congress.

``Since Democrats took control of Congress''--and I'm quoting again from the survey--``in January 2007''--they took control of Congress, and I think it's very important the American people know who's in charge--``the energy crunch has been swift and severe. Gas prices have risen from an average of $2.33 per gallon in the first days of the Democrat majority to more than $3.75 per gallon today while diesel prices--particularly important for school transportation purposes--have risen from $2.44 a gallon to more than $4 per gallon today.''

Even the liberal New York Times has talked about the problem that the schools are facing. We don't usually find ourselves agreeing with the New York Times on issues, but they talked about the pain that schools are feeling. ``As the cost of diesel fuel has soared well past what many districts budgeted for last spring, school officials are rethinking their transportation needs, making big-ticket spending cuts and a host of surgical trims.''

They go on to quote, ``In a national survey of superintendents released in July by the American Association of School Administrators, 99 percent said that rising fuel costs had forced across-the-board cuts.'' This was the New York Times, September 5, 2008.

Here we are setting up programs, new programs, that cost a lot of money in bureaucracy and administration to try to do something we could do very, very easily by passing the American Energy Act.

That's all within our power here to do, and here are some individual comments in their own words from Americans who demand energy reform.

This is from Robert in Hamilton, Ohio: ``Yes, drill, build new refineries, solar, nuclear and anything else to break the dependence on foreign oil.''

That is exactly the position of Republican Members of this House. We want to break our dependency on foreign oil and we can do this. We are pro-American energy. Our colleagues, the Democrats, are anti-American energy. They will not do things that help us increase the supply in this country.

Here's another comment from Lori from Middletown, Ohio: ``I work at (a local) Head Start program. Our families are struggling to get their children to preschool. They must choose between gas in the car or food in many cases.''

I listened to these platitudes by our colleagues across the aisle, and frankly, they sound pretty hollow to me when we hear comments like this. The American people are suffering. They are doing nothing.

Another comment from Reeves in Gastonia, North Carolina: ``The rising cost of energy is impacting our school district in many ways: pupil transportation, employee travel, staff development, cost of goods/ services, et cetera. It is getting increasingly difficult to reduce costs and not have an impact on the instructional day.''

Again, the American people are hurting and the Democrats are turning a deaf ear.

From Thomas from Joelton, Tennessee: ``We have to increase the supply of domestic oil. When my family grew in size, I did not reduce the amount of food provided to each member, I increased the supply. Gasoline is the same way.''

The American people are very, very smart and the Democrats are selling them short. They understand the issue. They understand that the issue is supply and demand, and this report concludes:

``Education stakeholders overwhelmingly report they are being hurt by the energy squeeze and demand that Congress do more. But instead of doing more, rank-and-file Democrats voted overwhelmingly with their leadership to kill a Republican measure that would have given schools relief and continue to block a comprehensive plan to bring down fuel prices. The House Republicans' `back-to-school' energy survey confirms a New York Times report from earlier this month: `School officials are rethinking their transportation needs, making big-ticket spending cuts and a host of surgical trims.' How much longer will the Democrat-led Congress wait to give them--and families, seniors, and small businesses--the relief they are demanding from today's high energy costs?''

It is time that the Democrats listened to the will of the American people and provide an opportunity for us to provide more supply for the American people and give relief to them.

I say to them again, you're either pro-American energy or you're anti-American energy. So far, the position you've taken is anti- American energy, and I don't believe that's where the American people want you to be.

Strapped: Students and Schools Pay the Price for Democrats Failed

Energy Policies

summary and key findings

A survey launched in late July by House Republicans has

yielded some eye-opening results as the Democratic leadership

of the 110th Congress has refused to allow a vote on the

House Republicans' American Energy Act (H.R. 6566), which

aims to lower gas prices by increasing production of American

energy, encouraging more conservation and efficiency, and

promoting the use of more alternative and renewable fuels.

The survey--provided via the Education & Labor Committee

Republican caucus' website--was made available to education

stakeholders across the country, from parents and students to

teachers and administrators and sought their input on the

impact of today's high gas prices on schools, colleges, and

universities as the 2008-09 academic year begins. Key

findings of the survey follow:

90 percent of the survey's nearly 1,000 respondents

indicated that high gas prices are having an impact on

schools in their community.

96 percent of respondents demand that Congress do more to

address the energy crisis.

Nearly half of respondents reported that high fuel costs

have forced schools in their community to cut field trips and

after-school activities; one-third of respondents reported

that high costs forced schools to limit bus routes, and

nearly a quarter of respondents reported that rising energy

costs have led to higher school lunch prices.

In spite of these stark findings, the Democratic leadership

of the House has refused to schedule the American Energy Act

for a vote and defeated Republican proposals on June 4, June

26, and September 16, 2008 to assist schools feeling the

greatest impact from high energy costs. In fact, the

Democrat-led Education & Labor Committee has not even held a

single hearing on this issue.

schools feel the pain of high energy costs

American families, seniors, and small businesses are

hurting amid high gas prices and heating costs that are

poised to rise this fall and winter. But they are not alone.

As schools across the country settle into the 2008-09

academic year, they too are feeling the pain of today's

energy crunch. Indeed, from elementary and secondary schools

to community colleges and universities, schools at every

level are grappling with this crisis and making all-too-often

painful adjustments just to get themselves through the year.

Since Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007,

the energy crunch has been swift and severe. Gas prices have

risen from an average of $2.33 per gallon in the first days

of the Democratic Majority to more than $3.75 per gallon

today, while diesel prices--particularly important for school

transportation purposes--have risen from $2.44 per gallon to

more than $4.00 per gallon today.

Simply put, the surge in energy costs has been dramatic,

and the Majority has yet to offer the ``commonsense plan'' to

lower gas prices then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

promised during the 2006 campaign season. Instead, the

Speaker and her colleagues in the Democratic leadership have

offered one ``no energy'' bill after another--proving

themselves more interested in votes to provide political

cover for vulnerable Democrats than they are in giving the

American people an ``all of the above'' energy strategy to

lower fuel costs. And all the while, families, seniors, small

businesses, and--yes--schools are left to pay the price . . .

literally.

Earlier this month, the New York Times put the pain schools

are feeling into perspective:

``As the cost of diesel fuel has soared well past what many

districts budgeted for last spring, school officials are

rethinking their transportation needs, making big-ticket

spending cuts and a host of surgical trims.

``Some districts are eliminating field trips and after-

school buses. Many are consolidating routes, causing some

students to walk farther to their stops and others to lose

their buses altogether. They are holding off on new teachers,

counselors and textbooks, and teaming with neighboring

districts for prekindergarten, special education and private

school transportation . . .

``In a national survey of superintendents released in July

by the American Association of School Administrators, 99

percent said that rising fuel costs had forced across-the-

board cuts.'' (New York Times, ``Fuel Prices Squeeze School

Districts,'' September 5, 2008)

house republicans launch innovative ``back-to-school energy survey''

To help understand the scope of this problem, House

Republicans launched a web-based initiative in late July

focused on how high energy prices are impacting schools all

across the nation. Housed at the Education & Labor

Committee's Republican website, this survey gathered input

from school officials, teachers, and families over a period

of six weeks to determine the extent of the energy crisis for

schools at all levels--input that Republicans hope will

provide both parties even more of an incentive to come

together in these final days of the 110th Congress and pass

an ``all of the above'' plan to increase American energy

production, encourage more efficiency and conservation, and

promote the use of alternative and renewable fuels. The

survey follows:

1. Are high gas prices having an impact on back-to-school

preparations in your community?

Yes, a very significant impact.

Yes, somewhat of an impact.

No, not much of an impact.

No, not at all.

2. If you answered ``yes'' above, how are your local

schools coping with high energy prices?

Limiting bus routes.

Cutting field trips/after-school activities.

Increasing school lunch prices.

Moving to a four (or fewer) day week.

Expanding online course offerings.

Other (please describe below).

3. Should Congress be doing more to lower gas prices and

promote long-term American energy independence?

Yes.

No.

No comment.

4. Additional comments:

5. Name:

6. E-mail (optional):

7. City, State:

8. May we share your story with others?

Overstretched Schools Want Action from Democratic Congress

The above-referenced New York Times article depicts the

types of problems being experienced nationwide. In fact,

according to the ``back-to-school'' energy survey, 90 percent

of all respondents indicated that high gas prices are having

an impact on schools in their community (72 percent

responding that gas prices are having ``a very significant

impact,'' with 18 percent responding that they are having

``somewhat of an impact''). The most common ramifications of

high fuel costs are cutting field trips and after-school

activities (provided by 48 percent of respondents), limiting

bus routes (33 percent), and increasing school lunch prices

(23 percent).

As a result, nearly every respondent to the survey (96

percent) indicated that Congress should be doing more to

lower gas prices and promote long-term American energy

independence. Congress, however, has not answered the call,

in spite of the fact that House Republicans unveiled the

comprehensive American Energy Act to lower fuel prices nearly

two months ago. Democrats also turned back a House Republican

effort to provide more funding to assist schools dealing with

high energy costs.

House Republican Proposals for Reform Defeated by Democratic Majority

As the recently-completed survey suggests, schools across

the country are feeling the pain from rising energy costs.

Even before the survey was launched, however, House

Republicans attempted to provide more assistance to those

schools feeling the greatest pain from today's energy crunch.

On June 4, 2008, the Democratic leadership scheduled for

House consideration the 21st Century Green High-Performing

Public School Facilities Act (H.R. 3021), a bill that takes

$20 billion in taxpayer dollars away from low-income students

and students with disabilities and creates a massive,

unproven school construction program run by bureaucrats in

Washington. During consideration of the legislation, Rep.

Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) offered a motion to recommit

proposal to allow schools that have seen their energy costs

rise by more than 50 percent since January 4, 2007--Rep.

Pelosi's first day as Speaker--to use funds under the bill to

help cover their energy expenditures. Unfortunately,

Democrats killed the proposal, leaving the schools to fend

for themselves. (Rollcall Vote 378, with 225 Democrats voting

against the proposal.)

On June 26, 2008, during consideration of the Saving Energy

Through Public Transportation Act (H.R. 6052), Democrats

blocked a Republican proposal to assist rural schools and

students. The measure--offered by Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR)--

would have required that in any area where school bus

services are being cut back because of high fuel prices, the

funds under the Democratic bill must be used to help restore

those services. Walden's proposal gave preference to rural

and suburban areas where school buses have to travel greater

distances to transport students. (Rollcall Vote 466, with 217

Democrats voting against the proposal.)

On September 16, 2008, Democrats turned back a bipartisan

plan--co-sponsored by 38 Democrats, 24 of whom inexplicably

voted against it--that would have aided schools suffering

from the effects of the energy crisis as well. During

consideration of the Democrats' so-called Comprehensive

American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act (H.R.

6899), Rep. John Peterson (R-PA) offered a bipartisan plan he

originally authored with Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) to

begin taking steps toward lower gas prices and energy

independence. The plan, in part, would have enabled states to

enter into revenue-sharing agreements with the federal

government as part of increased energy production far off of

their coasts. Under the bipartisan plan, states would be

permitted to use revenues to increase funding to schools

feeling the impact of the energy crunch. But once again, the

Democratic Majority blocked the plan, depriving schools of

critical funding to help them cope with rising energy costs.

(Rollcall Vote 598, with 216 Democrats voting against the

proposal.)

In Their Own Words: Americans Demand Energy Reform

Following is a sampling of remarks left by respondents to

the ``back-to-school'' energy survey detailing exactly what

parents, teachers, and students are facing while the

Democratic Congress refuses to act on meaningful legislation

to bring down gas prices and other energy costs:

``Yes, drill, build new refineries, solar, nuclear and

anything else to break the dependence on foreign oil.''--

Robert from Hamilton, OH.

``I work at [a local] Head Start program. Our families are

struggling to get their children to pre-school. They must

choose between gas in the car or food in many cases.''--Lori

from Middletown, OH.

``The rising cost of energy is impacting our school

district in many ways: pupil transportation, employee travel,

staff development, cost of goods/services, etc. It is getting

increasingly difficult to reduce costs and not have an impact

on the instructional day.''--Reeves from Gastonia, NC.

``What are schools to do? The price of diesel, which most

school buses use, is even higher than the price of gasoline.

The option of passing or even sharing the cost of the fuel

increase with the consumers (parents) is not an option.

Levies are increasingly more difficult to pass. Field trips

and busing for athletics are either eliminated or the parents

are charged a fee to help offset the transportation cost.

Lengthening the school day and providing a 4-day week is

vehemently opposed by many parents who do not want to pay for

child care for that 5th weekday the child would not be in

school. Freezing wages and cutting back on insurance benefits

for teachers and support personnel deters people from

teaching at a time when the country desperately needs to be

focusing on Math, Science and Technology so its students are

better prepared for employment in our global economy . . . I

repeat--what are schools to do?''--Shari from Medway, OH.

``We cannot believe Congress went on vacation. We must have

a complete policy. Drill for oil, build new refineries, build

nuclear plants, and anything else that will work. Everything

is being affected, cost of groceries and all other goods.

Please help. Keep up the fight for us. We need an energy

policy.''--Ruth from Vacaville, CA.

``We have to increase the supply of domestic oil. When my

family grew in size, I did not reduce the amount food

provided to each member, I increased the supply. Gasoline is

the same way.''--Thomas from Joelton, TN.

``As an educator I am very concerned on the impact of

budget cuts for all students and staff operating in our

school system.''--Tessa from Waleska, GA.

``Being a rural community where most of the students come

to school on buses, high fuel prices cause a big problem.''--

Edward from Wapato, WA.

``The high price of fuel and energy costs [has]

significantly reduced the amount of funding we have for

educating our children to be competitive in a world class

economy.''--Pam from Medical Lake, WA.

``Every school child that I know has had their bus route

increased. My 6 year old is now on the bus for more than 2

hours a day.''--Claudia from Stevenson Ranch, CA.

``This year we may not be able to go on any field trips

because the school bus rates have gotten so expensive.

Families are having a tough time as it is. It is sad because

the kids are missing out on those experiences.''--Tar from

DeLand, FL.

Conclusion

Education stakeholders overwhelmingly report they are being

hurt by the energy squeeze and demand that Congress do more.

But instead of doing more, rank-and-file Democrats voted

overwhelmingly with their leadership to kill a Republican

measure that would have given schools relief and continue to

block a comprehensive plan to bring down fuel prices. The

House Republicans' ``back-to-school'' energy survey confirms

a New York Times report from earlier this month: ``School

officials are rethinking their transportation needs, making

big-ticket spending cuts and a host of surgical trims.'' How

much longer will the Democrat-led Congress wait to give

them--and families, seniors, and small businesses--the relief

they are demanding from today's high energy costs?

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to at this time yield to the gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) such time as she may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield at this time 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

I will be concluding for our side, if we could inquire how much time we have left.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

One week before the 110th Congress is scheduled to adjourn, we are devoting precious legislative hours to debating a noncontroversial bill to extend a minuscule environmental education program for 1 year. I think we all agree that environmental education is important now and for future generations, and I want to commend the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) for the work that he's done on this bill. I think, as he has eloquently stated, environmental education is very important. But how we spend our time in this Chamber is a reflection of our priorities, and today, our priorities are all wrong.

Chairman Miller and I work well together on the Education and Labor Committee, and we often reach agreements before bills are brought to the floor. On this bill, we worked together to resolve our differences, and we agreed that while important, this bill was straightforward and noncontroversial--most of our Members will vote for it--enough that it should be considered on the suspension calendar. I believe that two- thirds of this body would easily have supported the legislation, making these hours of debate unnecessary.

For whatever reason, whether to mask their continued failure to offer comprehensive energy solutions or simply to avoid a debate on the issue altogether, the majority has opted to bring this bill to the floor today under a rule. So let me just take a moment to reflect on H.R. 3036.

The Federal Government has a role to play in education. That role is to provide support and assistance to ensure that all children are provided a quality education. It is to support the academic achievement of disadvantaged children, children with disabilities, and other at- risk students who might otherwise be left behind. In pursuing these goals, we must be careful

not to create too much bureaucracy nor too many Federal programs that could undermine local control.

That's why I appreciate the efforts that were made to limit the scope of this bill, extending an existing program at the EPA and supplementing it with similar activities through the Department of Education rather than establishing a massive new environmental education bureaucracy as some had originally proposed.

This is a reasonable bill, and at the end of the day, I will support it. But, Mr. Chairman, if I had my choice, we would not be here debating this legislation today. Although environmental education is important, this Congress has a limited amount of time to challenge our mammoth problems facing this Nation.

As of a few minutes ago, when we found we won't be in session tomorrow, if we work all of next week, we will have 5 days left to finish the work of this Congress. Instead of tinkering around the edges of an existing environmental education program, we ought to be debating comprehensive, all-of-the-above approaches to reform our Nation's energy policy and put America on the path to energy independence.

Here we are, going into the last week of this Congress. We've been here 2 years, we only have now 13 days of work scheduled for the last 5 months of this year--and that, after our Democrat leadership, during the last election, said that we would be a harder working Congress, we would be a more open Congress, we would be one that would follow regular order, we would be open to the way this House was meant to function.

At this point, we have not passed one spending bill. The spending bills that were passed last year run out on September 30, the new year starts October 1, and not one spending bill to continue to fund the Government through the next year has yet been passed. We did pass one on this floor, but not one has been passed through the whole process-- the House, the Senate, and been sent to the President's desk, not one spending bill.

I guess the people throughout the country will be watching and seeing what happens on October 1. Will the Government be shut down? I don't know. I don't know how they plan to solve this problem. I just know that at this point they have not brought one spending bill to completion for the President to sign.

We have not finished our work on this committee on No Child Left Behind. That was a very, very important piece of legislation. We worked on it last year. We haven't talked about it for over a year now. And I guess that's just going to be let go into next year, when a new Congress will be here.

I am greatly disappointed, Mr. Chairman, with the work product of this Congress. We had the ability. We had new leadership that came in with lots of promises, lots of enthusiasm, lots of things that were going to be done to make things better for the American public. The most important issue facing us today is the energy issue. Every one of us in America sees that every day when we fill our tanks or at least drive by the gas stations and see how the price has gone up--or maybe down a couple cents, depending, but it's a couple dollars more than it was when the Republicans were in charge here a couple years ago.

We had the opportunity this year, even this week, to address an all- of-the-above energy solution: More conservation, more alternative fuels, more biomass, more wind, more solar--yes, and more oil, more coal, more shale.

Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I will not oppose it.

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

I want to thank Chairman Miller for offering this amendment, and Mr. Sarbanes for filling in.

This amendment clarifies that the Federal Government will not impose an environmental justice curriculum on our Nation's schools. This issue was debated during the committee consideration of the bill and it was an issue on which there was disagreement between the majority and the minority. I believe that the bill approved by our committee went too far in this regard because it could have required State and local officials to develop specific environmental justice curricula.

We have long believed that specific curricula--which is taught in individual classrooms--is best determined at the local level. And while this bill contains a broad prohibition on Federal curriculum development, I believe it was necessary to clarify the environmental justice language as well so that there would be no confusion as to what the Federal Government is or is not demanding of our schools. Chairman Miller worked closely with me to refine this language, and I want to thank him for his willingness to do so.

This amendment also contains some interesting language that was added earlier this week, presumably in response to efforts on our side of the aisle to ensure this bill does not ignore critical energy issues.

Republicans proposed amendments to advance the understanding of the environmental and economic benefits of clean coal and oil shale production, energy production in the ANWR, and energy production on the Outer Continental Shelf. We proposed amendments to advance the understanding of the environmental and economic benefits of nuclear power, and of American-made energy, and of the all-of-the-above energy strategy, which would increase production, promote conservation, and expand innovation. We think that each of these issues deserves a full and open debate because an all-of-the-above energy strategy does not ignore any aspect of energy reform.

Although our amendments were not made in order, I was pleased to see that the Miller amendment now includes language to ensure that environmental education programs include a discussion of the costs and benefits of oil and gas drilling, of nuclear power, of new coal technologies, and of renewable energy sources. While this language is not as strong and comprehensive as what the Republicans had offered, I appreciate its inclusion nonetheless.

The truth is we need to be talking about energy more, not less. We passed an energy bill earlier this week that won't increase energy production. We passed an energy bill that puts American resources under lock and key instead of opening them up to environmentally safe production that will create jobs and that will bring down energy prices. This sham of a bill that we passed raises taxes and stands to drive consumer prices up, not down.

So I'm glad we're going to be talking to our children about the benefits of American energy production. It's a conversation we should be having here in Congress as well.

Once again, I want to thank Chairman Miller for working with me to clarify the environmental justice aspect of this legislation, and I look forward to supporting this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The bill before us is about environmental education. Specifically, it is about teaching elementary and secondary students about the world in which they live, about the natural resources of our great Nation and about the stewardship of our environment and of our resources for the future.

This legislation provides grants to State and local education agencies, to institutions of higher education or to nonprofit organizations. The resources are targeted to ensure they will directly benefit students. This amendment, as I understand it, would make ``municipalities eligible for these grants as well.'' Unfortunately, that term is not defined, leaving open to interpretation just exactly how far we would be expanding this program.

Without a clear and narrow definition, this amendment could open up the funding to any number of entities, including cities, townships, districts or county governments, to name just a few. In other words, this amendment opens the limited resources under the bill to organizations that may or may not provide the direct services to students that we're seeking.

I support local control and local partnerships. That's why I support the Courtney amendment, which allows partnerships with State and local park departments. Through that model, we provide grants directly to educational organizations, which can then partner with the local organizations we're talking about now that can enrich the environmental education experience.

I understand what the gentleman is trying to accomplish with this amendment, and I'd like to work with him to see if we can get there, but at this time, I'm opposed to this amendment because it's not clear enough about prioritizing funds for educational entities that provide direct services to students. I know that the majority is working with us to clarify the definition of ``municipality.''

As this bill moves forward, I look forward to working with them to ensure we do not dilute the limited resources of this program away from the students they're intended for.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I appreciate the gentleman. As I said, I appreciate his amendment, and I appreciate his effort in this regard.

This points out, once again, to me that we have a large country with 435 congressional districts. Just within my congressional district, we have cities; we have counties; we have towns; we have towns that really don't have a government responsibility, but they're kind of granted that, and that's just in my district. I haven't had the opportunity to visit your district. I'm sure that in each of the 435 districts we would find different ways that this would be treated, and that is my concern is how we define that.

I think the gentleman's bill is directed towards students to help students get the education of environmental studies that he would like to see and that I support. The concern that I have again is that, if we direct it as your amendment would, it may be directed away from students. I think that this could be worked out. As we know, we are not going to finish this up in this Congress anyway, so it will be something that will carry over next year. Should we all happen by some circumstance to win our elections, we'll be back here in a few months, working on this again, but at this point, I would still have to oppose the amendment, hoping that we could work this out in the future.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I think I've said everything I needed to say.

I would yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, as I stated earlier, I support the gentleman's amendment and commend him on it.

Madam Chairman, over the last several years, the National Park Service has increasingly relied on partnerships with outside entities to fulfill its mission and foster a shared sense of stewardship for our environment and natural resources. In fact, a number of National Park Service programs operate almost exclusively through partnerships.

One way the National Park Service is supporting environmental education is through professional development opportunities for teachers. These include helping teachers utilize park resources in the classroom or preparing classes for a park visit. Most of these workshops are accredited and can be taken for college credit, and are structured to meet the needs of today's teacher--teaching to academic content standards while making the material engaging and relevant.

Because of the existing commitment on the part of the National Park Service to provide educational enrichment, the bill allows grantees to enter into National Park Service partnerships as a means to increase the knowledge and understanding of environmental education.

The Courtney amendment goes beyond this focus on the National Park Service, by allowing grant applicants to discuss through the grant application process how they have partnered, or intend to partner, with a state and local park and recreation department.

I support this amendment because it maintains the current funding structure--in which we provide grants to educational organizations-- while making clear that students can benefit from the creativity, experience, and resources of local programs. These types of partnerships could benefit students by enriching their environmental education experience, and I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment to clarify that these partnerships are permissible, and welcome, under the legislation.

This amendment builds on the existing emphasis we have placed on partnerships with the National Park Service, and I am happy to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to share with the gentlewoman that I am and I know my party is pro-American energy. In fact, the more I listen to testimony on the other side, the more convinced I am that this legislation that we're debating right now is exactly what we need to make sure that the advances with respect to energy technology are there.

With respect to education stakeholders and their view of No Child Left

Inside, this is a list of over 700 organizations nationally representing 40 million members. Many of these organizations are education organizations who understand how important it is for our young people to get this sort of opportunity.

We can all agree, Democrats and Republicans, in this debate that we've been having over energy for the last few weeks and months that it's important for us to develop alternative sources of energy, renewable sources of energy. To do that, of course, we're going to need the scientists and the entrepreneurs who can make it happen, and they are not going to land on a spaceship from outer space. We are going to have to develop them right here, and the next generation is where we are going to find those scientists and those entrepreneurs that are going to make those sort of advances. But they are not going to be able to do it if we don't put the resources behind the kind of environmental education that this will provide.

And then just the last point I wanted to make is, yes, there are field trips that will be funded by this, but a lot of what this has to do is getting kids outside, and you don't have to take a bus from inside of the classroom to outside of a classroom. You can walk. And a lot of these young students are doing things right there in their own backyard, right there around their school, right there in a stream that's a quarter mile away, and they can use the walk. The idea is to get them outside and experiencing the environment.

It is my pleasure now to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke), a member of the Education and Labor Committee and someone who brought a very important amendment regarding environmental justice to this bill in the committee.

May I inquire as to whether the other side has any more speakers?

Mr. Chairman, I will reserve my time to allow the gentleman to close.

Mr. Chairman, the desire to move forward with the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind is one that certainly we shared on this side of the aisle, and we are prepared to do that this year. The problem is that the administration, for the last 2 years, sent budgets which suggested there wasn't going to be the resources behind that effort that needed to be there, and so we're where we are. But that doesn't mean that we can't, as we're going to do with this bill, begin to set the table for what can be a very comprehensive and meaningful reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act next year. And what I'm so excited about is, if we put our stamp on this bill today, we're going to be sending a very powerful message that environmental education should be part and parcel of that reauthorization next year.

I would like to thank, again, the members of the No Child Left Inside Coalition, as I noted, over 700 organizations across the country representing upwards of 40 million people. These are folks who just want to see this happen. They understand how important it is to get our children outdoors and into nature. I want to thank them for all the work that they did to make this possible, to get this to the floor. It would not be here without the work that they have done.

I want to close by noting some of the benefits of this. I've talked about the contents of the bill, but I want to talk more generally about the benefits that it offers.

Many of the witnesses that we heard from, many of the advocates who are behind this bill are public health advocates. They're pointing to epidemic levels, for example, of childhood obesity that we see now across the country. Kids just aren't active. One of the benefits of getting children outdoors, getting them engaged in environmental activities is they start to become more active, and that is going to be good for their health and the health of our Nation.

We've talked about the economic development benefits; that environmental education spurs interests, it leads to children wanting to go into science, into technology, and so forth. And so we are going to be unleashing a tremendous economic potential if we put resources into the No Child Left Inside Act.

It is a great way for kids to learn. There is all the evidence that shows that when kids are outdoors, it activates all their senses, it fully engages them, and their performance increases across the board because of that experience. And of course it raises awareness in the next generation of the environment and the need to preserve our environment. The fact of the matter is that the only way we're going to save our environment, the only way we're going to preserve treasures like the Chesapeake Bay in the State of Maryland is if millions of people develop good habits in dealing with the environment. That's what we can impart to our young people, to the next generation.

Let me just finish with two articles, or anecdotes. The first is from the Rochester, Minnesota Post-Bulletin. It's an article titled, ``Program urges kids to ditch couches for canoes.'' It talks about a program that a woman named Sara Grover founded, Project Get Outdoors, where she brings kids outside. She talks about a fifth grader on his first camping trip. She said he was practically crying and he said, ``This is the best day of my entire life.'' There are a lot of good days ahead for a lot of great kids if we get this legislation in place.

Just to put a punctuation mark on this notion of kids going into science as a result of their experiences outdoors, I just got this e- mail on my BlackBerry notifying me that a young man from my district was named a finalist in the science competition for middle school students. His project was, ``The Effectiveness of Limestone Aggregates to Mitigate Acid-Mine Drainage.'' He came up with the idea for this project while rafting and kayaking on the Cheat River in West Virginia.

This is what I'm talking about. This is what's going to happen if we provide our children, our young people, the next generation with the environmental education that they deserve and integrate it fully into the instructional program in their schools.

That's why I'm supporting this bill. That's why I introduced it. That's why the coalition of advocates that supports it is so excited about it. I urge this House to pass H.R. 3036, the No Child Left Inside Act.

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

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Yes, Madam Chairman.

Madam Chairman, this amendment would seek to strengthen and improve the legislation in a number of ways.

First, it clarifies that funds that are issued under the National Capacity Environmental Education Grant Program, which is the new program that's being created here under the U.S. Department of Education, that those funds can be used to address environmental justice issues that may arise in low-income communities.

We heard earlier from Representative Clarke of New York, who has made this issue a passion of hers and introduced the underlying amendment in the mark-up at the committee level. This is an important additional element for the bill.

Secondly, the amendment clarifies that funds used to develop and implement new policy approaches to environmental education will include a discussion of the benefits and the costs to the environment and to consumers with respect to increasing the supply of energy produced in the United States from a variety of sources.

This is, again, an important amendment. It signals, I think, that good quality environmental education--almost by definition--is going to focus the next generation on dealing with these very challenging issues and what the proper balance needs to be between developing our energy sources and conservation and other environmental issues, which is, frankly, at the heart of much of the debate that we're having these days. So this is also, I think, an important addition to the bill.

And thirdly, the amendment that we are proposing here provides that the policy approaches developed under this bill must also include a discussion of the best strategies for reducing energy consumption. Again, any meaningful environmental education should include looking at all of these various policy approaches.

With that, Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Does the gentleman have any additional speakers? I'm prepared to yield back, and I would reserve the right to close.

Madam Chairman, again, I would urge the passage of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, there are two ways to effectively kill a bill. One is to make a motion ``promptly,'' which would send it back to committee. That is not what has happened here. This is a ``forthwith'' motion which brings it right back with the instructions that have been put on it. But the other way to kill a bill is to put instructions on it that essentially gut it and completely undermine what it is supposed to do, and that is the nature of this particular motion to recommit.

I object to it on a number of grounds. First of all, the provision relating to priority with respect to LEAs, there are a number of eligible entities under this bill that can participate in the competitive grant process, local education agencies, State educational agencies, higher education institutions, nonprofits and so forth. They all should be part of the same competitive bidding process to get these dollars to try to fund environmental education.

Secondly, I object because this second provision that has to do with lobbying in fact will end up having the effect that some of the very organizations that are in the best position to provide good strong environmental education to the next generation will be prohibited from delivering. And as far as that goes, it means that A and B are internally inconsistent because A would give a priority to the very kind of organization that B seeks to prevent from getting these funds. So it doesn't make sense on its face.

So I would urge very strongly that my colleagues oppose the motion to recommit forthwith.

This is a good bill. It is an important bill. You don't have to take my word for it. There are 750 organizations across the country that are part of the No Child Left Inside Coalition. This is made up of public health advocates, sportsmen, environmentalists, educators, all recognizing the need to provide this critical education to the next generation.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Just to reiterate, Mr. Speaker, I oppose this motion vehemently. This bill will provide so many benefits to the next generation, public health benefits by getting our kids outside and into nature and active, economic development benefits because we're going to be educating the next generation of scientists and entrepreneurs that are going to make the difference when it comes to pursuing alternative sources of fuel and renewable sources of fuel. It will engage kids in learning, activate all their senses.

And finally, finally, it's going to raise awareness about the environment. The only way we're going to save our environment, save treasures like the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland is if millions of people develop good habits when it comes to the environment. Our children are the ones that are going to do it, but they can only do it if we provide them with this educational support.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to recommit.

I yield back.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the U.S. Attorney Local Residency Restoration Act along with Senators Schumer, Baucus, and Tester.

Simply put, this legislation would eliminate the other language that the Department of Justice had inserted into the PATRIOT Act reauthorization dealing with U.S. attorneys.

The first provision added allowed the Attorney General to appoint interim U.S. attorneys to vacancies indefinitely without Senate confirmation, and I authored a bill to restore the law to require interim appointments by the Attorney General for only 120 days, and then the district courts can appoint the interim U.S. attorney if a permanent replacement has not been nominated and confirmed.

This bill has passed this body, and I hope will be signed into law soon.

Today, I am offering this legislation to restore the residency requirement for sitting U.S. attorneys.

Before the change, the law required that U.S. attorneys live within his district while serving. It seems logical that the U.S. attorney should live in the district that he is heading.

However, the Department of Justice added language in the PATRIOT Act reauthorization that allows a U.S. attorney to live outside of his district if the Attorney General assigns dual or additional responsibilities to him.

While U.S. attorneys in both Democratic and Republican administrations have served dual roles in the past, this administration has once again abused its new authority--this time by placing numerous U.S. attorneys in full-time positions throughout the Department of Justice, at times in a manner that allows the Department to avoid Senate confirmation.

In fact, Dennis Boyd, executive director of the National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys, which represents current Federal prosecutors, has said, ``I can't think of a time when there's been this many U.S. attorneys doing double duty at one time.''

Currently, there are several U.S. attorneys, that we know about, who are serving in a second full-time position here in Washington, while still retaining their responsibilities back in their districts. For example, Michael J. Sullivan, the U.S. attorney in Boston, has been serving as the Acting Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in Washington for the past 6 months, a position that requires Senate confirmation;

Mary Beth Buchanan, U.S. attorney in Pittsburgh, is also the acting director of the Office of Violence Against Women, a position that requires Senate confirmation, and prior to that she served as Director of the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys; and Kevin O'Connor, U.S. attorney in Connecticut, is also serving as an Associate Deputy Attorney General coordinating antigang policies.

Of course, the most well-known example is William Mercer, U.S. attorney in Montana. Mr. Mercer has been effectively absent for nearly 2 years from his State. First, serving as Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, and now working as Acting Associate Attorney General, another position that requires Senate confirmation. In fact, through staff interviews we have learned that he is only in his State 3 or 4 days a month.

Moreover, his consistent absenteeism was having such a negative effect on the district that it led to the point where U.S. District Chief Judge Donald Molloy of Billings, MT, felt compelled to write to the Attorney General on October 20, 2005, to complain. In that letter, Chief Judge Molloy wrote that Mr. Mercer's dual roles have led to ``a lack of leadership'' in the Montana office and created ``untoward difficulties for the court'' and for career prosecutors. Chief Judge Molloy also wrote that Mr. Mercer was violating Federal law because he ``no longer resides in Montana'' and instead was living with his family in the Washington, DC, area.

These facts on their own are cause for alarm.

However, what is even more disconcerting is the way that Mr. Mercer and the Department of Justice have handled this situation.

We know that the Attorney General responded to Chief Judge Molloy in a letter on November 10, 2005, stating that Mr. Mercer ``is in compliance with the residency requirement'' under Federal law because he ``is domiciled in Montana, returns there on a regular basis, and will live there full-time as soon as his temporary assignment is completed.''

We also know through interviews of DOJ staff that Mr. Mercer worked with Will Moschella and Senate staff during November 2005 to insert the residency exemption language into the PATRIOT Act reauthorization.

In fact, according to the Washington Post, the response from the Attorney General to Chief Judge Molloy occurred on the very same day that DOJ asked for the language to be inserted into the PATRIOT Act.

All this resulted in a change in the law, thus eviscerating the conflict.

However, even beyond this turn of events, what is truly breathtaking about this administration's actions with regard to Mr. Mercer is that in trying to defend its actions to force numerous U.S. attorneys to resign from office, this same Justice Department criticized David Iglesias for being ``an absentee landlord.''

I firmly believe, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. You can't one day try to change the law to make it easier for U.S. attorneys to serve in 2 full-time jobs at the same time and then the next day fire someone for not being fully present in his job, especially when the absence is much more limited and based on service to the country in the naval reserves.

While there are times when U.S. attorneys may be relied upon to fill in temporarily, changing the law to ensure that they can hold two full- time jobs is unacceptable.

Serving as U.S. attorney is a full-time job, and each district throughout this country deserves to have the best qualified person in the district focused on the tasks at hand.

I am quite certain that there are many fine first assistant U.S. attorneys capable of stepping up to fill the shoes of an absent U.S. attorney; however, these are not the individuals the President has nominated and the Senate has confirmed to serve those positions.

These districts deserve nothing less than the undivided attention of their Senate-confirmed U.S. attorneys.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to join with my senior colleague from Maine in sponsoring the Commercial Truck Highway Safety Demonstration Program Act, an important bill that addresses a significant safety problem in our State.

Under current law, trucks weighing 100,000 pounds are allowed to travel on the portion of Interstate 95 designated as the Maine Turnpike, which runs from Maine's border with New Hampshire to Augusta, our capital city. At Augusta, the turnpike designation ends, but I-95 proceeds another 200 miles north to Houlton. At Augusta, however, heavy trucks must exit the modern four-lane, limited-access highway and are forced onto smaller, two-lane secondary roads that pass through cities, towns, and villages.

Trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds are permitted on interstate highways in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New York as well as the Canadian Provinces of New Brunswick and Quebec. The weight limit disparity on various segments of Maine's Interstate Highway System is a significant impediment to commerce, increases wear-and-tear on our secondary roads, and, most important, puts our people needlessly at risk.

Senator Snowe and I have introduced this legislation several times in recent years. We do so this year with a renewed sense of urgency, and in sorrow. Just last week, Susan Abraham, a bright and talented 17- year-old high school student from Hampden, ME, lost her life when her car was struck by a heavy truck on Route 9. The truck driver could not see Susan's small car turning onto that two-lane road as he rounded a corner. It was an accident but one that would have been avoided had the truck remained on the interstate highway. Interstate 95 runs less than three-quarters of a mile away, but Federal law prevented the truck from using that modern, divided highway, a highway that was designed to provide ample views of the road ahead.

That preventable tragedy took place almost 1 year to the day after Lena Gray, an 80-year-old resident of Bangor, was struck and killed by a tractor-trailer as she was crossing a downtown street. Again, that accident would not have occurred had that truck been allowed to use I- 95, which runs directly through Bangor.

The problem Maine faces due to the disparity in truck weight limits affects many communities, but it is clearly evident in the eastern Maine cites of Bangor and Brewer. In this region, a 2-mile stretch of Interstate 395 connects two major state highways that carry significant truck traffic across Maine. I-395 affords direct and safe access between these major corridors, but because of the existing Federal truck weight limit, many heavy trucks are prohibited from using this multilane, limited access highway.

Instead, these trucks, which sometimes carry hazardous materials, are required to maneuver through the downtown portions of Bangor and Brewer on two-lane roadways. Truckers are faced with two options; the first is a 3.5 mile diversion through downtown Bangor that requires several very difficult and dangerous turns. The second route is a 7.5 mile diversion that includes 20 traffic lights and requires travel through portions of downtown Bangor as well. Congestion is a significant issue, and safety is seriously compromised as a result of these required diversions.

In June 2004, Wilbur Smiths Associates, a nationally recognized transportation consulting firm, completed a study to examine the impact a Federal weight exemption on nonexempt portions of Maine's Interstate Highway System would have on safety, pavement, and bridges. The study found that extending the current truck weight exemption on the Maine Turnpike to all interstate highways in Maine would result in a decrease of 3.2 fatal crashes per year. A uniform truck weight limit of 100,000 pounds on Maine's interstate highways would reduce highway miles, as well as the travel times necessary to transport freight through Maine, resulting in safety, economic, and environmental benefits. Moreover, Maine's extensive network of local roads would be better preserved without the wear and tear of heavy truck traffic.

Most important, however, a uniform truck weight limit will keep trucks on the interstate where they belong, rather than on roads and highways that pass through Maine's cities, towns, and neighborhoods.

In addition to the safety of motorists and pedestrians, there is a homeland security aspect to this as well. An accident or attack involving a heavy truck carrying explosive fuel or a hazardous chemical on a congested city street would have devastating consequences. That risk can be alleviated substantially by allowing those trucks to stay on the open highway.

The legislation that Senator Snowe and I are introducing addresses the safety issues we face in Maine because of the disparities in truck weight limits. The legislation directs the Secretary of Transportation to establish a commercial truck safety pilot program in Maine. Under the pilot program, the truck weight limit on all Maine highways that are part of the interstate highway system would be set at 100,000 pounds for three years. During the waiver period, the Secretary would study the impact of the pilot program on safety and would receive the input of a panel on which State officials, and representatives from safety organizations, municipalities, and the commercial trucking industry would serve. The waiver would become permanent if the panel determined that motorists were safer as a result of a uniform truck weight limit on Maine's Interstate Highway System.

Maine's citizens and motorists are needlessly at risk because too many heavy trucks are forced off the interstate and onto local roads. The legislation Senator Snowe and I are introducing is a commonsense approach to a significant safety problem in my State. Our efforts are widely supported by public officials throughout Maine, including the Governor, the Maine Department of Transportation, the Maine Secretary of State, and the Maine State Police. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.