Green Schools Act

Madam Chairman, I stand in opposition to H.R. 3021, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The name of this bill is a mouthful but seems harmless enough, the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act. It sounds like a program to ensure good schools, safe schools, environmentally friendly schools. It sounds pretty good to me. It is when we look a little closer that the real goal becomes clear. This is a bill that puts us on a path toward Federalizing the building and maintenance of our Nation's schools. It is about feeding bigger government and giving Washington more control over what happens in States and local communities. We are talking about an estimated $20 billion over the next 5 years handed out to States and schools so that we can exercise control over how they build their schools.

Maybe a school has a leaky roof. The Federal Government is happy to pay to get it fixed; but instead of spending $1,000 on a repair, we tell the school it has to spend $100,000 on a new roof that meets our hand-picked environmental standards. And Big Brother doesn't stop there. We also link this funding to the Depression-era Davis-Bacon Act, meaning that construction projects under this bill must pay so-called prevailing wages. The problem is, prevailing wage calculations are critically and fundamentally flawed. Sometimes they are higher than market rates and other times they are lower.

Take plumbers, for instance. I have a chart here that shows in a sampling of cities plumbers paid Davis-Bacon wages could be paid anywhere from 70 percent below the market rate to 77 percent above the market rate. Davis-Bacon requirements drive up the cost of Federal projects by 10, 15, 20 percent,

and sometimes more. These are costs that get passed on to the taxpayers. Moreover, these requirements force private companies to do hundreds of millions of dollars of excess administrative work each year.

So already we are talking about a new $20 billion program to fund an inefficient construction mandate that allows bureaucrats here in Washington to tell our neighborhoods and small towns and big cities exactly how their school buildings should be built, from the materials they use to the contractors they hire.

Madam Chairman, I would like to know where that $20 billion is going to come from. When we were in the majority, we heard no end to the complaints from the other side of the aisle that we were underfunding No Child Left Behind and the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. I am proud of our record of strong support for these programs, but it is true that they are not funded at their authorized level. It was true when Democrats were in the majority up until 1995, it was true when we were in the majority even though we doubled the payments there, and it is still true today with Democrats back at the helm. The reality is that neither party has funded these programs at their authorized maximum.

If we have $20 billion to spend on our schools, shouldn't we invest that in keeping the promises we have already made? We are looking at $6.4 billion authorized for this program next year alone. Do you know what that could do for title I or IDEA? We could increase special education funding by almost 60 percent in 1 year. We could bring title I funding to more than $20 billion.

I don't know whether we have the money to spend on this program; in fact, I think we probably don't. But if we have it, we have a duty to spend it on programs that help improve academic achievement for disadvantaged children.

I also think it is ironic that we are here today proposing a program to build more schools when districts around the country are struggling just to pay for the fuel it takes to transport children and operate, heat, and cool the schools we already have. Like the rest of the country, our schools are being squeezed by the high price of gasoline. Rising fuel prices are taking a real toll on our Nation's schools, just as on our Nation's families and individuals.

Beyond diesel fuel and heating oil, schools are faced with higher supply costs, fewer field trips, and costlier school lunches. First it was community colleges forced to move to a 4-day school week; now, even K-12 school systems are reducing the number of school days because of the pain at the pump. Unfortunately, that is a problem for which the Democrats are offering no answers.

Madam Chairman, this is a bad program created based on a flawed premise. Yes, there is a need for school construction and modernization. It is a need that is best handled at the State and local level where they can be responsive to each community's unique needs. The Federal role in education has been limited to target interventions that help provide a more level playing field for children who might otherwise be left behind. That is where our focus should remain.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I am privileged now to yield to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the ranking member on the subcommittee over K-12 education, 3 minutes.

I yield now to the gentleman from Utah, a member of the committee, Mr. Bishop, 3 minutes.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is left.

I am privileged to yield at this time to the gentlelady from Illinois, a member of the committee, Mrs. Biggert, 4 minutes.

Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve.

I am privileged to yield at this time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) 3 minutes.

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Madam Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes, and I want to ask him a question.

Let's talk about the things we deal with when we're not here in Congress. You have children. I have children. We have grandchildren. And I try to think about our children and grandchildren sitting at the kitchen table, and they have a little different rules that they have to operate under.

You know, we have a Federal responsibility that we have taken upon ourselves, and we will fund 40 percent of IDEA. We're up to about 17 percent. We said that we'll fund title I. We're way short of where we should be on that.

If, say, you have a grandson or granddaughter, maybe they've bought a motorcycle and they have a commitment to pay $100 a month on a motorcycle. And maybe the daughter is going to school and has a commitment to pay a couple hundred dollars a month on that.

Family is sitting around and they say, you know, we're a little short, we don't have quite enough to pay the motorcycle bill this month, we don't have quite enough to pay the school bill this month, but why don't we go out and buy a motor home, because the family would benefit from that; it would be a good thing. We could have good quality time that we could spend together, and we don't have the money for that.

That's kind of what we're talking about here, isn't it?

We would love to have you on the committee, and I think that you're asking the right questions.

I notice the chairman has left, but I wanted to just correct the record a little bit.

I've been here 16 years. I know he's been here over 30 years. But when we won the majority in 1994, at that point IDEA was funded at about $2 billion. It was passed in 1976.

At the time, we made a commitment, those who were in the Congress at the time made a commitment, that the Federal level would be funded at 40 percent. At that time in 1976, $2 billion would have funded at 40 percent. The Democrats were in charge from 1976 to 1994. They got it from a few hundred million up to $2 billion in that time.

We won the majority in 1994, and we increased the funding from $2 billion up to over $10 billion in the following 12 years.

Now, to go back to talk about the surplus and the deficit. In 1994, we ran on the Contract With America, and we made a pledge to the American people that if we were given a chance, given the majority, we would balance the Federal budget in 7 years. Actually, we did it in 4 years. That's how we got that surplus.

But then in 2000, President Bush came in. There was a recession when he took office. We had 9/11 in 2001, which took us into a war footing, and you know, when you're at war, you spend more money, and that's how we've gotten the deficit.

But all of that aside, back to the basic premise of why we should be working to fully fund IDEA. What a problem that is to not provide fully funding for these children that need help with their special disabilities. We made a strong commitment. We took it from the 7 percent that they were funding it when they were in the majority, and they had been there for 18 years prior to that. We had 12 years. We got it up to over 17, 18 percent in that period of time.

So I don't think if you want to talk about commitment and who was putting the money where, we were doing it. All we're saying now is if they can find another $6 billion, why not put it to the children with disabilities rather than fund a brand new program that really is the State and local responsibility.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman yield?

I would be happy to yield that. You're a man of conviction and I think you are a strong supporter of IDEA, and we've worked together well on these things in the past.

I just think right now we have kind of a divergence where we're talking about a new program that could be used to fully fund IDEA, and we just have a difference then on that opinion.

I yield myself 1 minute.

I just want to say that I don't think either of the two gentlemen from California used the term ``wasteful'' spending. We never meant for that. We never inferred that.

What we were talking about is it's a new program that is going to divert limited resources. The list that Mr. Kildee read, all of those people that supported it, yeah, you know, a lot of people want to have more and more and more spending. The problem is, we do have limited resources. I could probably read you a list of people that say we should not have additional spending that's going to carry us more and more into deficit for new programs before we fund the programs that we've already committed to, and the gentleman said he would like to have the debate on that issue.

I had an amendment on that issue that was not given to me. I wasn't given the ability to discuss it on the floor because the Rules Committee, I guess, felt that it wasn't an important issue.

I yield myself an additional minute.

I did have an amendment saying that we should first spend the money for the title I. That was where the Federal Government first got involved, helping underprivileged children, close the gap between the minorities and those that were doing better in their school, 14 percent gap. And we have spent billions of dollars, over $85 billion, to try to close that gap, and we haven't done it, and we're still short on that funding.

And then the disabilities, the students that we all feel need more help, why, if we can come up with another $6 billion, don't we put the money for these children that need the help the most?

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chairman, for our Nation's schools, the spike in energy prices means that it costs more to fuel the buses that carry children to and from school. It costs more to heat and cool their facilities. It costs more to buy books and supplies. It costs more to provide school lunches and snacks. The list goes on.

School budgets are being overwhelmed by rising energy costs, and they need relief. The majority refuses to unveil its commonsense plan to bring down skyrocketing gas prices. On January 4, 2007, when the Democrats took charge of this House, gas prices stood at $2.33 a gallon. Seventeen months later, gas costs 71 percent more, and yet their plan remains a secret.

We're turning a blind eye to the burden of high energy costs in our Nation's schools, and instead taking up a bill that usurps State and local rights and responsibilities, undermines efforts to fund programs for disadvantaged children, imposes complex and costly requirements, and offers little more than a Band-Aid for the very real need for school construction and modernization.

Madam Chairman, I strongly oppose this legislation. Just yesterday we received a Statement of Administration Policy indicating that if this legislation were presented to the President, his advisers would recommend that it be vetoed.

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's to support the academic achievement for disadvantaged children, children with disabilities, and other at- risk students who might otherwise be left behind.

We all want our communities to have safe, modern, environmentally friendly

schools in which our children can live and thrive, but this bill is the wrong way to achieve that goal. States, local communities and the private sector are all actively engaged in the construction and maintenance of school facilities all around the country. At least $20 billion is being spent by the States each year to build new schools and modernize those already in use.

If we have $6.4 billion to invest in education next year, let's put it into programs that serve underprivileged and disadvantaged children. Programs are already there. Whether it's title I or IDEA or even Pell Grants to help low-income students attend college, there are existing programs that could use these resources to improve academic achievement and directly benefit those who need help most.

I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation.

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

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

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

I oppose this amendment, Madam Chairman, for the same reason I oppose the underlying bill.

This proposal radically shifts the Federal role in education. This new school construction program will compete for funding with other critical priorities like title I and IDEA. And no matter what the other side tries to tell you, every dollar spent under this legislation is a dollar that won't be spent improving academic achievement for disadvantaged children.

Here in Congress our job is to set priorities. Are we really saying that it's more important to fund bicycle racks, as this substitute would do, than it is to provide funds for schools to serve children with disabilities? I don't deny that schools can use bicycle racks, but I challenge anyone to explain why that's a priority for scarce Federal dollars when title I and IDEA continue to be funded below their authorized level.

I also think this entire debate is a distraction from the most immediate financial concern facing many school systems and every family in this Nation: That's the high price of gasoline. School districts are struggling just to fill the tanks on their school buses. They're scaling back field trips and activities. And some schools are even moving to a 4-day school week to save on energy costs. Just like the rest of the country, our schools need energy relief and they need it now.

But we're not here today to discuss how we can produce more American- made energy. We're not here to promote new clean and reliable sources of energy like advanced nuclear and next-generation coal. We're not even here to encourage greater energy efficiency by offering conservation tax incentives to Americans who make their home, car, and businesses more energy efficient. Instead, we are proposing a big government program to exert Federal control over how States and local communities build their schools. It's the classic Washington approach to problem solving: If we just kick in a little bit of money, we'll be able to wield our power and influence over the decisions that used to be made by individual citizens and local leaders. Surely Washington must know best when it comes to where our children learn.

Madam Chairman, I oppose this amendment, I oppose this legislation, and I oppose the fact that Congress has yet to do anything to address the skyrocketing cost of energy.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

We have been kind of talking about supply and demand in energy. Today we are also talking supply and demand of money. There's unlimited demand for resources, but there is somewhat limited supply. And what we're talking about in this bill is that the demand is for the Federal Government to get involved in local school construction.

I served on a local school board, and I met with a lot of other people that served on local school boards, and I know what they're going to want to do. They are going to want to turn to the Federal Government and take all the money that's available, and then they will use that to build the schools, and then they'll find other ways to spend the money that they've been spending on schools for other things. That's how supply and demand works. You kind of take what's available and fill up the gap.

I was home last week, as most of us were, for the break, and I hadn't been home for a couple of weeks. I was shocked at what the gas prices were, and they went up about 20 cents during the week while I was home. And it's all based on supply and demand.

We have had several votes over the last 16 years that I have been here in Congress. We voted to explore for more oil in the ANWR. House Republicans, 91 percent supported increasing supply; House Democrats, 86 percent opposed increasing supply.

Coal to liquid is another thing that should increase the supply, which would then meet the demand and help lower gasoline prices. House Republicans voted 97 percent to support coal to liquid; House Democrats, 78 percent opposed that.

Oil shale exploration, which again would increase supply and meet the demand and lower prices. House Republicans, 90 percent supported it; House Democrats, 86 percent opposed.

This goes on and on and on. What we are saying on our side is we will support exploration, conservation, renewable, all sources of increasing supply to get energy independent. The other side says we can't do this, we can't do this, we can't do this; let's keep buying oil from Iraq and Iran and Saudi Arabia and Venezuela and not become independent.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I don't expect to oppose its passage.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This amendment allows funding under the massive new program to be used for renewable energy generation and heating systems in schools. Clearly, this amendment recognizes that schools are grappling with the high cost of energy, and they need help. I couldn't agree more. But we are acknowledging that schools, like the rest of the country, are being burdened by the skyrocketing costs of gasoline, diesel fuel, and other energy sources. I'd like to know why we are not having a real debate about energy solutions.

Giving schools a little bit of money for renewable energy generation and heating systems, while ignoring the problem of rising gasoline, diesel, and other energy costs, will not solve the problems our schools are facing. In the Northeast, for instance, we know that many schools rely on home heating oil during the winter months. Clearly, a one-size- fits-all approach isn't going to work.

What we need are comprehensive energy solutions. We need to expand production here at home, something my friends on the other side of the aisle have historically opposed 86 percent of the time. We need to encourage innovation and invest in new fuel alternatives, and we need to promote conservation. Only by embracing meaningful energy reforms will we finally be

able to move toward energy independence and provide our schools, especially those impacted by the skyrocketing costs of heating oil, much needed relief. That is why I am so disappointed in this legislation. It's quite simply the wrong solution to the wrong problem.

If the question is how should the Federal Government help our schools, the answer is by funding programs that promote academic achievement for disadvantaged children. If the question is how should the Federal Government help schools burdened by high energy costs, the answer is by taking decisive action to increase energy production here at home, and red tape and regulations encourage next generation energy sources and promote conservation.

The bill achieves none of these goals. I won't oppose passage of this amendment, but I strongly oppose passage of this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

As the gentleman that just spoke said, we cannot drill our way into energy independence. I agree, because over the past 12 years, every time we have had a vote to give us an opportunity to explore and find more oil to get us past the gap to where all these other things that they are talking about will work, 91 percent of House Republicans have historically supported the increase of production of American-made oil and gas, while 86 percent of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of American-made oil and gas.

Ten years ago when we passed an energy bill that would let us drill in the ANWR which would reduce gas prices now 70 cents to $1.60 a gallon, and that would be in production now and we

would be receiving that benefit, President Clinton vetoed that bill.

So, yes, we can't drill our way out of it. We have to sit here and buy oil from countries around the globe that want to see us destroyed, and I don't see how we possibly can continue to go on putting ourselves in that position. We need to find new energy, and we need to do it now.

Madam Chairman, as I said, I will not oppose this amendment. I oppose the underlying bill for many, many reasons.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

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

The purpose of this amendment is to gather information about the types of

floors that schools may be installing with funds provided under this massive new federally funded school construction program. Like the rest of the bill, it simply misses the point.

If our goal today is to address the problems facing our Nation's schools, we shouldn't be talking about floors or bicycle racks. We should be talking about how to bring down the price of gas.

High gas prices are hitting schools hard. They're driving up costs for nearly every aspect of a school's budget, from transportation to school lunches and from utilities to supplies.

What we should be debating is how to address the skyrocketing cost of energy. Instead, we're talking about creating a $20 billion program that allows bureaucrats in Washington to tell our communities how to build their schools.

The Federal Government has had a history of investing in our Nation's schools, but it's not the floors and the walls and the plumbing and the light bulbs where we focus our investment. Rather, it's the students themselves. Our role, the role of the Federal Government, is to support programs that help improve student academic achievement.

We know that disadvantaged children, children with disabilities, English language learners and our vulnerable populations have too often been left behind by our educational system. Our job is to ensure all children are given the opportunity to receive a high quality education. That means learning from a highly qualified teacher and being held to the same high academic standards.

I know how important safe and healthy schools are, and that's why States are spending some $20 billion each year on the building and modernization of schools facilities.

If we really want to meet the needs of our schools, we should be doing two things: We should be maintaining the Federal focus on student achievement, and we should be talking about how to bring down the cost of energy to help schools, families, businesses and our economy.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I agree with the gentleman. I just don't think it should be the Federal Government's responsibility to go into the local communities and tell them what type and how to build their schools, who should build their schools and how much they should spend.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation.

I was pleased to join Mr. Chandler and Chairman Miller in introducing H.R. 3021, and to work with my chairman and Representatives Loebsack, Andrews, Hare, Holt and McCarthy to introduce the committee substitute. I especially acknowledge Mr. Loebsack's great depth of knowledge and the perseverance he has brought to this bill.

This legislation will bring critically needed resources to schools around the country to provide students, teachers, principals and others with safe, healthy, modern, energy efficient and environmentally friendly learning spaces, and will help our local, State and national economies by creating jobs for thousands of workers to build these improvements.

Some years ago, Madam Chairman, in my district, a Federal judge ordered a jail to be torn down because it was unfit for human habitation. Yet, many local educators told me that jail was in better shape than some of the schools where they work so hard every day on behalf of their students. By providing the resources to ensure that situation never happens again, this bill would send children the message that we truly value every one of them.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Chairman, we're all concerned with fiscal responsibility, but I can recall a tough political vote I took the first year of President George W. Bush. That was on about a $2 trillion tax cut, $2 trillion. That's $2,000 billion. This bill will cost $6.5 billion a year. That tax cut was $2 trillion.

There's various ways we have to be fiscally responsible, and I submit that tax cut, in my humble opinion--and I voted ``no'' on it and went back home and faced some wrath, not that much, though--I voted ``no'' on that because I also have a sense of fiscal responsibility.

Now you talk about IDEA. I think you will concede that no one's been a stronger advocate of full funding for IDEA than myself.

I would be glad to yield.

On that, let me indicate I have a list of groups here who support both full funding of IDEA and support this bill. I will just read a few of them: the American Federation of Teachers, the American Association of School Administrators, the Council of Great City Schools, the National Association of Elementary School Principals, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the Parent-Teacher Association. So these are groups who support both full funding of IDEA and full funding of this.

With that, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of our committee. I thank the gentleman from California for his kind words.

Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains on each side.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

I yield the gentlelady 30 additional seconds.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of the committee.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Mitchell).

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Madam Chairman, could I ask again how much time each side has remaining.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Patrick J. Murphy).

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

(Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

May I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

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

Madam Chairman, in my congressional district, I have a wide range of schools. I have some schools that were built before I was born, and you can guess maybe how old those schools are. Some of them are in deplorable condition. Then I have some school districts which, thanks to the voters because they are a little better off, they bond and they have really up-to-date school buildings. I have been happy to have been at the ground breaking or the ribbon cutting for those buildings, and the people have certainly done well to bond themselves for that. But there are other school districts that are abjectly poor, their tax base is miserable, and the school buildings are miserable.

Children learn better in decent buildings. And human nature being what it is, good teachers to a great extent are more likely to stay in better buildings.

This bill was wisely based upon the title I formula so those schools that are really stricken in my district now would be able to apply for these grants and, under the title I formula, would be able to receive some Federal dollars to help them replace buildings which I say are worse off than a jail that was torn down in my district because a judge declared it unfit for human habitation.

This is a good bill. It will put dollars where they are most needed to help children learn better. We know they learn better in a better building. I urge support for this bill.

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

Madam Chairman, as the designee of the chairman of the committee, I offer a manager's amendment.

I thank Chairwoman Slaughter and the Rules Committee for their work and for making this amendment in order.

Madam Chairman, this bill would address three critical issues facing our country: closing the achievement gap, boosting the economy by creating thousands of construction jobs, and reducing school energy costs and protecting the environment. This bill provides long overdue investment in public school facilities around the country. And this amendment would improve the bill by ensuring that schools could use these funds for modernizations, renovations, and repairs including green roofs; abatement of polychlorinated biphenyls and mold and mildew; and various security measures.

Highlighting the need for improvements to science and engineering laboratories, libraries, career and technical education facilities, especially those related to energy efficiency and renewable energy, and to facilitate access to schools by different modes of transportation; strengthening language ensuring charter schools' eligibility for these funds, which was asked for from the other side; expanding local flexibility by adding ``Green Globes'' to the list of green rating systems; adding reporting requirements to ensure local accountability; and clarifying that no funds may be used to employ undocumented workers and requiring that school districts receiving these funds have a policy requiring a criminal background check on their employees.

I want to thank the many Members whose input is reflected in this amendment: Representatives Arcuri, Baird, Crowley, Hastings of Florida, Hooley, Klein of Florida, Lee, Matheson, McCarthy, Mitchell, Patrick Murphy, Richardson, Sutton, Welch, and Wu.

I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Klein).

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Richardson).

The gentleman from California suggested that this bill would impose Federal control over local decisions. But, again, representatives of local parents, teachers, principals and superintendents are in strong support of this bill. The Counsel of Great City Schools says it gets these funds to schools with a minimum of red tape. Now they are the ones that are really on the front line. We have our level of expertise here in this Congress on education, but the groups I have mentioned are really on the front lines every day and they see the need out there, and they feel that this bill would distribute these funds for this purpose with a minimum of red tape. I believe that to be the case.

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

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, although I do not intend to oppose the amendment.

We have looked at the amendment and we feel we can accept it on this side. I would urge a ``yes'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I do not intend to oppose the amendment.

First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) for his work on this bill and for all his work here in the Congress. He has been a distinguished Member of this Congress, one who loves this institution. And as he goes off in other pursuits, I certainly wish him well.

I look around this Congress, and you see on both sides of the aisle people for whom you have great respect, and he certainly has my respect. His interest in science and technology makes him the natural one to have the expertise in this and apply that to our K-12 schools.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I claim time in opposition, but I do not intend to oppose the amendment.

We've looked over the Reichert amendment and we accept the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

I rise in very strong support of H.R. 3021, the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public Schools Facility Act, legislation that would invest in modernizing public schools across the country.

This legislation is an example of how well-crafted public policy can address a number of key challenges all at the same time. This bill has something in it for improving the education of our children, improving our economy, and improving the environment.

First, this legislation will help improve student achievement by providing more children and teachers with a modern, safe, healthy, clean, place for learning. Second, this legislation will give a boost to our economy by injecting demand into a faltering U.S. construction industry. And, third, this legislation will make our schools part of the solution to the global warming crisis by encouraging more energy efficiency as well as the use of renewable energy resources.

Any one of these three reasons alone would be enough to support this bill; but when you put all three of them together, this is a clear win for our children, for our communities, for workers, and for our planet.

For children and teachers, unfortunately, the reality is that in too many of our communities the schools are literally crumbling. In 2000, The National Center of Education Statistics said it would take $127 billion to bring schools into good condition, including that 75 percent of the schools were in various stages of disrepair. The American Society of Civil Engineers gave U.S. schools a D for national infrastructure report card. Just last month, the 21st Century School Fund called for a $140 billion Federal investment in school facilities to bring all school districts up to the level of the highest income districts followed by ongoing annual Federal investment.

The fact of the matter is that those children who have the most difficult time receiving an education are receiving that education in some of the worst schools in this Nation. This is an effort for us simply to partner with local school districts on a formula basis so that they can then carry out their plans to renovate, to repair, to remodel existing schools so that they can save energy, they can provide better lighting and a better atmosphere for the schools to learn.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that it is interesting that again they talk about the increased energy costs for schools. And at the same time that we are considering legislation which is designed to lower those energy costs for schools, they are arguing against the passage of this legislation.

This is a modest effort by the Federal Government to help these schools get on with the refurbishing, the repair, and the renovation of these schools so that they will lower their energy costs, whether it is heating or air conditioning, so that they can then put that money back into the educational program.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Chandler), the author of this legislation who understands the importance of this contribution to the education of our children at the local level.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education, and an incredible advocate for the Federal role in school construction for many, many years, and a coauthor of this legislation.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack), a member of our committee and a primary sponsor of this legislation.

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), a member of our committee and a sponsor of this legislation.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a member of the committee and subcommittee Chair.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare).

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

It's wonderful to listen to this conversation among two people talking about fiscal responsibility back and forth to one another. When the Bush administration came into office, they were given a $5 trillion surplus. Now, 8 years later, it's a $9 trillion deficit. And in that time, they never found the way to fund title I. They never found the way to fund IDEA. And yet, somehow, they were fiscally responsible, and now they've run this economy and this country into a ditch, with $9 trillion of debt in 8 short years, and they inherited a $5 trillion surplus.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), a member of the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, all day long we have had an interesting double argument here from my colleagues on the other side. All day long they have insisted that school districts are in trouble because of increased energy costs, because of the increased cost of electricity, natural gas, air conditioning, heating, fuel for the buses, and all the rest of it. And they have spent all day long arguing against a bill that's designed exactly to deal with the energy costs of those schools, by helping those districts to refurbish, to rebuild, to remodel, to reconstruct old facilities that do not use energy efficiently, that do not have state-of-the-art facilities for the conservation of energy, for the better use of energy.

We are giving out tax cuts and have for many years in a very sensible program to help businesses come into the modern age in energy. Businesses, homeowners, and others are reaping huge savings. But schools aren't.

So this bill simply says that the Federal Government will join in a partnership with local districts who have already set out their priorities to provide for energy efficiency, to provide for new technologies so that they can provide the best learning environment for the children in those school districts. And when they do that, what we're seeing across the country is those schools that are fortunate enough to have the money are dramatically reducing the amount of their budgets that go to energy and they can use that on curriculum or extracurricular activities or teacher pay or whatever else it is.

But most schools can't afford to do that. And so what we are saying is we will simply partner up with those districts most in need and see if we can help them reduce their energy budgets over the years so they can put it into education. That is the bill that Mr. Chandler introduced. That is the bill that is designed and has been voted on on this floor today, because that is the need of the school districts. That is why the school districts, the State Superintendents of Schools, local school districts, are supporting this legislation, because it meets the need they have.

Now somehow after arguing all day long that this is too heavy of a hand, we now see an amendment that we've never see in committee, we didn't see on the floor, we didn't see in Rules Committee, that is suggesting somehow we just pay the ongoing maintenance cost of the districts. I don't know if that is what you wanted to sign up for. We thought we'd sign up to be a partner in district priorities to refurbish and rehab schools and improve the energy efficiency of those based upon the district policies. I didn't know we were going to sign up for a long-term grant for the maintenance of school districts.

I would like to yield now to the author of the bill, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Chandler).

I thank my colleague.

All day long in this Chamber we have had amendment after amendment saying that if we weren't putting money into school construction to refurbish these schools in need, they would put it in IDEA, they would put it in title I, they would put it in after-school care, they would put it in monitoring. You know what? When they had the money and they were in control, they didn't put it anywhere.

They inherited a $5 trillion surplus, a $5 trillion surplus, and when they had the money, they didn't put it anywhere. Now we have a $9 trillion debt and they still can't fund education. That is why we have got to stop it. We should reject this motion to recommit. This is enough to kill the bill. What we need is in fact more money for our schools.

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

Madam Chairman, I apologize. I'm not a member of the committee involved. I was not really that alert to what this bill is, but listening to some of the debate, it just caused me some pause to reflect on maybe we found the answer to the question I keep being asked at my town hall meetings which is, How do you folks back there allow the budget to get so large? How do you get such deficit spending? What is going on back there?

Well, let's see. I just heard Members on the other side of the aisle say this is a Federal responsibility. In fact, I just heard this argued as a jobs program. This will stimulate the economy. Well, if that's the case, let's multiply it by 10. If this is going to create that many more jobs, let's ten 100 times. We will take care of all of the unemployment in America.

The idea that somehow we have the responsibility on the Federal level to now fund the programs for construction and air-conditioning and heating and so forth in schools, what is left for local taxpayers to do? Oh, I'm sorry. Local taxpayers are also the Federal taxpayers and the State taxpayers. I forgot that because we forget that here.

I just heard the gentleman previously on the other side say his school districts are strapped. They can't pay for it. But magically, we can pay for it here because I guess when my constituents get up in the morning they say, Well, this morning I'm a local taxpayer but at noon I will be a State taxpayer, tonight I will be a Federal taxpayer. I can't afford to pay for it in the morning; I'm not sure I can pay for it yet, but magically I can pay for it tonight because--well, I don't know. I guess this money comes from nowhere.

I mean, does anybody understand we're talking about a new program that's never existed before? But now, now the very future of the Republic depends on this program.

I heard another Member on the other side of the aisle say students can't learn when they're sweating, I guess. Well, I confess. I went to Catholic school. We didn't have air-conditioning in Southern California when it was 103, and it was hot. I remember sweating through my shirts, and it was uncomfortable. But give me a break. You're telling me that there's a Federal responsibility to put air-conditioning in every building that school kids are going to?

I would just ask the American people is this what they think the Federal Government is supposed to be doing? We should go around and find every single wrong thing or something that is not perfectly right and then the Federal Government is going to take care of it? Now, if that is the case, we will never come close to fiscal responsibility, and we're going to do this on top of the fact that we have mandatory spending programs that, if you look at the payout, by the year 2042-- and I know that's a long way away, but my grandkids will probably be concerned about it--as was stated not too long ago in testimony before one of our committees, if we continue spending the way it is, we will have no room for discretionary spending----

As the head of OMB said at that time, including defense. That's the first time I ever heard of defense called discretionary.

But the point is there are certain responsibilities that are the Federal Government's. And I remember when we started the--I am old enough to remember that. I happened to be in Congress shortly after that when President Carter was elected and we established the Department of Education because we said the Federal Government ought to play a small role, small but important role in education.

Well, now if we're going to be responsible for construction for air- conditioning, for heating, for environmentally friendly construction, where does it end? I guess it ends at the taxpayers' pocketbook. But we just pretend that we're not taking from the pocketbook here because it is the Federal Government that doesn't cost anybody anything, but we are here to rescue everybody on the Federal level because they can't afford to pay for it at the local or State level.

Maybe that makes sense here in Washington, but I don't think it makes sense anywhere else. Maybe this is ``Alice in Wonderland,'' but where I come from, people know that when you take a dollar out of their pocket, it's one less dollar they have.

You have to understand I'm not on the committee. So I'm not an expert on that. I'm just a regular Member of Congress who heard the debate as I was walking by.

Well, I would think so. I would think that it's certainly a greater priority to help that program, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, that we assume that as a responsibility, and I can argue back home that that is a shared Federal responsibility.

I don't think this bill rises to that level, and it seems to me if we use money for this and not for disabilities, aren't we shortchanging a program which really has a Federal responsibility for this? I know it sounds good because it's a new program.

I just noticed this. Maybe it's because I came back after 16 years. I find it's awfully easy to say billions and trillions.

I found when I was gone for 16 years, I couldn't find billion and trillion so easy to say. But once we're here, it's awfully easy to say, and then it kind of masks the costs to the local taxpayer because the average person can't figure out what $1 trillion is or $1 billion because that's not within their area of experience.

But what it means, I would hope that folks back home would understand, if we were ever to talk to them about this, that this is coming out of their pocket. And if they believe they can't afford it back home, how can they afford it here, first?

Secondly, we have a commitment to programs like those for children with disabilities. Shouldn't we try and fund that to a higher level first before we start on this path to a new program?

Again, I'm not a member of the committee, and I know the gentleman has served on the committee. But that's a simple question.

I'm not sure the chairman of the committee shares that sentiment, but I appreciate that, and I thank the gentleman for the time.

Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3021, the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act. The bill authorizes $6.4 billion for school construction projects for fiscal year 2009, and ensures that school districts will quickly receive funds for school modernization, renovation, and repairs. A majority of these funds must be used for projects that meet green building standards for energy efficiency and carbon footprint reduction.

This important bill will improve the health of our Nation on a variety of levels. As an economic stimulus, it will create jobs all across the Nation as local citizens join together to build and repair schools. The bill also improves the teaching and learning climate in America's schools by combating overcrowding, decreasing student and teacher sick days, and improving school air quality for our nation's 60 million school children. This legislation also improves energy efficiency by mandating the use of renewable resources in our schools. These same energy efficiencies will also play a positive role in combating global climate change by limiting the carbon emissions emitted by school buildings. Finally, the inclusion of Davis-Bacon protections ensures that workers will receive a fair and prevailing wage.

At a time when our economy is reeling, with unemployment and inflation on the rise, this bill will infuse our faltering job market with the resources it needs to flourish. This $6.4 billion investment in our Nation's infrastructure will create 100,000 new design and construction jobs--4,041 of which will be located in Michigan. Citizens working in other sectors will also see an improvement in their financial stability, as property values improve in communities with these new schools.

The bill will also dramatically improve the teaching and learning climate for America's school children. We all know that children can't learn if they're sick. The average American school was built half a century ago. As a result, too many of our children attend overcrowded schools housed in buildings with leaky roofs, faulty electrical systems, and outdated technology. This tremendous investment in physical facilities would help alleviate these problems by repairing and removing infrastructure rife will black mold and asbestos.

Some may decry the spending associated with this bill. I however, see it as a smart investment that will pay out cost-saving dividends in the very near future. Green schools created by this bill will cost, on average, 2% more than conventional schools but provide financial benefits that are 20 times as large. This is enough savings to hire two additional full-time teachers in most communities.

Although not obvious at first, the bill will also play a substantial role in our nation's multifaceted response to the threat posed by global climate change. When one thinks about the causes of global warming, images of exhaust spewing SUVs and coal plants billowing out black smoke spring to mind. In fact, 39 percent of all green house gas emissions come from buildings--including many of our country's school buildings. The energy efficiency improvements that will be built into our schools will have an immediate impact on this front. Each green and energy efficient school will lead to annual emission reductions of 585,000 pounds of carbon dioxide.

Finally, I am happy to see that the bill will include Davis-Bacon protections to all grants for school modernization, renovation, and repair projects. The inclusion of these protections exemplifies the tremendous differences between the two major parties on issues of worker's rights. I am continually reminded that during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, our President attempted to rescind Davis-Bacon protections at a time when local workers could least afford to have their living standards depressed. In contrast, with this bill, this Democratic Congress emphasizes its commitment to

the belief that the government has a responsibility to provide workers with a living wage as they work to improve their communities.

I applaud Representative Chandler and the rest of the Leadership for this bill. As I noted two weeks ago in the Congressional Record, one of the hallmarks of this Congress has been its attempt to provide comprehensive solutions to complicated problems. I believe that this bill is a proud example of this trend. In a bill aimed at decreasing class sizes, the Congress has also chosen to attack climate change, promote worker's rights, and improve air quality.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill and send a clear message to the American people: This Congress is committed to smart solutions to the real problems that this country will face in the 21st Century.