H.Res. 1192

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1192 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz- Balart ). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1192.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

House Resolution 1192 provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 3644, the Ocean, Coastal and Watershed Education Act, with 1 hour of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

The rule makes in order the amendment in the nature of a substitute that is printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules, if offered by Representative Capps of California or her designee, which shall be separately debatable for 20 minutes. The rule also makes in order the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules, if offered by Representative Flake or his designee, which shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes.

The rule also provides for consideration of another bill, H.R. 1612, the Public Lands Service Corps Act of 2009, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

The rule makes in order the further amendments printed in part C of the report of the Committee on Rules, each of which may be offered only by a Member designated in the report and shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes.

Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit for both H.R. 3644 and H.R. 1612.

I think this is a very fair rule. The rule provides for consideration of two bills under a structured rule. For H.R. 3644, two of the three amendments that were submitted to the House Rules Committee are made in order, including one Republican amendment and one Democratic amendment. For H.R. 1612, two of the six amendments submitted were made in order, both of which are Republican amendments. So for both of the bills combined, three out of the four amendments that are made in order under this rule are sponsored by Republicans.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying bills, the Ocean, Coastal and Watershed Education Act and the Public Land Service Corps Act. The programs within both of these bills benefit districts all across our Nation, from Florida to Alaska, Texas to Minnesota and Colorado. So it is no surprise that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle across the country support these programs.

I would like to thank Chairman Rahall for his leadership on this important issue and my colleagues, Representatives Capps and Grijalva, for their hard work on these bills.

Madam Speaker, we have before us two excellent pieces of legislation, one which would expand and reinvigorate an existing program, the Public Land Corps, by streamlining its management, modernizing its scope and providing new tools to help the program accomplish its mission, and another bill which would expand two National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration grant programs that are aimed at enhancing environmental education related to water resources upon which economic development and human health depend.

H.R. 1612 will help repair and restore our Nation's public lands while employing and training thousands of young Americans and promoting a culture of public service.

This legislation will help provide real employment and training to young people who need it, particularly in a recession, while improving the condition of our priceless natural and cultural resources. We live in a time when environmental science education is just as critical for a healthy environment as land conservation or wildlife protection. Our citizens are empowered by being informed and educated enough to make important decisions in their own daily lives about environmental issues based on sometimes complicated scientific evidence. We need to supply our children and the next generation across our country with enough scientific knowledge to tackle the environmental challenges that they will face in the coming years and to make educated choices as consumers.

This bill also takes a decisive step forward in finishing desperately needed work on our national park lands, forests, wildlife refuges and historic sites. As I have said previously, protecting and maintaining our public lands is one of the most important duties that we have as citizens. I was lucky enough to grow up in Boulder, Colorado, hiking in Mount Sanitas, as I did just last weekend when I was back, the Flat Irons and Flagstaff Mountain. If we don't defend America's truly great public lands, we run the risk of being the last generation to enjoy them.

America and Colorado are really defined by our natural character. America is beautiful and needs our help to remain so. We must not let our ``spacious skies,'' our ``amber waves of grain'' and our ``purple mountains majesty'' become nothing more than forgotten lines in a song.

The bill recognizes the importance, as well, of our coastal and marine systems and our national marine sanctuaries. Those previously have not been eligible for Public Land Corps projects but are just as worthy and just as important a part of our national heritage for those who reside on the coast.

While Members of this body as well as the American public review the historic health care reform bill we will be taking up in the next few days, we have the opportunity to consider this vital program that has bipartisan support providing our youth the education and experience they will need to find meaningful employment while gaining civic pride, scientific education and personal responsibility while maintaining and improving our public lands and National Park System.

This program will invest in our young people, reduce youth unemployment, and prepare young people for a lifetime of work experiences. At the same time youth will be repairing and restoring our National Park System and preserving it for the next generation, we also are able to whittle away at the massive backlog of work that has doubled over the last decade to levels around the $10 billion mark of backlog work that needs to be done. The National Park System has been called America's best idea, and it is past time we give our best attention and respect to the National Park System that it deserves.

Preparing our park system for future generations and preparing young people to face the scientific and environmental challenges that are only beginning to come to fruition is an undertaking of great national importance.

H.R. 3644, the Ocean, Coastal and Watershed Education Act, formally codifies and authorizes two existing programs that have already made great strides in expanding ocean, atmospheric, and environmental literacy in the United States. These programs, the Bay-Watershed Education and Training, which we call B-WET, and the Environmental Literacy Grant, ELG, program deserve Federal recognition and funding for their good work providing educational opportunities from kindergarten all the way through 12th grade.

This legislation gives us an opportunity to consider these vital programs, programs which provide our youth the education and experience that they will need to find meaningful employment in advancing our Nation's progress in science, technology, engineering and math to help keep America globally competitive.

H.R. 3644 codifies two existing environmental education grant programs that were established through the annual appropriations process and are administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Over the past 7 years, these two NOAA education programs have been essential towards advancing ocean and environmental education in the United States. Both programs are very popular in the education community, and in fact, requests for environmental literacy grants are 10 times greater than the appropriated funding levels can support.

Since 2002 and 2005, respectively, the B-WET and ELG programs have connected school children from kindergarten all the way through high school with their ocean and coastal environments. These programs help school children learn about the effects that everyday actions they take have on the environment.

Let's make no mistake about it. Our society is faced with a fundamental lack of scientific understanding, where special interests on all sides frequently undermine the vast scientific consensus on key issues simply by flashy public relations campaigns. We need to make sure that our country is the world leader in innovation and science in order to ensure that our country can overcome new challenges and protect its public health and natural wonders.

In addition to my time growing up in Colorado, I also spent a lot of time in San Diego growing up where the community is as physically, emotionally and economically tied to the ocean and coast as Colorado is to its mountains. Regardless of where someone lives in our great and vast country, whether it's the plains, the mountains, the forests, the coasts or the tundra, our Nation's public spaces, wildlife and environmental health are truly our greatest national treasures, an important part of our national character and who we are. And these pieces of legislation go a long way in our effort to protect them.

I reserve the balance of my time.

There will be, and I certainly look forward to joining my colleague from Florida, a debate this weekend on the health care bill.

I am glad to see, on issues of our national parks and oceans, we are able to come together. And there are certainly other issues where Members of the body don't agree, but there will be a debate and there will be a rule proposed for that debate. I personally believe there should be several hours of debate, and I am hopeful that there will be 2 or 3 or more hours, which would then give Members on both sides who desire to present their positions the ability to do that.

I do take some issue with the characterization that there has not been a vetting of these issues involved. There have been, over the past year, dozens of hearings, even, very recently, a bipartisan summit that the President convened on health care. There have been many ideas and amendments from both sides of the aisle that have been incorporated into the bill that our committee will be doing a hearing on tomorrow and referring, for consideration of the House as a whole, a rule to consider that important piece of legislation.

Both of these bills that we have before us today under this rule are supported by national, regional, State, and local advocates. They are supported by leaders in education, environment, conservationists, service communities, and business communities.

Through passage of these bills, we are able to bring together the desire of this Congress of a meaningful impact on creating jobs for young people, training for young people to occupy the jobs of the future, and doing some lasting good in preserving the historic character of our open spaces.

The B-WET and ELG programs are exactly the kind of innovative learning that we need to cultivate an environmentally minded workforce that can compete in the increasingly green economy of the future. By teaching our children not only to enjoy but also appreciate the value and effect of our endangered national treasures, we can truly create a workforce, a community, and a society that values our environment and our national heritage and in which the environment and economy are increasingly intertwined.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no additional speakers.

Madam Speaker, I have here a letter which I will quote, in part, and then submit from a number of environmental groups under the auspices of the Campaign for Environmental Literacy, a group that I have also had the opportunity to work with on education legislation. What I would like to read is a paragraph that describes ELG and B-WET's contributions to our country.

``The ELG program enables NOAA, as the Nation's leading expert on weather, climate, and ocean information, to partner with the Nation's top nonprofit organizations and educators to put this information to good use.'' ELG funds will allow ``the American Association for the Advancement of Science to update climate education standards that are used to guide science education in classrooms and across the country to reflect state-of-the-art science.''

``The B-WET grants programs support environmental education which promotes locally relevant, experiential learning in the K-12 environment.''

I submit the entirety of the letter for inclusion in the Record.

Campaign for Environmental

Literacy,

Mar. 18, 2010.

Hon. Lois Capps,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Capps: We write to you to indicate our

strong support for passage of the Ocean, Coastal, and

Watershed Education Act (H.R. 3644). This bill authorizes and

strengthens the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration's existing Bay-Watershed Education and

Training (B-WET) and Environmental Literacy Grants (ELG)

programs.

Over the past seven years, these two NOAA education

programs have been essential to advancing ocean, atmospheric,

and environmental literacy in the United States, a major goal

of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy Report and the U.S.

Ocean Action Plan. They have been well received by the ocean

and environmental literacy communities, and in fact, ELG

requests for proposals have been oversubscribed by a factor

of 10.

The ELG program enables NOAA, as the nation's leading

expert on weather, climate and ocean information, to partner

with the nation's top non-profit organizations and educators

to put this information to good use. For example, these

grants have enabled more than 20 million people to gain

access to compelling up-to-date weather, climate and ocean

information through the Science on a Sphere and Ocean Today

Kiosk from Alaska to Hawaii to California to Massachusetts.

ELG funds have also allowed the American Association for the

Advancement of Science (AAAS) to update climate education

standards that are used to guide science education in

classrooms around the country to reflect state-of-the-art

climate science. In addition, ELG grants to the National

Science Teachers Association have given thousands of teachers

access to the most accurate scientific information on

climate, corals and hurricanes.

The B-WET grants programs support environmental education

which promotes locally relevant, experiential learning in the

K-12 environment. A fundamental goal of the programs are to

demonstrate how the quality of the watershed affects the

lives of the people who live in it. B-WET programs have now

expanded to include the Chesapeake Bay, California, Hawaii,

Pacific Northwest, Gulf of Mexico and New England, and this

bill will add five new regions as well. B-WET awards to state

and local education organizations have provided opportunities

to over 125,000 students and 6,200 teachers in 2008 alone.

It is important to now establish these programs in law,

consistent with the education mandates provided to NOAA in

both the America COMPETES Act (PL 110-69, Sec. 4002) and the

Omnibus Public Land Management Act (PL 111-11, Sec. 12304).

They are vital to NOAA's ability to execute the educational

function of its mission. They have demonstrated their

effectiveness, as well as their value to stakeholder

communities. And as our nation begins to grapple with the

complexities and challenges of a changing climate (and ocean

and landscape), they are timely and highly relevant.

Thank you for your consideration of this request. For

questions about this letter, please contact James Elder,

Campaign for Environmental Literacy (978-526-7768,

elder@FundEE.org).

Sincerely,

National Organizations

American Fisheries Society (Gus Rassam, Executive

Director);

American Fly Fishing Trade Association (Gary Berlin,

President);

American Forest Foundation (Tom Martin, President);

American Hiking Society (Gregory A. Miller, President);

American Sportfishing Association (Mike Nussman, President

& CEO);

Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher

Education (Paul Rowland, Executive Director);

Association of Zoos and Aquariums (Steve Olson, Vice

President);

Biodiversity Project (Jennifer Browning, Executive

Director);

Camp Fire USA (Pamela Wilcox, National Interim CEO);

Challenger Center for Space Science Education (Daniel

Barstow, President);

Climate Literacy Network (Tamara Shapiro Ledley,

Coordinator);

Coastal States Organization (Kristen M. Fletcher, Executive

Director);

Consortium for Ocean Leadership (Bob Gagosian, President

and CEO);

Council of Environmental Deans and Directors (Stephanie

Pfirman, President);

Council on Environmental Education (Josetta Hawthorne,

Executive Director);

Earth Day Network (Kathleen Rogers, President);

EarthEcho International (Philippe Cousteau, CEO);

Earth Force (Lisa Bardwell, President);

Ecological Society of America (Katherine S. McCarter,

Executive Director);

Federation of Fly Fishers (Leah Elwell, Conservation

Coordinator);

National Association for Interpretation (Tim Merriman,

Executive Director);

National Audubon Society (Judy Braus, Vice President for

Education);

National Council for Science and the Environment (Peter

Saundry, Executive Director);

National Estuarine Research Reserve Association (Matt

Menashes, Executive Director);

National Marine Educators Association (J. Adam Frederick,

President);

National Marine Sanctuary Foundation (Jason Patlis,

President and CEO);

National Project for Excellence in Environmental Education

(Bora Simmons, Director);

National Science Teachers Association (Jodi Peterson,

Assistant Executive Director);

National Service-Learning Partnership (Nelda Brown,

Executive Director);

National Wildlife Federation (Kevin Coyle, Vice President

for Education);

North American Association for Environmental Education

(Brian Day, Executive Director);

Ocean Alliance (Roger Payne, President);

Ocean Conservancy (Vikki Spruill, President and CEO);

Ocean Conservation Research (Michael Stocker, Director);

Ocean River Institute (Rob Moir, President);

Project WET Foundation (Dennis Nelson, President and CEO);

SandyHook SeaLife Foundation (Mary M. Hamilton, Executive

Director);

Second Nature (Anthony Cortese, President);

ServeNext (Zach Maurin, Co-Director and Co-Founder);

Sierra Club (Jacqueline Ostfeld, National Youth

Representative);

Student Conservation Association (Dale Penny, President &

I'll yield for a question.

I will yield some of my time to Mr. Lungren in just a moment.

Again, I would like to emphasize that the gentleman from California's criticisms are not about this rule or any rule that we have before us. Tomorrow the Rules Committee will be meeting to decide under what rule we will consider health care.

The gentleman has made some remarks with regard to a common practice that is within House resolutions referred by the Rules Committee that involves self-executing language. In 1996, the Republican-controlled House adopted a resolution to consider as adopted the conference report on line-item veto. I would also like read a quote from Thomas Mann who is quoted by USA Today. He is a scholar at the Brookings Institute, who said that the ``deem and pass'' move is not very unusual, has been used 36 times in 2005 and 2006 by the Republican Congress, 49 times in 2007 and 2008 by the Democratic Congress.

I think what's important for people to know is that the Rules Committee doesn't have any special ability to do these rules unilaterally. They only exist by the good graces of a majority of the House. If a majority of the House wants to pass the Senate health care bill as part of a rule, they can. There will be a debate and a discussion over that Senate health care bill, and the Senate bill will be presented to the President and signed, if it passes, before the reconciliation bill reaches the Senate floor.

The House, under the Constitution, is given a great ability to do what it wants to do and to conduct its own affairs as it wants to conduct its affairs. Just as today we have a House resolution, 1192, and that House resolution provides for the consideration of two bills, those bills will only be considered by the House if this rule, this House resolution, passes the full House with a majority of the votes. It will be the same with any rule that is referred out of the Rules Committee tomorrow with regard to the consideration of health care. That rule will only have any force, any effect, if a majority of the House passed that rule and whatever is in that rule, just as they would consider any bill under the House of Representatives.

This rule is a very fair rule. These two bills, I believe, have bipartisan support, a strong consensus to help create jobs, prepare kids for our future, educate kids about the environment, and preserve our great natural resources.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

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

The previous question was ordered.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, H.R. 3644, the Ocean, Coastal and Watershed Act establishes and authorizes funding for two programs, one of which has been a total creature of appropriations earmarks.

There are two simple and compelling arguments for why I am opposed to this legislation: first, it spends too much money that our government just doesn't have, and it singles out two of the more than one dozen NOAA education programs for special treatment when the entire effort is subject to a top-to-bottom review.

The Capps substitute amendment provides authorized spending levels that provide a 10 percent increase each year for 5 years. The Federal Government and American taxpayers simply cannot afford to increase spending by 10 percent year after year. What American gets a 10 percent pay raise every year? What small business is guaranteed 10 percent more in sales or 10 percent growth? None. And this government program should not be promised such lavish increases.

Now, we are told that they have compromised on these spending levels, that the new amounts are lower than in the bill that was first introduced last year. And it can be acknowledged that they have floated this bloated spending balloon a little lower, but it is still sailing high up in the clouds of out-of-control spending. It needs to come all the way down out of the sky and face the harsh realities of the ground down here. Our Nation is running record Federal budget deficits and the national debt is at historic levels, some $12-plus trillion.

We are paying over $600 million a day just in interest on our debt. We need to put a stop to bills like this that just make the problem worse.

It is especially troubling that the Democratic-controlled Rules Committee didn't allow the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Hastings of Washington, to offer an amendment that would have frozen spending at the amount being spent this year. Apparently, giving a government program the same amount next year as they got this year is a concept the Democrats believe is so radical and dangerous that they don't even want Members of the House to vote on it, which isn't surprising these days. And this despite what the President has said, that he wants a spending freeze.

Now, it's not just Republicans that are objecting to these high levels of spending on these two programs. In President Obama's own budget proposal that he sent up to Congress in February, he proposed giving zero funding to one of these two programs included in this bill and giving less than half as much to the other one. President Obama has proven time and time again he doesn't have a problem with massive spending increases; and, yet, even he believes Congress is spending too much on these programs.

The second fundamental objection that I expressed with this bill is it is trying to write into law special funding and treatment for just two out of many of NOAA's education programs, when the entire effort is subject to top-to-bottom review.

NOAA itself is looking into how to best conduct its education program. The agency contracted with the National Academy of Sciences to review and critique NOAA's entire education effort. That study was just completed 2 weeks ago after more than 2 years of work. Just 2 weeks ago, this report came out. The American taxpayer spent over $1 million producing this report, and despite this nearly 200-page document just being delivered into our hands, this House is apparently ready to ignore the work and recommendations by the National Academy of Sciences by moving this bill and voting on it today.

If Congress is going to ignore the National Academy of Sciences report and was going to tell NOAA which education programs it was going to pick and choose to authorize, we could have saved the National Academy a lot of time, and we could have saved the taxpayers over $1 million.

This bill needs to be sent back to the drawing board so that spending levels can be cut back and so the National Academy of Sciences report can be taken into consideration. Until the changes are made, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and the substitute amendment.

I would also like to note, Madam Speaker, that to suggest that the administration fully supports this bill, I think, is a mischaracterization of the facts. In fact, testimony was given that ``we also note that NOAA supports education and outreach programs in the Office of Education and throughout NOAA's line offices. The authorization levels of H.R. 3644 could divert funding from these other programs.'' That should be noted as Members consider this bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren).

I yield the gentleman from California 2 additional minutes.

Madam Speaker, I am a freshman here. I didn't create this mess, but I am here to help clean it up. And to suggest this is the direction we should go, I thought the campaign they said was about change. I thought we were going to try to raise the bar in this institution, but evidently not.

At this time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

I guess that's the fundamental challenge. I don't want to live in his world. And I don't want the people of the United States to have to live in his world. That's the fundamental difference in the approach that's dealing with this health care bill. We have an opportunity in this country to do the right thing. I think the more the people of the United States of America have gotten to know this health care bill, the less they like it. The more sunshine that's shown on this, the less they like it. Only in the United States of America can you spend a trillion dollars and it's not going to add to the deficit when we're already $12 trillion into debt. This bill that we're considering here today will add to that debt. Even the President didn't even ask money for this program.

We can't even take care of our seniors in this country or our veterans. We have a Veterans Administration, and I have soldiers in the State of Utah that are trying get care and services, yet we got a notice recently from the Veterans Administration saying, Don't even bother applying because we have such a backlog of people. The American people understand this. They understand how deep our deficit and our debt is. They understand how irresponsible the health care bill is and what a detriment it's going to be to this Nation and this country. And I would challenge Members to try to articulate what this bill is even going to do. There's some 158 programs, and administrations, and departments, and boards. Somebody stand up and try to articulate what's going to happen--not what it's going to do, but how is it going to work? Because I don't think there's anybody in this body that can actually answer, How is it going to work?

Now going back specifically to this bill that we're considering here today. Again, I want to reiterate the point, Madam Speaker, that we spent a million dollars coming up with a study from the National Academy of Sciences and just totally ignored it. Two hundred pages, 2 years of work, and yet because we've got to fill some time here so we can get to health care--they don't even want Members to go home for the weekend--we're going to throw up this bill prematurely. Why are we ignoring this report?

I want to highlight a couple of things that are said in here. This is from that National Academy of Sciences report recommendation 1:2: ``In order to adequately address the mismatch between its available resources and its ambitious education agenda, NOAA should better align and deploy its resources. This may require the termination of certain activities and programs that, based on appropriate evaluation, do not directly and effectively contribute to its education and stewardship goals.

``NOAA's role in education is shaped by the distributed nature of its education efforts across five line offices and the Office of Education. Because of their diverse missions, the line offices . . . and the Office of Education can act independently and sometimes even in competition with each other.''

Further, ``The differences in management structures, missions, and education mandates are obstacles to creating a cohesive and coordinated education portfolio.''

At a time when we are paying over $600 million a day just in interest, we have a debt that exceeds $12 trillion, close to a $1 trillion new health care proposal that's moving forward, some how, some way, the Democrats want to offer a bill that gives an automatic increase year after year. Ten percent. Just keep adding 10 percent to it over the next 5 years. I think that is fundamentally wrong.

Now the ranking member of Natural Resources, Doc Hastings, offered an amendment that said, Let's just keep the funding level flat. That is a simple, reasonable proposal. But somehow the Rules Committee couldn't find it in their heart to allow Members to vote on it.

Please, don't come here and lecture to somebody and say, Oh, we're about openness and transparency. We're about change in America. I don't buy it. You're not living up to it. You have the opportunity to do the right thing--and you consistently don't. You consistently offend the American people and offend me. I'm a freshman here. I didn't create this mess. I don't want to hear about how the Republicans messed up, because you know what? They had the House and the Senate and the Presidency and they did blow it. I'll be the first one to stand here and point criticism to them. But if we're going to rise to the level that this body demands, then we need to raise the bar and start acting like adults. Vote on what we're supposed to vote for. Be open and transparent. Allow a rule that will come to this floor and make America proud. Let people without the disguise and the nuances. That is within your power, and yet it's not being done. And it's not being done consistently. There are a lot of people here that are fed up with it. I'm one of them. It's disgusting what you're doing. It is disgusting. And I think you know it.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I'll reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, we have no additional speakers, but I will continue to reserve the balance of my time, unless you're prepared to close.

Sunday, Bloody Sunday. Can't wait.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time as we have no further requests for time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do think we should go back and review history. The reality of this bill is the fact that it spends nearly $1 trillion, and the reason you can try to say that it's deficit-neutral or reduces the deficit is because it raises taxes. Only in America do you try to get away with saying, Hey, we're going to spend nearly $1 trillion, and by the way, it's not going to hurt the deficit. And let's also go back and review history and understand that during that time you like to tout when President Clinton was in office, the reality is that the debt continued to increase. There was a reduction in the annual deficit, and a Republican Congress was in charge. It is the Congress of the United States of America that originates spending. So let's also make sure that we're fair on that point as well.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are several concerns with this. In fact, in the bill there are several good programs and things of quality that I would applaud, but there are some basic fundamental flaws that put me in a position, and others in a position, where we are unable to support this amendment and the overall bill.

First of all, it addresses simply two programs within a list of 16 that are found within NOAA's education programs and supporting offices. Further, you see, and actually Jared Polis, a colleague of ours, had a Dear Colleague letter talking about Environmental Protection Agency educational programs. I don't think it has been addressed how cohesive or incohesive it might be between the overlap and what might be happening or not happening. I don't think that has been properly ferreted out.

Now through some foresight in previous Congresses here, the National Academy of Sciences was tasked with a 2-year study to go out and look at what is going on over at NOAA and what their recommendations are. We have spent, as American taxpayers, over a million dollars to get this report, and yet it seems to be totally ignored. Why does this Congress continue to spend money on worthless reports if the Members are going to simply ignore them and say, Oh, well, these are my two pet projects; and, by the way, let's go ahead and give them 10 percent increases year after year after year?

Is there no recognition that this country is over $12 trillion in debt?

We are paying over $600 million a day in interest on the debt, and yet we continue to fund these programs at record

levels, and giving them amazingly high increases without recognition of the fact that this body has got to make difficult decisions.

We can't be all things to all people. We are going to have to make some difficult decisions in this body. And to what is this body actually going to say ``no''? Where do we actually turn around and say, No. You know what; we are this far in debt and, I'm sorry, we just can't increase the funding for another educational program?

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

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

America gets it, what is happening with this health care bill. America gets it. They understand. The Peoria-based Caterpillar just announcing that in the first year alone they believe their costs will increase $100 million in their first year. I would like to read a quote from Caterpillar, Mr. Gregory Folley, the vice president and chief human resources officer at Caterpillar. Quote, ``We can ill afford cost increases that place us at a disadvantage versus our global competitors. We are disappointed that efforts at reform have not addressed the cost concerns that we have raised throughout the year.''

Wasn't it the President of the United States that traveled to Peoria to go visit Caterpillar to tout all these great programs he was going to do? And yet Caterpillar, one of our most important manufacturers in this country, is saying they alone will have $100 million in additional costs to their company. I fear for the small businessman and the small businesswoman, while it is touted on the other side, we're going to put root beer in every drinking fountain and it's just going to be glorious, and somehow this $900-plus billion isn't going to add to the deficit. Come on. Come on. Who believes that?

This government can't get anything right when it comes to cost. That is why we are $12 trillion in debt. That is why we are paying over $660 million a day just in interest. At some point we have to become responsible. We can no longer take money out of the American people's pockets only to redistribute it to where the Congress thinks it should go. That is wrong. It is wrong. It is not the proper role of government to mandate this.

These solutions to health care will best come at the States. They will not come from this body, they will not come from Washington, D.C. And we have to have across this country for people to let their Members of Congress know they are not going to stand up for it anymore. Caterpillar is standing up and saying $100 million. Who do you think that is going to affect? It is going to affect the rank and file, the members there in Illinois who may not have a job anymore.

The number one thing we can do to actually help people with their health care is get this economy, get jobs going again, because I guarantee if you have a job, you have much more of a propensity to be able to go out and get the health care that you want and you deserve.

Yet today we are looking at a bill and the other side is saying, we need to spend money on this education program and we're going to increase its spending, its costs, 10 percent year after year after year.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, one of the things we are going to have to be careful with this health care debate is trading votes for jobs. Let's keep an eye on Mr. Gordon, where it was reported that he was promised the job of NASA administrator in exchange for his vote. Maybe we ought to pay attention to Mr. Tanner, who it was reported that he wants an appointment as U.S. Ambassador to NATO in exchange for his vote.

I hope we pay very close attention to these types of backroom deals that unfortunately might be happening in this very body.

With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake to the Amendment in the Nature of a

Substitute Offered by Mrs. Capps

I have nothing to say.

I think it's important that we pay attention to those types of things. This is no doubt an emotional, deep debate.

As I said, it's something that we should be aware of. It's something that we should pay attention to. I think that's fair. We'll pay attention to it.

I appreciate your comments and the direction that you're going. You've had a great and distinguished career. We applaud you for that. I appreciate your service in this Congress, the work that we've done together. But I think it's fair that we pay attention to what might or might not be happening.

I have no reason to doubt your word.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Yes, in its current form.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this Congress has to get control of spending. We're $12 trillion in debt. We're spending more than $600 million a day just in interest on our debt. At some point, some way, we're going to have to curb spending in this body. This bill authorizes a 10 percent increase every year for the 5 years covered in this bill. This is just too much. This motion to recommit does three very simple things.

First, it freezes funding in the bill to fiscal year 2010 appropriated amounts for the next 5 years--a very reasonable approach. This means that what these programs are getting this year is what they will get next year. No 10 percent increases. Just flat funding. In fact, I would remind this body that it was President Obama that asked for a spending freeze. I concur with the President on this issue in this matter. This Federal Government has to learn to live within its means.

Second, this motion to recommit would prohibit any entity from receiving a grant under this bill if it is currently suing the Federal Government. This bill allows both nonprofit and for-profit organizations to qualify for grants. The amendment simply disqualifies any of those that have a lawsuit against NOAA. Groups can't expect the American taxpayer to allow them to accept free money with one hand while taking the government to court on the other hand. The grant program in this bill shouldn't be allowed to become an avenue for subsidizing or enabling lawsuits that tie up the courts and waste the taxpayers' money.

Third, it expands the list of areas for which environmental literacy grants may be given. This legislation authorizes two educational programs aimed at teaching young people about the coastal and marine environment, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute adds language that will include lessons about jobs that are created by using the natural resources and the benefits of our coastal economies. However, the legislation does not include one more issue that affects some areas of our coastal environment--natural seepage.

In many areas of our Nation's coastline, natural seeps of oil and natural gas occur. This is common in the Gulf of Mexico, but probably nowhere more prevalent than in the areas off the coast of Santa Barbara, California. The educational programs authorized in this legislation are perfect vehicles to teach our young people about these naturally-occurring petroleum seeps--that they do exist, and they can have an effect on our beaches and our coastal air quality. The program proposed here will offer an opportunity to educate our communities and children about the cause of these seeps and the ability of resources and energy development to lessen the volume and impact of these natural seeps into our environment.

Again, this motion to recommit simply will freeze funding at the current year appropriated levels; block groups that have a lawsuit against NOAA from receiving grant money; and expand the range of grants to include the impacts of oil seeps on our beaches and marine environment. I would urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of this motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Madam Speaker, I, as well as many who are here on the floor, am just pleased to be here on a Saturday morning to discuss the bill that is the significance and the reason why we are here, and also the side-view of being able to count the number of arm splints that we see today so we can be part of an historical occasion.

This bill I do think happens to be one of the metaphors perhaps for this entire session as we begin this weekend reality play that definitely does fit into the theater of the absurd. This is a good program, but there is much common good for which we could have found a great deal of common support had this bill been allowed to have some bipartisanship with it.

Both the ranking member of the full committee and the ranking member of the subcommittee had amendments that had been proposed in the committee that were withdrawn under the assumption that they would be worked upon and added to the final bill when it came here to the floor. That was not simply the case. So what could have been an easy bill to pass with common assumptions to it that would have been one of the things that could have been done in a bipartisan way has now been turned into something that has a partisan flavor to it, as the only rule bill that we have for this weekend so far simply because of the standards that we have had in this proposal. This is indeed a metaphor for what we are doing and what we have been doing for much of this session.

I do have some concerns, Madam Speaker, for this bill in three basic areas. First of all, the concept of funding and fiscal responsibility. Secondly, the concept of curriculum that will be involved in this program. And third, what I would probably call is the genealogy of this particular program.

One of the amendments and one of the requests that we had is that this bill should be sunsetted in some particular way. In fact, there will be an amendment that will be brought to the floor to add a sunset provision to this particular bill. This bill as currently administered spends $12 million a year. For some people, that is considered a lot of money. Around here, I realize that is simply a rounding error. But what it does, if you pass this particular bill, it takes off the cap that caps this program at $12 million a year and allows it to be funded at any level one assumes. The CBO made the assumption that would be $120 million over 5 years. How they reached that assumption no one really knows.

One of the things we should do if we were fiscally responsible would be to make sure that there was a specific cap on this program and that there was a sunset provision so it could be reviewed. One of the things we all realize around this country, especially as we talk about the increasing deficit of this country, is that there are some things that the Federal Government must do. Defense of this country is one of the things we must do. There are some things we should never do. And there are some things that fall into those limited categories of it would be nice to do if it meets with our priorities and we have the means to provide them. Providing for the Park Service, healthy forests is one of those things we should do. But it must be set in the environment of how much money we have and where our priorities lie.

Having kids being groomed to be future managers is a nice thing to do on

these public lands if it fits into our priorities. And that is why this program should be reviewed at a regular basis by Congress. Once these types of programs are passed on indefinitely and become embodied within the budget itself, it is never reviewed by this body again, which is our function and our responsibility.

If anything was done in a self-executing rule, the amendment we will talk about later to actually put a cap on this program and make sure that we review it on a regular basis, that should have been self- executing because it is our responsibility as Congress, and we should not abrogate that particular responsibility.

The second concern I have is what I call the curriculum of this particular program. It has been portrayed by groups to us that this is like a new version of the CCC coming along trying to make changes and improvements in public lands. If that were the case, we would probably have very little concern about it. But that is not necessarily what will be allowed if this bill actually goes into effect. See, when this program was originally started the goal was to have kids working on projects that would benefit specially our Forest Service and public lands. But unfortunately as this is now altered, there is no guarantee of where the funds will go and what the priorities may be, which is one of the things we simply wanted. Keep the program doing what the program was intended to do.

This time the government will send money, much of which will be handled by the Student Conservation Association. They will be the ones who will facilitate programs and give grants. How it's structured no one knows. Because once again, instead of ensuring that this is done to the betterment of public lands, this allows for money to go to political issues under the guise of some kind of conservationship. For indeed, this group has had an agenda in the past which has been anti- affordable energy, anti-coal fired plants, pro-higher taxes and energy costs.

Our staff had the opportunity of looking on the Web site of this particular group. They sponsored a conference here in Washington several years ago sponsored by the National Park Service, some funding from the National Park Service in which the curriculum for that conference was not just about how we improve our public lands, but also how one stages protests, how one can do a sit-in to prevent a timber harvest from taking place. In fact, as you look at their Web site their organizing chart lists to start small and then grow and make it fun in the process.

Now, once again, that is not what this program was intended to do, nor should it be the program. And there are no prohibitions to say that this program will not evolve into that form. Had they simply added amendments we wanted to say what the purposes and the directions of this program were, once again it would be a very good bipartisan bill. But that was not allowed. It was not allowed by leadership here or in the Rules Committee to take that place and form.

This Student Conservation Association once again has taken a great deal of stimulus funds that were added in the stimulus bill. In each of those, once again, there was much that was involved that was advocacy outside building our public lands. One of the funds got 18 grand into my community to assist in building a public library so that they could associate at the refuge center with conservation efforts. One hundred twenty thousand dollars was given to this group so they could go to New England and show legal techniques and practices of how they could use the legal system to reach goals that they had. That is political activism, which is not what this program was about, not to which this program should evolve into itself.

One of the things, Madam Speaker, that was funded as part of this program is the Mo Udall Legacy bus tour. Actually, it was a 54-day bus tour promoted by the National Park Service. You can see their logos all the way around here, as well as Department of Interior, to promote sustainability in biodiesel buses. According to the kids, it was a wonderful 54-day trip. However, most of them actually said how great it was as they visited microbreweries in every one of those areas, especially biodiversified microbreweries.

Actually, I don't know how successful this tour was. I don't drink anything harder than Dr. Pepper, so I am going to ask some of the rest of you around here to see if their touring, their visiting to all of the bars they had in the cities in which they went on this particular trip really was worthwhile in making that particular kind of evaluation.

Nice trip. There is nothing wrong with these guys doing this as long as they do it on their own dime; not on the government's dime under the guise of creating some kind of better lands for our public services.

National Park Services, which will be in charge of the oversight of this, does not have a great record in that. In 2007, the IG in the Department of the Interior came up with this in one park service- managed job corps center--$3 million of misreported expenditures and $200,000 of improper charges. And that is the oversight that we're going to have. Those types of things should have been added to the bill.

We asked those to be added to the bill. It would have solved the problem of this particular bill, but they weren't done; therefore, we're here complaining about something which should have been and could have been a great program of bipartisan support, and it isn't.

Let me talk about the genealogy, for, indeed, this Student Conservation Association that will be managing this new program was an offspring created by the National Park Conservation Association, the godfather of this program, a special interest group with a history of what I consider to be extreme agendas--a history of filing lawsuits against this government, filing lawsuits against the Second Amendment rights, efforts to restrict hunting and recreation that are currently permitted on public lands, and presently involved in a national courtroom crusade to destroy the benefits of coal-fired plants with letters, with testimony. Once again, their motives may be pure, fine. It's okay to do that, but not on the government dime. And this bill is written so loosely that it is not clear if any money goes indirectly or directly back to this point to do it.

This bill, when originally established, this program, when originally established, was there to inspire use and needs and build needed programs on public lands. When this program was originally established, by law, it's highest priority was to generate a new generation of land managers trained specifically to improve public lands and specifically to implement the bipartisan Healthy Forest Restoration Act.

That was, under the current system, the highest priority: to help our lands, stop catastrophic fires, to improve our forests. It was managed for that. Seventy-five percent of the money went to that particular issue. That is what should be done.

But once again, in committee, when we said let's restate that at least as one of the important criteria--because, you see, when this bill was written, they removed anything that related to healthy forests from the language. Reinstate that. We actually said, Why don't you reinstate it so at least 50 percent of this goes to improving the forests of this country? And that wasn't allowed either.

So there is no criteria. There is no reference once again to the purpose of this bill originally, which was to make sure that we had a healthy forest. Instead, we have an open-ended bill that could do anything, that could go anywhere, that may make any kind of function.

And see, Madam Speaker, all of this could have been avoided. These are not tough issues. This is not one of the bills that is going to make or break the Republic. It could be avoided if simply the Democrat majority had decided to try and do something in a bipartisan way. If they said, These are your objections. Let's draft something to make sure that your restrictions are what we do as well. We didn't need to be here.

As I said, the committee promised that they would work on this before it came to the floor. I was not privy to those negotiations. I don't know where it went down, but something happened that did not need to happen.

And the Rules Committee, we once again took these amendments to the

Rules Committee and, in their typical fashion, the Rules Committee dropped all of them except for two. That didn't need to take place. Typical of what we're doing around here is simply trying to push things through when we don't need to do it. If we had really had a spirit of bipartisanship, this is something that could easily be accomplished.

So you can sit back, if this happens to pass today, and simply tell yourself it could have been great. It could have been a united bill. It could have been something which we all could say of which we are now proud. But because of the process that we are using, that does not take place. In fact, Madam Speaker, what we are doing here is duplicative.

AmeriCorps, if you look on their enacting legislation on page 22 and page 24, everything this program--which was designed to help public lands, especially healthy forests--everything this is now opened up to do is done by AmeriCorps. It's part of their program. Why not funnel all of the money there and avoid the duplication?

What we are doing now is building a program that has no latitudes, no restrictions on what their options are, no restrictions on their funding. This is a hole so wide you could drive a Toyota Prius through it because there is nothing involved that could stop it. That is not the way you do good legislation. This is not the way you do good legislation. But it could be, and it should have been.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman from Arizona, my good friend, wrong on all the issues, but still a great guy, if he has any other speakers?

I will reserve.

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

The first gentlelady from California who spoke talked about how important it was to start this program. May I reiterate, once again, we are not starting anything new. We have a program. All we are doing is changing things in that program. The current program has specific dollar amounts going which will be reviewed and specific programmatic responsibility, all of which were stripped out in this particular version.

The gentlelady from Texas, actually, I appreciate everything she said, she was right on. Everything for which she argued that is necessary is what the original program was intended to do. The problem we have is--and we could have easily, easily gone along with the expansion of this program if they had actually allowed us to come up with some kind of limitations, because unfortunately, as I mentioned before, what we have now done with this program, 75 percent of which was to go to make sure that we have healthy forests, where the actual priority was to go to help public lands, is you have taken out all that language and we have simply replicated AmeriCorps.

Once again, go on to the language of the legislation that created that document. On page 22 they list what they can do. It's exactly the same thing that has now opened up this possibility. Page 24, where can they go? Exactly the same thing. All we are doing is making a duplicate of a program that's already there when we have a good program with a specific goal, a specific recommendation, and we have taken out those specifics.

Now I suggested that there is plenty of opportunity for abuse in this particular program if you don't try and limit it to what we want it to accomplish, because we all agree on what we want it to accomplish. The unfortunate thing is the language in this bill doesn't say that. It doesn't specify that. And so indeed we can have instead people going in there to provide not jobs, but to provide internships for people to go in and have them assist professional staff in identifying problems, formulating legal strategies to address those problems, providing legal education and direct response representation, engaging in policy development.

There is nothing wrong with doing that, but not on the government dime. I don't have a problem with having a tour of this country talking about sustainability of processes and having drinking parties and all. That's fine, but not on the government dime. I don't mind actually having an agency that has a program here in Washington sponsored by the National Park Service, but not if it's going to teach people how to lead protests and sit-ins, not on the government dime. You can do all of these, but not subsidized by government funding. And that's what should be specified, that those type of activities should be beyond the opportunity and beyond the appropriation and beyond the concept of this program. That is what should have been in the bill. And had we done that, we would also all be singing Kumbaya or anything else that you want to with that.

But this bill, as I said before, is somewhat of a metaphor for everything that we have been doing for a large part of this session. It's simply, once again, a bill that there were assurances made in the committee that amendments would be applied to this bill. For whatever reason, they are not. Instead, we are standing up here protesting a bill which should have been and could have been a great piece of legislation to move us forward towards a common goal, but for whatever reason it was not allowed to be written in that form.

We are standing here on a bill that actually presents itself with a visual of why we need systemic change in this body. If the vast majority of Members were here on the floor to hear what these arguments are, I think they would say, yes, this is a logical limitation, it should be there. But as you look around, the vast majority of Members are not on this floor right now. So far too often we do things in a vacuum of understanding, which is why this body needs systemic change in the process that we use to reach conclusions.

Nothing, nothing more than the changes, nothing more than the process we are going through this weekend, reeks of the need for some kind of systemic change. Because if we did that systemic change and the expectation were the people were here to listen to the debate, they were there in the committees to hear the testimony, there were there in the committees to be part of the markup process, I am still convinced that we could have a better product and a bipartisan product.

But the process does not encourage that. The process encourages the exact opposite. We have a process that has evolved in the wrong direction, and if anything else, this weekend should show that we need systemic change in the process.

This bill, this program, is still a decent program. And with some limitations on the amount of spending, some review on a regular period, and some limitations on what the product will be, what the kids will be working on as they go through these internships, we could have a very, very good positive program. And I hope before this bill actually goes all the way through the system, those kinds of limitations are put back in the bill so we can have something of which we can actually be proud.

I urge defeat of this bill until those changes are made.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to H. Res. 1192, I call up the bill (H.R. 3644) to direct the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to establish education and watershed programs which advance environmental literacy, including preparedness and adaptability for the likely impacts of climate change in coastal watershed regions, as amended, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members that may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 3644.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my legislation, H.R. 3644, which I introduced on September 24, 2009.

Madam Speaker, in California, we are often inundated with reports of the impacts of climate change, overfishing, wildfires and droughts. Such reports may frighten or dampen a child's innate curiosity and wonder of the natural environment. Fortunately, we have found that connecting children to their environment through hands-on experiences offers an effective way to overcome these challenges.

Over the past 7 years, two NOAA education programs, the Bay-Watershed Education and Training regional program, or as it's known, B-WET, and the Environmental Literacy Grants, or ELG, programs, have been critical tools in advancing a nationwide strategy of experiential education in building ocean, atmospheric and environmental awareness in the United States.

In my district, the MERITO program, which has been funded through the California B-WET program for the past 4 years, has allowed hundreds of children to enjoy the benefits of hands-on, bilingual ocean conservation experiences with trained scientists and professionals in Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties.

Many of these children have taken their first trips to the beach under this MERITO program, even though they may live only a few miles away. According to the testimonials of their parents and their teachers, it has given many of them a new awareness of their local environment and their community and opened the world of new opportunities that they now know they can pursue.

Madam Speaker, my bill, H.R. 3644, seeks to formally authorize these two innovative and important NOAA education programs that were established through the annual appropriations process so we can ensure that they are here for our children now and in the future. It also ensures that certain standards and criteria for positive implementation are met by the agency when they spend these funds. To me, this represents a responsible oversight effort on the part of our committee to exercise our proper duties.

Madam Speaker, these programs have been well received by the ocean and environmental literacy communities, and in fact, since the ELG program was initiated in 2005, the demand for ELG grants has been 10 times greater than the available funding.

Each program has gathered significant momentum and prominence since the Congress passed the America COMPETES Act in 2007, which elevated and enhanced NOAA's educational mission. A recent report released by the National Academy of Sciences also commends both programs for their positive contributions to increase student interest in science and to improve awareness of the ocean and coastal environment.

H.R. 3644 is fully supported by the administration. The legislation is also strongly supported by the Campaign for Environmental Literacy. This is a coalition of nearly 60 national, regional and local private and non-profit organizations; and they represent science, education, conservation, outdoor recreation and zoological parks, including the National Wildlife Federation, American Fisheries Society, the American Fly Fishing Trade Association, and the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, to name just a few.

At the appropriate time, I will offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute which reflects a bipartisan compromise to address the concerns raised by my colleague and my friend, Congressman Cassidy of Louisiana, during the markup of this bill by the Committee on Natural Resources.

Madam Speaker, in closing, the B-WET and ELG programs are both effective, wildly popular, and in great demand by educators around the country. These programs represent two critical investments in our efforts to connect children to their natural world and, hopefully as a result, inspire their interest in the sciences and in ensuring the future of their coastal communities. We should recognize their importance today by passing this legislation and codify them as formal programs within NOAA.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I'm pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains?

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

At this point I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

I'd like now to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

Madam Speaker, could I again inquire of the time remaining.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Madam Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. Speaker, in closing the debate on this topic, I want to spend a couple of minutes responding to some claims from the other side. First with respect to the authorization levels, Congress is already investing in both of these programs under discussion today through the appropriations process. The authorized funding levels contained in my bipartisan compromise amendment were based upon existing appropriations and allow for the continuation and measured growth of both programs, which are in high demand by educators nationwide. They were negotiated with my colleague Mr. Cassidy, and I do appreciate his efforts.

My bill would authorize the programs that Congress is already spending money on and makes sure that certain standards and criteria for implementation are met by the agency when they do spend these funds. To me, this represents a responsible effort on the part of our committee and our Congress to exercise our oversight function.

Second, with respect to the argument that we should not consider this legislation because we need time to study the recommendations from the NAS evaluation of NOAA's education program, it is true that the National Academy of Science report on NOAA's education program was released last week. Nothing in the report, however, was specifically critical of either the B-WET or ELG programs. And because of this, this report should have no bearing on my legislation to codify both programs.

Indeed, the NAS' National Research Council panel found that over the relatively short lives of both programs, they have made positive contributions to fulfill NOAA's educational mission and that they reflect well the agency's diverse capabilities in science, resource stewardship, and education.

In short, these are both very good programs with broad support from more than 60 science education, outdoor recreation, and conservation organizations. By authorizing them, we ensure money already being spent is spent well and responsibly. I urge all Members to support the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Mr. Speaker, my amendment in the nature of a substitute reflects changes to the bill, as ordered reported by the Committee on Natural Resources, that, as I mentioned, were negotiated between myself and Congressman Cassidy of Louisiana. I wish to thank Mr. Cassidy and his staff for their cooperation and thoughtful suggestions to improve this bill, and I think that the final bipartisan compromise does just that.

In particular, the amendment makes several changes to reflect the significant economic importance of coastal areas and resources to the overall economy of the United States.

As a Representative of a coastal district, I could not agree more that the economic health and viability of our coastal communities is intrinsically connected to the health of the natural resources of the watersheds in which we live. You cannot have one without the other. In addition, my amendment will authorize a gradual increase in authorized appropriations for fiscal years 2011 through 2015. This modest annual increase of 10 percent will allow for the responsible expansion of both programs to incorporate new regions that are not currently served, particularly by the regional B-WET programs.

I applaud the gentleman from Louisiana for his leadership on this front. Both of our districts enjoy the benefits of the regional B-WET programs, and we would like to see those benefits extended to other watersheds around the country where, I can assure you, there is an overwhelming demand. Mr. Speaker, the changes reflected in this amendment serve to strengthen the overall purposes of this bill. I would like once more to thank Congressman Cassidy and his staff for their work on these revisions, and I do encourage support of my colleague's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) who is the pioneer in the area of coastal education.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

Madam Speaker, as I close my discussion of this amendment, let me remark that over the past 7 years these two programs, the environmental and coastal programs have cumulatively introduced millions of students to unique hands-on learning experiences. The National Academy of Sciences report that was requested by NOAA, not by Congress, reaffirms that each program has increased student interest in science, increased teacher capabilities to instruct science, and increased awareness and appreciation of the environment.

So I urge Members to support the amendment and the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the gentleman from Arizona for offering his amendment to ensure that funds appropriated to support the implementation of the B- WET and the ELG programs are not earmarked. One of the primary purposes of this legislation is to finally codify these programs as permanent educational programs within NOAA's larger educational initiative so that they can be incorporated into NOAA's base budget. In addition, this legislation will establish the purposes and policies of both programs, which should improve the ability of Congress to conduct its oversight to ensure that they remain effective and accountable.

As it now stands, funds appropriated for these programs are not earmarked to benefit any one institution, but rather funds are distributed through regional programs or NOAA's education office through merit-based competitive processes. While this amendment will prohibit the earmarking of funds appropriated to implement both programs, it should have little direct effect on how B-WET or ELG grants are awarded in the future because, as the history of the programs demonstrates, funds have always been awarded competitively.

Consequently, we can accept this amendment even though it is unnecessary, and thank the gentleman from Arizona for his interest in maintaining merit-based and competitive grant making for both programs.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, could I inquire what time there is remaining on this side?

At this point I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Tennessee, the chairman of the Science Committee, Mr. Gordon.

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

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I object.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition to this motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, may I go back to the underlying legislation, which is H.R. 3644, the Ocean, Coastal, and Watershed Educational Act. This is an educational program for children. They are not qualified to do natural resource surveys or to assess the impacts of oil seep. NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, does not have jurisdiction over air quality and the mitigation of impacts. That would fall under jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency.

The proposal to level fund the program was rejected in the Natural Resources Committee and by the Rules Committee. The modest increases in this bill were negotiated with my colleague, Mr. Cassidy, in the Natural Resources Committee, in a very bipartisan discussion with negotiations that we made between the two sides, and I urge Members to oppose this motion and support the underlying bill.

I remind my colleagues that these programs have a track record of being grant-making programs under NOAA for several years, and in all the places where they are currently being enacted, they are very popular. At a time when our public schools are being inundated with funding decreases and cuts and at a time when we're so concerned about the availability of our young people to learn the basics in science and math, this is a hands-on experience that they can have. It is an educational program that helps them appreciate their environment and take good care of it. We have 10 more applicants for every grant that's been available. So we made this modest agreement in a bipartisan way to increase over time by a very small amount the amount of money that can be available under this program through NOAA. I would hope that we would all get back to the basics of the legislation, oppose the motion to recommit, and support this underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank the gentleman for the courtesy on this floor. I admire courtesy and civility here. I just wish we had more of it on both sides from time to time, particularly as we are in these contentious days dealing with one of the most important issues of our time--the health care bill.

I would stand in support of all the things that the gentleman from Florida said about this rule making in order these two bills. It is not unusual for us to make in order two bills under a rule, but what I would suggest is that that is somewhat different than what we evidently are going to be asked to do later this weekend. As I understand it from the ranking member on the

Rules Committee, it is contemplated that we will have a rule that will be ``self-executing'' dealing with a substantial portion of the American economy, that is the entire arena of health care. I don't think enough attention has been given to the difference between the appropriate procedure that we are enacting here versus that which is to go forward later this weekend.

I served in this body in the 1980s and then left and came back about 6 years ago. In the intervening time there was an effort, on a bipartisan basis, made by this House and the Senate, with the signature of the President, on a piece of legislation that was called the line- item veto. The line-item veto was a process that was contemplated which would allow the President of the United States to receive an appropriation bill from the Congress and then to look at that appropriation bill and find out and decide whether there were certain items that he thought were not appropriate, there's too much spending in an overall appropriations bill. It would have given the President the right to sign the overall bill, but on the one hand, to take out, X out, line out certain items. And so this provided a constitutional question before the Supreme Court in the case of Clinton v. City of New York, because they had to wait until the President actually exercised the right presumably given to him by the legislation passed by this Congress.

And so the question was: Was that manner in which laws were passed consistent with the requirements of the Constitution? And the Constitution sets out the terms under which we're able to pass laws. Essentially, it says three things must happen: It must pass the House of Representatives; it must pass the United States Senate; and it must be presented--it's called presentment--presented to the President and signed by the President.

Interestingly enough, in the majority opinion written by Justice Stevens--I believe the longest-serving member of the U.S. Supreme Court at the present time--when he investigated it, he said this. He said, The Constitution requires that it be the exact text in all three circumstances. Those are his words. The exact text. He went on to say that if in fact a paragraph were absent from the law that the President signed, meaning the President exercised his line item veto and had taken it out, it would invalidate the constitutional requirement for passage of a law because it would not be the exact text.

So, as I understand it, contrary to the rule that we are debating here today, the contemplated rule to cover the health care bill will say something along the lines of: We incorporate a bill which will be deemed to have passed if we pass the rule; or other language to say: thereby passing. So then you will have the interesting question of whether or not we are acting on--that is, I as an individual Member of Congress representing my constituency--I am voting on the ``exact text'' as was voted on in the Senate, which then goes to the President for signature. And I would argue that if you cannot remove a paragraph from the ``exact text,'' as the Supreme Court told us, in any of the three aspects of the bill, that you cannot add text. And that is, if you have a rule which incorporates the bill, you naturally have other language that goes along with it, particularly if it makes reference to other subject matter.

And so in contrast to the rule we have here, which should be supportable under the circumstances that it does not violate the Constitution in any way, shape, or form, even though it is a little different than when we adopt a rule that permits two bills to come to the floor, in the instance of having a self-executing rule we will then be presenting to the Supreme Court a constitutional issue upon which they have not directly ruled. It is, however, my interpretation of their ruling in Clinton v. City of New York that it is the mirror image of what the court found to be unconstitutional. That is, if the exact text requirement cannot be fulfilled by removing a single paragraph from the text; similarly, if you add language to the text in the vote that is presented to the membership, it would be not the same thing, so that we would be prohibiting the Members of this institution, the House of Representatives, from their constitutional obligation to vote on the exact question presented in the other body so that that same exact question can be presented to the President of the United States for his signature.

Now I understand that some say, Aha, there's another section of the Constitution which says that the House of Representatives and the Senate in their respective bodies shall be the sole arbiter of the rules of their Chambers. And that is true. But it is also true that we cannot, by our rules, do what is otherwise unconstitutional. And so Members should understand that while, unfortunately, when we debate rules often times there's the absence of many of our Members here, because the rules process is considered to be technical, in some ways taken for granted, in other ways nonobjectionable, not rising above the ordinary, with all due respect to the members of the Rules Committee. In the instance of a self-executing rule, so-called, on one of the most controversial issues presented to this Congress, certainly in my years of service here, we cannot blithely dismiss legitimate questions about what our obligation is here. I have said on this floor before, and I continue to say, the Constitution is an inconvenient truth.

A couple of weeks ago, I had the opportunity to be in a meeting with Justice Scalia. Justice Scalia made an interesting point. He said, The essence of a democracy or a democratic republic such as ours is, majority rules. If majority rules, you don't have a democracy. But he said one of the unique things about America is that we have some limitations on majority rule. Those limitations are found in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They limit what the majority can do and protect minority rights. But he said, The interesting thing is, those limitations were imposed on the majority by the majority. In other words, it is through the adoption of the Constitution that the majority has limited itself. And he suggested that that should give caution to members of the court to not supersede their legitimate authority by finding new limitations on the majority that were not contemplated by those who adopted the Constitution, and if you need further limitations or protections of minority interests, the way to do that is to amend the Constitution, which is again done by the majority.

Similarly, I would suggest, that those of us who take an oath to uphold the Constitution as representatives of our constituents in this body must follow the dictates of the Constitution and the limitations of the Constitution. In some language in that case that I cited earlier, the 12-year-old case of Clinton v. City of New York, the court talked about how it may or may not be a good public policy that the law that was otherwise found to be unconstitutional, that the fact that it may or may not be good public policy is irrelevant to the question of whether it's constitutional.

So the argument that we have presented to us here most recently in a nationally televised interview by the President of the United States, that whatever vote takes place is going to be on health care and therefore it's okay, and he'll sign it, forgets the inconvenient truth that the Constitution does not permit us to do that, and it does not permit the President to do that. So while a lot of people are talking about the fact we're going to be here over the weekend--and that's extraordinary--I would wish that we would concentrate on the more extraordinary question of whether we are following the Constitution. Because if in fact we circumvent the Constitution by ``allowing'' a bill to become law in which each Member of the House and the Senate did not have the opportunity to vote on the exact language, we are not punishing the Members of Congress; we are punishing our constituents, who have a constitutional right to have laws passed in the way that is articulated in the Constitution, which provides specificity as to how that is done so that the power of the Federal Government will be exercised in the limited sense that was given to it by the people through the Constitution.

And so while I support all of the comments made by the gentleman from Florida with respect to this rule and find this rule to be relatively noncontroversial and to be more of the same, the rule that we are being told of

that we will consider this weekend is not more of the same, is not ordinary, is in fact extraordinary, and I would suggest such an extraordinary stretch that it will be rendered unconstitutional. Why would we follow a procedure that will call into question the very constitutional foundations of the contents of the bill if in fact it is such an important issue? If it in fact is something that needs to be dealt with with such urgency, ought we not to follow the Constitution in each and every aspect and ought we not be guided by the most recent decision of the Supreme Court on a law which we thought was a good law on a bipartisan basis, but which, unfortunately, the Constitution does not allow us to enact.

And I would hope that my colleagues who may not be here on the floor but may have an opportunity to review these remarks will take seriously my concerns. We may very well be preparing to embark on an unconstitutional journey which not only will take the healthy skepticism that our Constitution provides for government--not rejecting government, but we have a healthy skepticism of the power of government that is a part of our constitutional process--but we will turn it from a healthy skepticism to an unfortunately destructive cynicism. And if there is anybody who believes that is good for this country, I would suggest they are wrong.

This is a tough issue that we're going to have to deal with later this weekend. Let us at least do it in a constitutional way, and let us not pass something for the American people that will be called into question in court challenge after court challenge after court challenge and delay the impact or implementation of whatever we believe on a bipartisan basis ought to be the governing law with respect to the health care system.

So with that, I thank the gentleman for his time, and I thank the gentleman for his courtesy.