Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3036) to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 regarding environmental education, and for other purposes.

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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

For the past few years, the Committee on Agriculture has taken a proactive approach to try to understand and monitor the issue of trading activity in the futures markets and conduct appropriate oversight. This was so we could make an informed decision about whether or not commodity markets need greater transparency and accountability.

Last week, CFTC Acting Chairman Walt Lukken presented a 6-month study of the futures market to the committee. Chairman Lukken and his staff spent a lot of hours and a great deal of work over the past 3 months to produce that report. We appreciated their efforts, especially for keeping an aggressive timetable.

The CFTC report was useful in providing a reference point in determining the relationship between index fund-related activity in the over-the-counter markets and commodity futures, and energy and agriculture prices in the United States.

However, as we move forward today with H.R. 6604, there are key factors for us to consider.

One, after hearing testimony from Mr. Lukken, and after examining the findings of this report, it is evident that our priority should be ensuring that the CFTC has the tools and resources it needs to protect and preserve the integrity of our futures markets.

The CFTC devoted more than 30 employees and 4,000 staff hours to produce this report. Those who have read the report all agree that these broad snapshots of the markets are necessary, but the CFTC does not have the staff to dedicate to similar projects.

This bill directs the CFTC to hire 100 additional employees. But because there has not been a single appropriations bill passed by both Chambers and presented to the President, I have no idea how the already underfunded agency will be able to do so.

The Democratic leadership is fond of pointing the finger of blame, but ultimately the Democratic leadership has one duty, to consider and pass the appropriations bills that fund the government. The Democratic leadership has refused to execute this duty and has failed the American taxpayer.

Second, this bill will not reduce the price of oil. It will not relieve the burden many Americans face at the gas pump. In order to achieve that very important goal, Congress must focus on creating a viable energy policy that goes beyond the measures passed thus far to increase the domestic supply of energy sources and promote energy independence.

Though I have concerns that some of the provisions in H.R. 6604 are too far-reaching, I will continue to support this bill to ensure that the CFTC has all the tools it needs to preserve and protect the integrity of our futures markets.

But I know, as I have worked closely with the chairman of the committee, who has worked in a very bipartisan fashion to fashion this legislation and address these concerns and make sure the CFTC has the necessary oversight authority and capability, that this bill would provide for it.

I also know that this is not what the American people want and need when it comes to energy. I know that there are many on the other side of the aisle who are hoping still to have an opportunity to vote, not on a hoax, not on a sham like we did 2 days ago, but on a real American energy bill that provides for real offshore drilling, not a bill that would shut off 80 to 90 percent of the known oil and natural gas reserves from access, not a bill that does nothing to promote nuclear power, not a bill that doesn't take up consideration of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, not a bill that shuts us off from tapping into the oil shale reserves that are in tremendous abundance in the Rocky Mountain States, not a bill that does nothing for coal-to- liquid and other clean coal technologies that would benefit the American people, since we have the largest coal reserves in the world, not a bill that imposes tax increases in order to get to the alternative forms of energy that the American people want to have, but, rather, the American Energy Act, something that we asked this Congress to bring up before we went into a 5-week August recess.

While the Speaker of the House ordered the microphones turned off, the C-SPAN cameras turned off, the lights turned down low, we stayed here day after day, week after week, calling for a vote on the American Energy Act. We didn't get it.

Instead, we got this sham hoax that won't produce a drop of new oil, won't produce a cubic foot of new natural gas, will do nothing for nuclear power, will do nothing for coal, will do nothing for alternative forms of energy. It is simply an effort to try to derail what the American people clearly wanted to see on the floor of this House.

We still haven't seen it. This bill doesn't do it. We need to have that vote, and that's what the debate should be about here today, not this legislation which is good, but does not do what the American people want.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the ranking Republican member on the subcommittee with jurisdiction over commodity futures trading.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for such time as he may consume.

Will the gentleman yield?

I have only myself to close. If the gentleman is thinking that we're close to closing, then I am prepared to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As I say, I appreciate working with the gentleman from North Carolina and the gentleman from Minnesota on this legislation.

I think this legislation gives to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission the necessary tools for appropriate oversight and enforcement. I think this is a light touch. I do not think that it interferes in the marketplace.

And I think that the evidence that was brought forth by the recent report submitted by the CFTC is very strong evidence that the marketplace is working very well, but it needs constant vigilance. We can see that with the difficulties that are being experienced around the country and around the world in other types of markets.

Certainly in the mortgage area and other financial areas, the risk of not giving the regulatory agencies the appropriate authority to do oversight and to act is certainly a grave concern. But I think we are doing that in this area. I think the CFTC is doing that in this area, and I think this legislation will help to enhance their ability to remain vigilant in making sure that this market operates properly; that there is not excessive speculation; that there is not manipulation of this marketplace.

Having said all of that, I will say, once again, that this is not the issue that we should be debating here today. I support this legislation. I will vote for it. But we deserve an opportunity to vote on what the American people want. And poll after poll have shown that they want to see a real energy act. They know that the problem with the high price of energy is the lack of supply. They know the problem with the disruption of our energy supply that just occurred due to Hurricane Ike is because we have not enough refinery capacity in this country, and that it is not distributed around the United States.

The American Energy Act provides for using abandoned U.S. military bases to build new refineries. We haven't built a new one in more than 30 years. And the bill that was brought to the floor of the House by the Democratic leadership earlier this week did absolutely nothing in that area.

We're now importing refined petroleum products, paying a higher price. We're seeing more and more billions of dollars going out of this country every week, costing America jobs, harming our economy because we are so dependent upon foreign oil, at the same time that we have huge resources, not just oil, but natural gas, coal, the potential of new nuclear power, as well as a whole array of alternative sources of energy like wind and solar and geothermal and biomass and hydrogen. All of these things are available to us if we will take the leadership here in this Congress and get the American Government out of the way of developing these new sources of energy. But, instead of doing that, we bring a no drill, no energy bill to the floor that was clearly a sham, a hoax on the American people.

We have abundant resources in oil. The estimates are that we could be producing 3 to 4 million barrels of oil from the Outer Continental Shelf. The bill that was brought forth on the floor of the House shuts off 80 to 90 percent of that oil from access to the marketplace because they don't allow drilling.

I introduced legislation, as have other people, to allow drilling off the coast of our respective States. I've introduced one for Virginia that has strong support in our delegation. And yet the legislation that was brought forward earlier this week does not provide any royalties for the States. So our Governor, Democratic Governor of the State has already indicated that if the State can't benefit from deriving royalties that can be used for developing better transportation systems, alternative forms of energy, public education and so on, if it can't be used for that, he's not interested in participating. So that bill was meaningless. It was a sham.

We need to bring forth real legislation like the American Energy Act that shares those royalties with the States so that they're able to do that.

It's estimated that we could have a million barrels of oil a day coming down the pipeline that already exists in Canada, if we would drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, an area the size of the State of South Carolina; and the area that would be utilized for drilling for oil is about 2,000 acres, like a postage stamp on a football field. That's how much of this land of this huge area would be utilized. The people of Alaska support it. The Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, supports it.

Are we doing that?

No. Wouldn't even bring it up. Wouldn't bring up a bill that we could even offer an amendment to to allow for that to take place.

Meanwhile, the oil that comes from the Prudhoe Bay area is declining. It was 2.1 million barrels a day at its peak. It's now down to 700,000 barrels a day. We're told that when it gets down to 300,000 barrels a day, we'll have to close down the pipeline because it's not economically efficient to transport the oil.

At the same time we could be adding a million barrels of oil a day for an estimated 30 years, we're at risk of losing not just that million, but an additional 300,000 barrels of oil a day, about 6 percent of the consumption in this country every day for 30 years.

And then look at the oil shale available in the Rocky Mountain States. Here we have an estimated somewhere between 800 billion and 2 trillion barrels of oil that can be extracted from that oil shale, much like the Canadians are extracting oil from tar sands in Canada. So while they're doing that in Canada, this Congress last year passed legislation that prohibits the United States Government from buying that oil from Canada.

And then in terms of our own reserves which are huge, to just give you an idea, since the first oil well was drilled in Pennsylvania in 1859, until today, the entire world has used about 1 trillion barrels of oil. And yet we're leaving untapped, because legislation was not brought forward to address it, untapped, 800 billion to 2 trillion barrels of oil available to us in that oil shale deposits in the Rocky Mountain States. It's a shame, Mr. Speaker, that we're not doing that today.

Coal reserves. We have more coal reserves than any other nation in the world. New technology exists to convert it to liquid that can be used for transportation purposes. We have new technology that is cleaner burning coal, and yet we're not doing anything in the legislation that was offered here earlier this week to tap into that.

Nuclear power. It's been correctly noted here today that while the United States still derives 20 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, France today gets close to 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. They continue to develop that technology. We haven't, for 30 years. We haven't for 30 years built a single new nuclear power plant. There are now some on the drawing boards, thanks to legislation that the Congress adopted 2 years ago to incentivize that.

But because of regulations that stand in the way, we will not have the opportunity to see a single kilowatt hour of electricity generated from those new nuclear power plants for at least 10 years. Why?

Because this Democratic leadership would not bring up legislation like the American Energy Act that enables that.

The same thing with the development of alternative fuels like wind and solar and geothermal and hydrogen and biomass. What do they do to incentivize? They increase taxes. That's the last thing we need right now when the American economy is in the condition that it's in, to have tax increases to pay for something that we could pay for with the royalties that would come from drilling offshore, from drilling in Alaska, from tapping into that oil shale, from drilling for natural gas where the largest deposit known in the world is in the Gulf of Mexico, and yet we can't have access to it.

There's natural gas all down the eastern coast of the United States. We can't have access to that. Why? Because they won't share the royalties with the States and it won't happen. And they've kept some of these areas off limits in their legislation as well.

This is a travesty, Mr. Speaker. We should be having the American Energy Act on the floor today. That's what the American people want. That's what will create millions of American jobs in creating this new energy, and in revitalizing our industry and revitalizing manufacturing and strengthening agricultural production in this country and strengthening all of American commerce, making us more competitive with the rest of the world if we would simply seek to be energy independent, which we could accomplish in 10 or 15 years if the leadership of this Congress would simply bring forward legislation that would enable us to empower America to have real energy independence and real American jobs and save this economy.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close if the gentleman from Minnesota is.

I would again thank the gentleman for his hard work on this legislation. This is not legislation that this committee has in any way taken lightly over the past several years. We've conducted oversight into the activities of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the futures markets. We've done it in a bipartisan way. We have watched closely to make sure that the commission has the resources it needs to do its job.

We found some areas where we think it could use some additional help in terms of personnel, in terms of the authority to gather information, and in a few instances in giving them additional authority to act if they find that there are indicators in the marketplace that it's not functioning properly, that there is excessive speculation and that there is manipulation; and this legislation does that, and I support that. Although I do have some reservations about the legislation, I think it is legislation that deserves to be passed into law.

However, I will say it once again that this is not the legislation that the American people want and expect to see us debating on the floor of the House today. They want real energy legislation, not the sham bill that was offered 2 days ago, but legislation that would allow for real drilling for American oil and natural gas and would allow for utilizing new clean-burning coal technologies, that would expand our nuclear power generation of electricity, that would expand our alternative forms of energy.

And as we move in that direction, utilizing the resources that are created by producing American energy to accomplish more in the areas of wind and solar and geothermal and hydrogen and biomass and tidal energy production and a whole array of others, that we are simply neglecting because this Congress, the Democratic leadership, refuses to bring to the floor for a vote the American Energy Act, which would command very, very overwhelming bipartisan support if it were brought to the floor for a vote.

But it's more than just what consumers are paying at the gas pump. It's more than what they're worried about having to pay to fill their tanks with oil or kerosene to heat their homes this winter or their natural gas bills or their electric bills that are going up and up. It's more than that. It's about the American economy, and it's about American jobs.

This legislation would create millions of American jobs, not only in energy production but also in manufacturing and agriculture, in a whole host of areas that would make America more confident, would make America more competitive with the rest of the world. We need this legislation. We need it badly. It will be a shame, Mr. Speaker, if we leave town without passing the American Energy Act.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would join him in supporting this motion to recommit because it would help to assure a great many Members on our side of the aisle that the concerns raised about the legislation that somehow

this might prove to be disruptive of the markets would indeed not occur. It would simply require that the CFTC examine that and certify that they do not believe that that would be the case, and then the legislation could proceed to be fully implemented, and I think this is a wise consideration.

The evidence that we have before us from the findings of a recent CFTC report is that these markets are functioning well. I think this legislation will enable them to continue to function well, but it does not, I think, in any way hurt and could, in fact, indeed enhance the operation of CFTC for them to require to make this investigation and make this certification that people, millions, tens of millions of Americans whose pension funds may include some investment in commodity futures markets will be unaffected by the legislation in terms of empowering the CFTC to conduct further oversight and to take further action as is allowed by the legislation.

Again, I would point out that the best thing we can do to secure the pension funds of Americans would be to create more energy in this country that would meet the supply demands that are necessary, would help to hold down the cost of oil and natural gas and electricity and everything else that drives this economy, both in terms of our transportation, our manufacturing, the heating of our homes. All of these things would be greater enhanced if we would have the American Energy Act brought before us.

Unfortunately, I believe the American Energy Act would not be a germane motion to recommit. Otherwise, we'd be offering it right now, but I believe the gentleman's alternative is a good one, and I support it.

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.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1441 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I might consume. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1441.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1441 provides for consideration of H.R. 3036, the No Child Left Inside Act of 2008, under a structured rule.

The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Education and Labor. The rule makes in order five amendments printed in the Rules Committee report. The rule also provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Madam Speaker, it is important that elementary and secondary schools across America continue to offer curriculum that is aligned with the needs of our children and the interests of our great country. That is why the Congress will move today to extend the National Environmental Education Act under an initiative offered by the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. John Sarbanes, entitled the No Child Left Inside Act.

This national environmental education bill was reported by the Committee on Education and Labor by a strong bipartisan vote. Under the leadership of the Education and Labor Committee chairman, George Miller, our Nation's students have been well served by this Congress with numerous landmark reforms and investments.

I thought we would take the time just to name a few. This Congress has passed the College Cost Reduction Act that was signed into law last year. It provides the single largest increase in college aid since the GI Bill, roughly $20 billion over the next 5 years. But it does so at no new cost to taxpayers.

Under the law, 6.8 million students who take out need-based Federal student loans each year will see the interest rates on their loans halved over the next 5 years, saving the typical borrower over $4,000 during the life of the loan once that is implemented.

That College Cost Reduction Act also boosts the maximum Pell Grant scholarship to $5,400 over the next 5 years. That's up from about $4,000 in 2006.

In a part of that bill that has not received a lot of attention, that new law provides loan forgiveness for public service members like nurses, police officers, firefighters and first responders and makes those loan repayments more manageable and gives up-front tuition to students who commit to teaching in the high-need public schools.

This Congress has also passed, and it has been signed into law, the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans for American Families. There is nothing more important during this credit crunch than that affordable student loans and access to college remains available for our young students that would like to attend college.

That Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans for American Families Act provides new protections, in addition to those already in current law, to ensure that families continue to have timely, uninterrupted access to Federal college loans in the event that distress in the credit markets leads to a significant number of lenders in the federally guaranteed student loan programs to substantially reduce their lending activity.

The Congress has also passed, and it was signed into law just last month, the expanding college access for students and families law. It passed the House here by a vote of 380-49. The legislation addresses the rising price of college by encouraging colleges to rein in price increases, clean up corrupt practices in student loan programs and streamline the Federal financial aid application process. The bill also addresses textbook costs and increases college aid and support programs for veterans and military families.

Madam Speaker, this is another bill before us today that continues the new direction, Congress' commitment to higher education, and to improving elementary and secondary education for students across America.

Today we will focus on improvement to environmental education for America's schools, the best kind, where Washington doesn't dictate the parameters or curriculum to local schools, but gives schools the tools they need to decide themselves how to modernize curriculum. Today, it is our challenge, and the challenge of our children, to build a more sustainable energy efficient world, and sometimes you have to get outside the classroom and learn by doing and exploring your environment.

Many children, including my 9-year-old daughter, learn more effectively this way. I know many of you love to visit classrooms and talk with students, like I do.

Students today are particularly interested in energy conservation, climate change, clean air and clean water. Students, teachers and schools are clamoring for more knowledge and understanding of our natural environment.

Unfortunately, many schools and school districts simply do not have the resources to teach beyond the basics these days. Since the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act, we have seen a narrowing of school curriculum with schools being forced to spend more and more learning time preparing for high-stakes testing.

Well, like other science courses, this grant program, under the national environmental education program, the environmental education instructs students in critical thinking, problem solving, teamwork, obtaining and analyzing data, communication and learning by doing. These skills are critical for success in the 21st century, and environmental education helps students by learning how to conserve, how to conserve energy, how to ensure safe products are on the shelves, which eventually strengthens our Nation's economy and makes it a much safer world.

Our environmental actions here at home have an impact on the global economy and on our energy security, and energy security is national security. Having a solid understanding of natural environment and our global interdependency is critical to keeping this Nation safe.

The modest but important resources we will send to local schools under this National Environmental Education Act is particularly helpful now. Helping our kids to learn about the natural environment in an active learning setting will motivate students and propel them

towards success. It will pull kids away from the TV sets and the video games and the video screens and bring them outdoors.

The bill supports local efforts to expand and enhance environmental education and also provides teachers with important professional development opportunities. Under this legislation, our Nation's teachers will become better equipped to teach students about the environment and encourage students to be knowledgeable about environmental issues and how they affect all of us.

When environmental education is integrated into the classrooms, students and teachers are better able to use current, local environmental issues to increase their understanding of math, science, history and other academic subjects.

Environmental education is a powerful tool to help motivate students to help take care of the environment and help improve their academic achievement.

This bill also strengthens environmental literacy plans. According to the Campaign for Environmental Literacy, Americans still widely lack the environmental knowledge that will enable them to safeguard the public health, protect natural resources, support energy conservation efforts and engage in the movement towards a more sustainable future.

So this is a win-win proposition for our local schools, for teachers and for the future of our great country. This legislation will modernize environmental education for the 21st century by emphasizing environmental literacy.

I urge passage of the rule and this underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance my time.

Madam Speaker, we do not have any additional speakers, so I will reserve the balance of my time until the gentleman from Florida has made his closing statement.

Madam Speaker, over the past year and a half, this new direction Congress has been solely focused on growing and strengthening America's middle class. Despite the protestations from my friend from the other side of the aisle, it was just this

week that we passed the most comprehensive, balanced energy legislation that has been considered in the past decade. That Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act proved that there are real differences between the two sides of the aisle here because our energy bill was focused on lowering prices for consumers and protecting taxpayers.

Yes, it expanded domestic drilling offshore and on land, but it also added a huge expansion of renewable sources of energy. It increases our security by freeing America from the grip of foreign oil. And it finally requires Big Oil to pay what it owes the American taxpayers.

Is it fair that Big Oil continues to receive taxpayer subsidies at a time when they are making huge record profits? No, it doesn't, so we end the subsidies to the big oil companies. And a lot of this new emphasis on clean, green, renewable energy will have the extra added benefit of creating good-paying jobs here in America.

Besides energy, we have also been focused on landmark education reform. Indeed, as I highlighted at the beginning of consideration of this bill, we've passed truly landmark historic investments in education for America's students. First was the single largest increase in college aid since the GI bill, the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007. Under that law, 6.8 million students who take out need- based Federal loans each year will see the interest rates on their loans cut in half.

We increased Pell Grants by over $1,000. We have also passed and it was signed into law by President Bush the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans For American Families Act. That is so vital during this turmoil in the financial markets. It is absolutely vital that American families can still get those low-cost student loans. That new law provides new protections to ensure that families have timely, uninterrupted access to Federal college loans in the event that distress in the credit markets leads to a significant number of lenders not being liquid and being able to lend to families.

We also expanded college access for students and families, we cleaned up the corrupt practices going on on some campuses in student loan programs, addressed student textbook costs and increased college aid and support programs for veterans and military families.

And one that I didn't mention but I think we can all celebrate, the hugely bipartisan and popular new GI bill for the 21st century that will provide 4-year scholarships to the brave men and women who have served in the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan. We truly have been on the side of American families and the middle class.

This modest bill today also renews our commitment to the No Child Left Inside Act. Doesn't that really bring all of this together as we focus on energy policy and improving our public education and higher education in this country, a modest but important commitment to students at home who are interested in environmental sustainability and energy conservation. We will provide additional resources to our schools and our students so they can get outside the classroom, get away from the TV set and the video games and learn by doing, learn in an active setting, learn out in the natural environment how to conserve energy and to address global climate change.

Studies shows that environmental education boosts student achievement, it builds students' critical thinking and social skills, it improves student behavior, and it can enhance teaching. So we are going to help schools and States expand and enhance environmental education. We are going to focus on qualified expert teachers in the Nation's classrooms, and strengthen and develop environmental literacy plans.

For a long time there was another group in charge here in Washington, and it oftentimes seems like over the past decades it has been the Democrats who have had to come in and clean up the mess of past administrations. Well, I think we are proving again that we are on track to do that again. We are all in this together and we need to pass this bill. I urge a unanimous ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1441 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution add the following new section:

Sec. 3. It shall not be in order in the House to consider a

concurrent resolution providing for an adjournment of either

House of Congress until comprehensive energy legislation has

been enacted into law that includes provisions designed to--

(A) allow states to expand the exploration and extraction

of natural resources along the Outer Continental Shelf;

(B) open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and oil shale

reserves to environmentally prudent exploration and

extraction;

(C) extend expiring renewable energy incentives;

(D) encourage the streamlined approval of new refining

capacity and nuclear power facilities;

(E) encourage advanced research and development of clean

coal, coal-to-liquid, and carbon sequestration technologies;

and

(F) minimize drawn out legal challenges that unreasonably

delay or prevent actual domestic energy production.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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.