Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2187) to direct the Secretary of Education to make grants to State educational agencies for the modernization, renovation, or repair of public school facilities, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the subcommittee ranking member, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2187 and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, there is a trend here that troubles me. Over the past few months, the Federal Government has stepped in to take control of more and more industries in America. So far these have included the banking industry, the auto industry, and the credit industry. And there is talk of the Federal Government becoming even more involved in other areas, too. These include the health care industry and possibly the student loan industry.

Today we are considering H.R. 2187, the 21st Century Green High- Performing School Facilities Act. This is a bill that would get the Federal Government involved in yet one more industry, school construction.

Little by little, the Federal Government is becoming more involved in people's lives than ever before--and that's just the start of this bill's concerns.

First, there's the cost. Based on the Congressional Budget Office estimates, it's predicted that this bill will cost taxpayers $40 billion--and that's just the start. And $40 billion may not seem like much in these days of multibillion-dollar bailouts and trillion-dollar Federal budgets, but all of this new spending pushes our country further and further into debt.

This week, the Obama administration estimated that the United States has a deficit of $1.84 trillion this year alone. When I came to Congress, the whole budget 16 years ago was $1.4 trillion. This year, the deficit alone will exceed that.

The national debt is now about $11 trillion--and growing. We could update it during the course of this debate because it's growing by the minute--and thanks to bills like this one.

We need to get the Federal budget under control. If we don't, the children we're trying to help today will spend the rest of their lives paying off our debts and deficits--instead of paying for their own dreams and destinies.

But this bill has other costs that go far beyond the balance sheet, if passed. This bill could divert important funding from the title I program for disadvantaged students and for those programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA.

This is a serious blow, especially after the Obama administration's budget failed to increase support for these programs. In fact, under the administration's budget, IDEA is flat-funded, keeping the Federal share of excess costs at just 17 percent.

And, worse still, the title I basic grant is actually cut by $1.5 billion. The administration is redirecting those funds elsewhere, leaving 1,038 school districts--those that receive funds only under the basic grant--with less money next year than they have this year.

Republicans think we should meet our existing commitments to these two vital programs and maintain the Federal focus on programs that improve student achievement. States and local communities--not Federal bureaucrats--have the primary responsibility to set public policy over education. Federal law should reflect that.

And here's another cost problem. Like other Federal construction projects, this new program carries the burden of Davis-Bacon wage mandates from the Depression era. Davis-Bacon has been shown to drive up the cost of school construction projects between 22 percent and 26 percent when compared to similar projects completed under market conditions. That's money that could otherwise go toward putting additional teachers in the classrooms.

The Labor Department's own Inspector General has found these wage requirements to be flawed. They shortchange either taxpayers, workers-- or both.

That's not all. These wage mandates create regulatory hurdles that make it hard for smaller contractors, many owned by minorities and women, to win Federal contracts.

Mr. Chair, I cannot support this bill. I know that my friend and colleagues across the aisle are sincere in their efforts to improve the schools, as I am. I know there's a need for school construction and renovation. I also know that this must continue to be dealt with at the State and local level, where more than $144 billion has been spent to build, repair, and renovate schools just over the last 7 years.

This bill creates more problems than it solves. It costs too much, it borrows too much, and it controls too much. That troubles me and, I hope, other Members in this Chamber. I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I'm happy at this time to yield 3 minutes to a member of the committee, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Roe).

Mr. Chairman, I'm happy at this time to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time we have left.

Maybe he could use up a little more of his time. I will reserve my time.

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

I have been listening to all of the comments that have been made, and there are good, sound arguments on both sides of this issue. Nobody, I think, says that we shouldn't have the very, very best schools that we can send our children to. I think we talk about priorities and how we decide where the money comes from and how it should be done.

I have been here in Congress a little over 16 years, and I remember back in my first term a bill was proposed that was also very good. It was to put more cops on the street. I remember the mayor of Los Angeles calling me at the time and he said, If you'll vote for this and support it, just get it started, we'll carry it from then on.

I didn't vote for it. I didn't think that they would be able to carry it on, and that is what has happened. That bill was passed. It did good things, put more cops on the street, but the final where we are now is we have put more and more money into that each year. The Federal Government has become more and more involved in local law enforcement, and now we are to the point where we have even eliminated the local match. We have totally taken over the cops on the street, and the Federal Government now has increased year by year, and I can see this program doing the same thing.

I served for 9 years on a local school board and we always were looking for ways to get more money to cover our needs. There were always more needs than money available. I know we had problems with our long-term maintenance and we had to make some sacrifices. We had to make some adjustments so we could spend money for some long-term investment to build up our roofs on the schools so we wouldn't have them collapsing or the rain wouldn't be coming through.

And I know how people think. I know how human nature is, and I know, if I were still on that school board and this bill were passed and it became law, that I would be, you know, probably looking to the Federal Government to meet those needs and then using the local moneys for other things and turning more and more over to the Federal Government. That's just human nature. As I said, there were always more needs than money.

And so I see this program starting out at $40 billion and, as it grows over the years, ultimately taking that total responsibility off of the local school boards and looking to the Federal Government for all school construction, all school improvements. And even though it is a good thing, I think, by virtue of the Constitution and tradition, that is a local problem, not a Federal responsibility.

And the money all comes from the taxpayers. When it comes to the Federal Government, it seems like, at least in California, we send about 12 percent of the money here and 10 percent finds its way back. It would be better if we tried to keep our expenses down here, tried to cut spending, tried to get back within our means of how we live.

Some things have been said about how we really should be building better schools. I agree with that, but I don't think it is totally necessary when we think of Mr. Roe, Dr. Roe, who said he went to a two- room schoolhouse and seemed to get a good education. He is a physician. I think back to President Lincoln, who was taught by candlelight with a Bible how to read by his mother and had just a couple of years of formal education. I think we would all agree that Mr. Lincoln turned out all right.

So I think when we say that there is no way to educate our children unless we pump $40 billion more from the Federal Government into this program, that is the way to make it happen.

I have to say, as I said earlier, this bill costs too much, borrows too much, and controls too much. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I object to this amendment for several reasons. It adds additional uses of funds, project priorities, and funding allocations.

While none of these on its own is particularly objectionable, on the whole we are making the bill more complex and deviating even further from what the Federal Government ought to be doing in education, and that's focusing on academics. But the most troubling element of this amendment is its unfair treatment of charter schools.

During our committee's markup of this bill, we endorsed, on a fully bipartisan basis, an amendment from the gentleman from Colorado, Representative Polis. His amendment ensured fair treatment for charter schools under this program. After all, if we are providing facilities funding for public schools, we ought to be providing it equitably for all public schools, and that includes charter schools.

Charter schools are public schools created by teachers, parents, and other members of the community to educate students and stimulate reform in the public school system. As public schools, they must serve students from all backgrounds and educational abilities. Unfortunately, the amendment we are debating weakens the equal protections for charter schools that were inserted on a bipartisan basis during our committee's vote.

The amendment empowers local school districts--some of them notoriously hostile towards charter schools--to determine what their charter schools' facilities needs are. If the district determines that a charter has no facilities needs, the money specifically set aside for charter schools reverts back to the local district.

We know that charter schools are desperately in need of facilities funding. On average, public charter school funding falls short of traditional public school funding by 22 percent. A primary cause of this inequity is that charter schools lack access to local and capital funding primarily due to the fact that charter schools cannot issue bonds to pay for school construction.

Charter schools drive innovation and reform. They have been championed by President Obama and Education Secretary Duncan. They were protected in this legislation by an amendment offered by a Member of the majority. This amendment undermines the bipartisan support for charter schools by putting their fair access to funds under this program in jeopardy.

I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

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

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

This amendment will make it more difficult for charter schools, which, remember, are public schools held to higher standards for student academic achievement, to receive facilities funding under this bill. If taxpayers are being asked to renovate and repair public schools, at a minimum, we need to ensure fair treatment for all public schools.

I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order under the rule.

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

There is a lot of talk about accountability in education, but what does that word really mean? At the Federal level, I think it means accountability to taxpayers to get what they're paying for.

We give tens of billions of dollars to States and school districts each year; with this bill, we are going to give them $40 billion more. But what are we getting in return? Federal elementary and secondary education policy places a few simple, but critical, requirements on schools in exchange for billions in taxpayer dollars. Schools have to assess student achievement and report to parents on how they're performing. In schools where children are being left behind, we require that they be given access to free tutoring or the right to transfer to a better performing public school.

We require equitable participation for private schools, recognizing that programs like title I, IDEA, and others were meant to benefit all students and teachers, not just those in the public school system.

In high school, we require schools to give military recruiters the same access given to colleges and career recruiters. And we call on schools to provide our Armed Forces with basic contact information for students, with the option for parents to opt out, so that students have a chance to learn about all options available for their future.

In exchange for billions in taxpayer dollars, I don't think it's too much to ask for schools to comply with these requirements. A bipartisan majority of Congress agreed when we reauthorized the elementary and secondary education programs in 2001 with the No Child Left Behind Act.

My amendment simply repeats the requirements already in place under the law if schools wish to tap into the additional $40 billion to renovate or build new facilities. It's about accountability to taxpayers.

I hope the majority will accept this amendment; and they may by arguing that every State and every school is already complying with the law. I wish that were true, but it's not. For example, according to data from the U.S. Department of Education, within the last year we have seen violations in the State of Illinois--from Chicago to Cicero to Aurora East--where districts are not offering the public school choice or free tutoring required under the law. We have seen similar violations in Mississippi, Oregon, New Mexico, and Colorado.

We also know there are school districts that openly flaunt their refusal to provide basic information and equal access to America's military, even though it is a requirement under the law. Representative Duncan Hunter recognized this problem, and he has introduced legislation to tighten the requirements under NCLB to ensure fair treatment of our military and fair access to information by students. But in the meantime, Congress needs to send a signal to schools that we're serious about accountability, we're serious about ensuring they comply with these basic requests--free tutoring, public school transfers, fair treatment of private schools, and access for military recruiters--in exchange for the billions we funnel their way each year.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment. It protects taxpayers, and even more importantly, it protects students.

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

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

I want to thank the gentleman, Mr. Kildee, for his support of the amendment. I think it makes the bill better. And I also ask all of our colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition to this amendment.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, creating an advisory council to the Secretary of Education on green high-performing schools makes the government even bigger than it already is. Such a council would expand the Federal Government's role in school construction to unprecedented levels.

The Federal Government is big enough, thank you very much. Creating a new council dedicated to this purpose will only serve to expand and cement Federal interference in how school facilities are maintained.

The council also would help determine a key concept in successful education policy. The States and the local districts take the lead. The Federal Government offers limited but helpful support.

For these reasons, I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of the time.

You know, as I listen to some of this debate, it's like by the Federal Government providing money for the local government, it's free to the local people.

The Federal Government only gets the money from two places, taxing and borrowing, and it all comes eventually from the same people across the country.

I think that the Federal Government has been steadily consuming more taxpayer dollars and slowly taking control--actually not slowly, it's been quite rapidly in the last few months--over what used to be State or local decisions. Adding an advisory council for green schools does not help. In fact, it makes the problems worse.

Once again, I urge a no vote to help keep Federal growth under control.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would allow school districts to use sustainable domestic hardwood for projects approved under this program and would require districts to report when they have used renewable resources.

Schools should be able to use the products that work best for their projects, and domestic hardwood should be no exception.

While I am supporting the amendment, I do not believe an additional reporting requirement is necessary. The underlying bill already has several reporting requirements, and we're debating an amendment for an additional GAO report later today as well.

Each report adds costs to the district and the government, which means that is less money for the actual project.

I support knowing what our Federal dollars are being used for, but I do not think we need a mandate to report for every step in the process.

I yield back the balance of my time.

As the designee of Mr. Flake, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment will prevent any funds appropriated under this act from being targeted to congressional earmarks.

This is a commonsense amendment that surely we can all agree on. Members should not see this program as a new pot of money for earmark projects in their district.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is a commonsense amendment that ensures our Federal dollars are not authorizing pet projects for our colleagues. I appreciate the gentleman from Arizona's offering it, and I urge its support.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, while there's debate on whether funding school construction is a proper role of the Federal Government, it's difficult to argue that any such program should not contain an educational component. I commend the gentlewoman for her amendment, and I would support that amendment and ask my colleagues to support that amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we are moving along a little quicker than we thought, and that's why Mr. Flake wasn't able to get here for his amendment, but he has arrived, and at this time I yield him such time as he may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the gentlewoman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

I ask that our colleagues support this amendment. While I do not support the underlying bill, I think this amendment makes the bill stronger. I appreciate the gentleman offering it, and I urge all our colleagues to support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I don't oppose the amendment.

Although I oppose the underlying bill because it spends too much, borrows too much, and takes too much control for the Federal Government, in fairness, if it's going to be done, this is a good amendment.

From brush fires in California to flooding in Iowa to tornados in Kansas, natural disasters like this take place all over the country, and this would be a good thing to help those local districts if, in fact, the money is going to be spent. For that purpose, I support the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I do not oppose the amendment.

I support this amendment, I encourage our colleagues to support the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to urge our colleagues to support this amendment. I appreciate the gentleman offering it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, again, Federal dollars are not free. They don't appear out of nowhere. They come from either taxing or borrowing. While, in all due respect, I understand what the gentleman is saying, but it probably is cheaper for his constituents to pass the hat or to have bake sales to raise the money than to pay for it out of their Federal tax dollars that get siphoned through Washington to get back to New Mexico.

Mr. Chair, we do not need to spend Federal dollars on upgrading swimming pools when this Nation is drowning in debt. Our deficit is soaring higher every day. Proposals like this send it even higher.

Recreational structures and physical education facilities are worthy tools that can promote good health among our children, but are they worthy of taxpayer dollars intended to improve academic achievement?

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. Federal interference in school facility maintenance is troubling enough, but at least there is some semblance of an academic focus in the underlying bill. But I cannot justify expanding that spending to recreation and physical education. I urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, let me remind the Chamber of a few numbers. A million seconds is 12 days. A billion seconds is 36 years. And a trillion seconds is over 36,000 years.

While we have been talking on this bill, our national debt has gone up $300 million.

A few other numbers. Forty billion dollars; $1.84 trillion; $11 trillion. That's the cost of this bill--the $40 billion; this year's deficit currently--$1.84 trillion; and our national debt--$11 trillion.

Every time we debate a new use of funds, we should think about these numbers.

Now I'm sure that many schools would enjoy a greenhouse or a nice garden or some new landscaping on their grounds. But when it comes to education, the job of the Federal Government is to help educate.

If there's an educational purpose for a greenhouse on school grounds, this bill already allows one to be built. But if these greenhouses and gardens are not academically needed, I do not believe the Federal Government ought to be building them--especially not with deficit spending.

I'm not asking my grandchildren to finance a greenhouse with no academic purpose, and I hope none of you will either.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

If there is a serious academic purpose for gardens and greenhouses, they can already be built under the far-reaching legislation in the underlying bill. Let's not dilute the Federal investment in education further by getting into the landscaping business. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

This amendment will require the GAO to keep a list of projects that were funded through the bill and look at who has access to these projects. The underlying bill already contains lengthy reporting requirements that include much of this information, making this amendment largely unnecessary.

I do agree it will create jobs. There will be people hired that will have to fill out these reports and there will be people hired that will have to read these reports. However, if the gentleman is interested in getting additional information on the sort of projects funded under this act, we have no objection to having the GAO provide it, other than the fact it is going to cause government to grow even more.

I urge support of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?

I am interested in saving energy. I just think that this bill costs too much, borrows too much, and controls too much.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution H. Res. 427 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes 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 further ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 427 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 2187, the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the rule and the underlying bill. I thank Congressman Chandler, Congressman Loebsack, Congressman Kildee, Chairman Miller, and the entire staff of the Education and Labor Committee for their hard work in reintroducing this bipartisan, critical legislation to modernize and green American schools.

Every child in America has the right to an excellent education. This can only be achieved through the best teachers in safe schools and productive learning environments equipped with the resources required to succeed. Anything else is increasingly unacceptable in the 21st century.

Unfortunately, as a Nation, we are unable to meet this basic standard. According to the American Federation of Teachers, our schools fall short of being in good condition by an estimated $255 billion. The American Society of Civil Engineers gave our Nation's schools a D on the national infrastructure report card.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which we passed earlier this year, will go a long way towards correcting this horrifying statistic. However, we can't stop with the Recovery Act. This is too important an issue.

Overcrowding and crumbling and unsafe schools and classrooms are an everyday reality for students, teachers, and staff in too many parts of our country. In Colorado, the backlog of school construction and maintenance needs that has been documented has been estimated between $6 billion and $10 billion.

This backlog puts the health, safety, and achievement of our students at risk. Healthy students learn better and are better prepared to meet the high standards of the workforce. The students of today will be the professionals and citizens of tomorrow. They must be ready to meet unexpected challenges, such as today's economic crisis, and they must be empowered to bring America to the next level of innovation and discovery and the pathway to prosperity.

As a former superintendent, I can tell you that modern, environmentally friendly classrooms are necessary for teachers to perform and for students to learn. Research shows that high-quality school environments contribute to higher education achievement and lower teacher attrition. Yet, States and school districts are unable to keep up with these basic needs. This is especially true during the severe recession. This $6.4 billion investment will produce direct and major economic and environmental benefits.

This legislation represents a giant step forward in ensuring that school buildings are modernized, repaired, and renovated to meet students' and teachers' needs. This will be a positive impact on residential property values and economic development efforts. It creates an estimated 136,000 jobs in communities across the country at a time when we desperately need them.

By making schools more energy efficient and less reliant on fossil fuels, this bill will also help reduce the emissions that contribute to global warming, as well as cut energy costs, saving operational money for schools and local governments.

This bill will stimulate local economies, while protecting the environment. The added benefit of job creation in the areas hardest hit by the recession will be an important component of our economic recovery.

When I think about the devastation of the Gulf Coast, where schools have been overlooked for decades and, in many cases, were washed away by flood waters of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, it really brings home the need for passing this Federal assistance program.

The African America Environmentalist Association estimates that the legislation will support hundreds of thousands of new construction jobs and invest more than half a billion dollars for school facility improvements in the troubled region of the Gulf Coast.

In 2006, I had the honor of cochairing a successful campaign for a $300 million bond initiative for Boulder Valley School District in my congressional district to address their school needs. But many low- income districts in Colorado don't have the capacity to finance the necessary school upgrades.

That's why I'm particularly pleased that this legislation addresses income disparities by allocating funds to States and districts based on their share of students from low-income families. This way, we can ensure that the funding reaches the schools and students that need it the most.

Communities in my home State of Colorado will receive over $70 million, which will enable much needed improvements in our schools. I look forward to visiting these schools as they continue to work on making their improvements.

Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to visit schools in Adams County, Boulder Valley, Mapleton, and Westminster, and observed the progress that this bill will make possible for the children of Colorado.

Finally, I'd like to again thank Chairman Miller and the committee for ensuring that public charter schools receive their fair share of the funding as well.

On behalf of my constituents in Colorado, especially the students, parents, and educators, I'd like to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the bill and the rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hall).

Mr. Speaker, a few times I have heard reference to a closed rule. And I want to be entirely clear that what we are proposing is, in fact, a structured rule on this bill. There were 34 amendments that were submitted. We are forwarding for the consideration by the full House 14. So I do believe that arguments against a closed rule on this particular bill are not founded.

I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Klein).

Mr. Speaker, just this last week I had the opportunity in Colorado to visit a number of schools in several school districts across the district that I represent. I visited Adams County, Boulder Valley, Mapleton, and Westminster.

With regard to Boulder Valley School District, having recently passed a $300 million bond initiative, it was very exciting to see some of the renovations that were taking place. I had an opportunity to go on the roof of one of the schools and observe the solar panels that were being installed, as well as a device that focuses sunlight to provide natural light for the classroom. That is called a Sundolier, and what that encompasses is twofold. One, it saves the need for artificial light and saves energy for the school. Two, there are a number of studies that show that natural light can actually serve to improve learning. This was an item that Boulder Valley School District was able to purchase. There are four that are now pilot projects in Colorado. There are studies being done to document the learning impact. This is the type of activity that many school districts cannot afford to consider.

Mapleton School District, just 10 miles down the road, it has been on their ballot twice with bond initiatives, but they have been unable to get them to pass. They have a much lower local tax base and it is very difficult, and many of the constituents are struggling to stay in their homes. For that reason, this Federal money will be particularly welcomed in those districts that serve the most at-risk children, which is why I applaud the efforts of Chairman Miller and the committee and the sponsors to target this money to districts that serve a high count of low-income students using the title I criteria.

Mapleton School District, which serves just a few thousand kids, will receive $578,000 under this bill; Westminster School District in Colorado will receive $1.8 million; and Adams County 12 District will receive $2.36 million.

Mr. Speaker, a few folks have mentioned, Oh, this shouldn't be the Federal Government's responsibility.

The question I would pose is: Who, then, can repair these schools? Who can ensure that these classrooms are safe? Where can the money come from? Certainly there are many wealthy districts that can afford to do that themselves. But by allowing only wealthy districts to build classrooms for the 21st century, we are not only creating a divide on the operations side of school funding, we are actually making that considerably worse by creating an enormous gap on the capital front, leading to attrition of good teachers from dangerous and poor-quality schools in poor areas, as well as lower student outcomes because of lack of heating, lack of air-conditioning, dangerous conditions, et cetera. This bill will help reduce those disparities. We certainly have a long way to go, but this bill will help do that.

In addition, there are a number of schools that actually are dangerous and represent a danger for the teachers and for the students. For instance, there was an incident last year in Massachusetts where a roof fell in and actually injured a teacher. They had a leaky roof for decades in Billerica, Massachusetts. The district was not able to afford to repair or replace the school. In fact, when it rained, the principal would announce, Heavy rains are expected; clear the counters. The water damage had caused the floor to rot and a teacher actually fell through the floor and injured herself because of that. Some of the rooms are so hazardous they are closed to students and staff.

That is not an unusual phenomenon. In my district, I was at one elementary school where the gym has been closed for several years because pieces of ceiling are falling off the gymnasium and it is a danger for kids, so the school has not had a gym for those kids to use for several years.

In this school in Massachusetts, they have now moved the girls' locker room to the library, and there is so little space available because of the closure of the rooms that are dangerous that special education classes now meet in what was the boys' locker room. They are trying to use every available place that they have because of the unsafe nature of some of those schools.

School districts do a good job with what they have. They try their best. They approach their voters when they can, but there are districts in Colorado and, indeed, nationally that have very little local tax base from which to draw. In Colorado, we had a lawsuit a number of years ago which was ultimately settled by the State with regard to the failing state of our schools

and our capital infrastructure in Colorado school districts that had very little local tax base. The decision stated that the State had in fact not lived up to its responsibility of providing a safe, thorough and uniform education to all of its citizens.

Certainly every child in this country deserves the opportunity to succeed. They deserve a safe learning environment. This bill will go a long way towards doing that, along with the provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided funding in two main areas for education, both operational. One was IDEA, special education. And my colleagues on the Rules Committee will recall we had some discussion about special ed and IDEA in committee yesterday. I am proud to say that under this Congress, we have gone further than ever as a country in meeting towards reaching that unfunded mandate of making sure that the needs of all students, including special needs students, are met and increasingly funded by the Federal Government. We had a bipartisan consensus in our Rules Committee meeting yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that our Federal Government needs to do more with regard to funding special education. I am very pleased to say that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was the first step.

The second area of investment was in title I programs directed to schools that serve low-income families and families that face a lot of challenges that others don't. To help reduce those disparities, the opportunity disparity that exists, Colorado is a State that has a very strong equalization formula for funding schools. We are very fortunate in that regard.

Our poorer districts on the operational side receive roughly the same funding, in fact, sometimes even more funding because of their at-risk criteria than the wealthy districts. That is not the case nationally. There are other States where there are large operational disparities between large and small districts.

However, in Colorado, and indeed nearly every State, there continue to be large disparities on the capital front. That is why what passes for a school in one district would hardly pass for a school in another district. Schools with low tax bases, with voters that are struggling to stay in their own homes and are, therefore, unwilling or unable to pass another bond initiative, are threatening the education of their kids compared to some of the wealthier districts that are able to invest in some of things that I had the opportunity to see just last week in Boulder Valley School District due to their own $300 million bond initiative.

The needs, Mr. Speaker, are great. In fact, I dare say they are greater than this investment that we, if the House passes this bill today, will be making.

The rule, Mr. Speaker, is fair. Of the 34 amendments that have been offered, 14 have been ruled in order, including several from Members on the other side of the aisle, including one from Mr. Roe, who my colleague, Mr. Dreier, mentioned in his remarks. That was ruled in order, as well as an amendment from the ranking member of the Education and Labor Committee.

So this is not a closed rule. This is a structured rule that allows for nearly half of the amendments that have been offered to be considered by the full House and advances in there for that purpose, including several that were also incorporated into the chairman's amendment, who has worked with Members on both sides of the aisle to improve the initial piece of legislation.

Let me focus once more on the safety issue. There is an enormous backlog of capital construction--particularly in poor districts across this country--that puts the health and safety as well as the achievement of our students at risk every day. Students should be free of risk regardless of where in this country they attend school. Students have enough challenges to face. They need to be able to face the economic crisis, their family issues, preparation for college. The last thing students need to worry about are roofs falling in, ceilings collapsing, floors collapsing, or asbestos.

At the same time that we can accomplish this, as my colleague from New York (Mr. Hall) mentioned, we have the great opportunity to make some progress on the front by reducing our carbon emissions and greening our schools. This has, of course, beyond the environmental benefits, which are significant, they also have economic benefits because when you save money by reducing your power needs or producing power locally, you are freeing up more operational money to actually help educate kids, meaning lower class sizes, meaning better teacher training, meaning programs that can be continued or expanded because of the energy. One of the biggest complaints that I heard from districts over the last several years were the rising costs of energy and utilities as part of what they pay as a fixed cost. By investing in the capital side--and again, many districts don't have the capability of doing that themselves--we are able to save operational money for those school districts where truly some of the modernization and green investment can become the gift that keeps on giving.

Mr. Speaker, I am the last speaker for this side. I would like to urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and the rule.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack), who has been a driving force behind this legislation and one of the original cosponsors of this legislation.

At this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the subcommittee Chair, Mr. Kildee, who is the original sponsor of this legislation.

I yield 3 minutes to the original author of this legislation, who has been pushing school construction legislation for a number of years, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Chandler).

I yield 2 minutes to the subcommittee Chair of the Education and Labor Committee, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a great supporter of this legislation.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), a member of the committee.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of the committee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Al Green of Texas.

Mr. Al GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Miller for his outstanding work in Congress and thank Mr. Chandler for sponsoring this piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, the cost of energy is increasing. This bill will help us by saving energy. It will help us in the years to come by reducing the amount of energy that we will use. Unemployment is at 8.9 percent. This bill will put people to work in a crucial and critical area, the area of construction, because the bill is all about construction and reconstruction of some of our facilities, and more, of course.

This bill is one that we all agree is needed. The need for it is undeniable. The question becomes, then, are we going to make our children a priority. That is really the question that I ask Members to consider. Will we make our children a priority?

Yes, there are times when we cannot afford to do things, but there are also times when we cannot afford not to do things. This is one of those things that we cannot afford not to do. And there are times when you have done everything that you can, you have not done enough. When you have done all that you can do, you have not done enough. On occasions when you have done all that you can do and you haven't done enough, you have a duty to do all that you can. This bill does all that we can do at this time to help this generation compete in the global economy.

I beg, I besiege, and I implore my colleagues to make our children a priority and support this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the House, the 21st Century Green High- Performing Public School Facilities Act is exactly what the Federal Government should be doing.

We have seen now over the last year, and in some cases a little longer, and for the foreseeable future, that the tax resources of local school districts, cities, and counties have plummeted because of the foreclosure crisis that confronts this Nation and because of the financial scandals and the financial collapse of our institutions across this Nation. We have seen that credit is not available. The school districts that have voted for bonds have had difficulty in getting those bonds to market so that they can engage in the construction. And we see, in fact, the backlog of repairs to schools, renovations, modernizations of schools and school facilities is starting to lag.

We also know and we understand that for the foreseeable future, unemployment will continue to go up in this country, at a diminished rate, but we still know half a million people a month are losing their jobs. Auto sales are down because American families are trying to save more because of the recession, the depression we are in. They are trying to take care of their needs, so school districts are denied those resources as are States.

So what the Federal Government is doing in this time of emergency is trying to say that we will join with you in a partnership based upon the priorities of locally elected school boards, of superintendents of schools, for the repair and restoration of schools that are so necessary in so many areas of this country. If a school board or if a school district doesn't need the money, they need not take it. We hope that they wouldn't because maybe it can go to another school district that might need it more. But the fact of the matter is, these repairs and restorations, and if we use green technology and use the guidelines of the green standards, not only can repair and restore these schools, they can make them much more efficient in the use of energy and the use of water and the use of natural daylight so students will have a better learning environment and better opportunities at learning.

Yes, the data is pretty darn clear that in those kinds of facilities students do have a better opportunity in learning the material that is presented to them in that environment than they do in an old and run- down facility that is crumbling and bathrooms that are not safe and can't be used and windows that are not replaced.

Yes, that may not sound like the local school district that some of you represent, but it sounds like a lot of the local school districts that a lot of us represent, and those school districts are doing all that they can. People are voting for bond issues and paying higher taxes, but the fact of the matter is they don't have sufficient resources to do that. That does not mean that we should just sentence those kids to a second-class education, to deny them educational opportunities, because when we do that, we then spill over into the national interest of this country, and that is to make sure that every child receives a first-class education, that every child at the end of 12 years has the opportunity to choose a career or schools or schools and a career in whatever combination, but they are prepared to do that.

And we know from all of the surveys that it is far more difficult for young children to learn in dilapidated, ill-repaired, badly restored schools when they are trying to get down the basics of their education.

So this is a Federal partnership. In some cases, local government joins with private sector money to repair and restore schools and provide new technologies. We want to join in part of that. You can say this is the Federal taking over the role. It is not taking over any role. This is insignificant compared to the efforts being made by local governments. We are simply saying we think this can be catalytic in terms of getting some of these projects done at this particular time and for the foreseeable future so that we can ensure our students have an opportunity to do that.

I want to thank the foresight of Mr. Kildee, not only the subcommittee Chair, but the author of this legislation, Mr. Chandler, Mr. Loebsack, who worked with local districts, who worked with local schools, who looked at examples of what had been done to make a more efficient use of those local dollars, of Federal dollars, of education dollars, to bring that together and try to build high-performing schools.

We want to make the same decisions for these schools that so many in the private sector are making about their renovation, the renewal, the repair of commercial facilities, of facilities throughout our communities where the real estate industry is saving billions of dollars by greening those buildings, where we're saving energy, where we're saving water--in States like California, those two things are very important--and providing a safe environment for children. That's why we should pass this legislation.

H.R. 2187 requires local educational agencies to ensure a full and open competition for qualified bidders. We expect that process to maximize the number of qualified bidders to include local, small, minority-owned, women- owned, and veteran-owned contractors, and to do so without diminishing or precluding the local educational agencies' ability to seek out responsible contractors by, for example, requiring contractors to participate in bona fide apprenticeship training programs and to demonstrate other legitimate responsibility and qualification standards. Such requirements can be used to ensure high- quality work and successful project delivery as well as foster good training and employment opportunities in local communities.

I would like to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Nevada, a member of the committee and a strong supporter of this legislation (Ms. Titus).

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, as has been stated earlier in this debate, this is a very important piece of legislation that is geared to improve the condition of school buildings all across the country, and it does so while promoting energy efficiency through green buildings and creating jobs to help stimulate our economy.

I have a manager's amendment which I believe further improves the bill by providing equitable treatment of charter schools while ensuring that the school district can put all of its funds to good use; by allowing schools to give priority to projects designed to remove hazardous material like asbestos and carcinogens; by setting aside more funds for tribal and outlying areas; and finally, allowing funds to be used for water supply and building envelopes. I think these are valuable changes. I want to thank Representatives Polis, Matheson, Kirkpatrick and Pingree for their insights and leadership on these changes.

Mr. Chairman, critics of this legislation have argued that it intrudes on the traditional role and responsibility of the States. But this is not about Federal versus State and local control of school construction and repair. It is about meeting the urgent needs that will help revamp this Nation's schools, improve student learning and global competitiveness, lower the costs for schools and taxpayers, and help us create jobs. I urge support of the manager's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment I would hope would pass. The discussion about what was the Polis amendment in the committee to make sure that charter schools got a fair share of this money in fact remains intact. The problem with that amendment in the committee was that new charter schools would have in fact been precluded from having access to that money since they weren't in existence and the amendment originally spoke to those charter schools in existence.

As with the original amendment, this will be done in consultation with the school board. If there isn't a demonstrated need among the charter schools, the money goes back into the pot for the use of the schools. That's, in fact, how it was done in the original amendment. Mr. Polis, as the author of that amendment, has agreed to this change to make sure that we include all charter schools at that time. I urge passage of the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

I thank my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), for the time. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The condition of our public schools is increasingly becoming a troubling issue. Parents, students, and teachers feel that many schools are increasingly overcrowded, unsafe, and obsolete, detracting from student performance.

The deteriorating conditions in many schools has forced school systems throughout the Nation to spend progressively more of their budgets on school renovations and construction projects instead of on students and teachers.

Today, the House of Representatives is set to consider H.R. 2187, the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act. This bill will direct the Secretary of Education to make grants and low- interest loans to local educational agencies for the construction, modernization, or repair of public educational facilities. These funds will help school systems pay for renovations and construction projects so that they can dedicate more of their budgets to improving the education of our Nation's students.

It also requires the funds to be used only for projects that meet certain green standards, such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, known as LEED; Energy Star, or an equivalent State or local standard.

One of the central tenets of the majority party's campaign both in 2006 and in 2008 was that they would run Congress in a more open and bipartisan manner. For example, the distinguished Speaker said, We promise the American people that we would have the most honest and open government--and we will. However, that promise has yet to come to fruition, as the majority has consistently blocked an open process through their control of the Rules Committee.

A prime example of how they have consistently stymied openness and bipartisanship can be seen by looking at the virtual absolute lack of open rules that they have allowed since they took control of the House of Representatives in 2006. In nearly 2\1/2\ years, the majority has allowed one open rule--and that was over 2 years ago.

Instead of fulfilling their campaign promise, the majority consistently closes the amendment process and keeps Members from offering amendments to important legislation.

Earlier this year, the majority rushed through some of the largest and most significant pieces of legislation through a closed rule process, including the nearly $800 billion so-called stimulus and the over $400 billion so-called omnibus appropriations bills.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I bring up this lack of an open process and the continued use of the closed rule by the majority because later today the Rules Committee is expected to meet to consider yet another closed rule for fiscal year 2009, the War Supplemental Appropriation Act. That legislation will provide over $90 billion to fund the Department of Defense and related programs.

Now it is time that the majority lives up to its campaign promise and allows an open debate process. It's not

enough to allow amendments on generally noncontroversial legislation like the one we bring to the floor today that authorizes over $6 billion for school construction. They should allow an open process, Mr. Speaker, on, for example, the over $90 billion supplemental appropriations bill that we will consider later this week, and on energy and health care legislation expected to be taken up in the coming weeks.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will my friend yield?

I was talking about the process that does not permit amendments on the floor. That's what we're referring to when we talk about closed rules.

The fact that there were earmarks in the bill is a separate debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. Speaker, in case there was some confusion, we have not alleged that this is a closed rule. This is a rule that is known as a ``structured rule'' that permits, authorizes, some amendments to be debated and made other amendments not in order, in other words, did not authorize other amendments. We heard Mr. Kirk, for example, of Illinois, who had an amendment, proposed an amendment before the Rules Committee, and he explained it in detail. It was a bipartisan amendment. And it was not authorized. It was not made in order for debate today.

What we are pointing out is that on legislation like this, for example, that has passed the House before, that today will likely pass the House again with a bipartisan vote, it really does not seem logical, and Mr. Kirk was quite eloquent in describing it, that ideas brought forth by Members are not allowed to be considered by the House.

And with regard to closed rules, I pointed out that the rules that allow any Member to propose an amendment and have it debated, those are, as you know, Mr. Speaker, called ``open'' rules. And the majority, both in 2006 and 2008, promised an open process in their campaigns. In 2\1/2\ years, they have allowed one open rule. So that is a major contrast with the promise. The reality contrasts quite dramatically with the promise.

At this point, I would yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee (Mr. Dreier).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friends on the other side of the aisle for their participation as well, obviously, as my friends and colleagues from our side of the aisle.

As I stated before, this is legislation that has passed before. It passed with some bipartisanship. There is some legitimate substantive debate on the underlying legislation, but I think more objection, certainly, on our part to the unfortunate nature in which the way the process, the debate in the House has been closed down unnecessarily by the majority. We had an example today, an amendment that was brought before the Rules Committee with bipartisan authorship, and yet it was not allowed for discussion and consideration by the full membership, and that is unnecessary and unfortunate.

Having said that, we will consider without any doubt this legislation even though I think the rule that brings it to the floor should have been an open rule, and the majority would have thus had an opportunity to double its record of open rules. Since they took the majority about 2\1/2\ years ago, they have allowed one open rule. That is something I would have never expected. I would have never expected. Certainly it is very different from the promise made to the American people of an open process. It is unfortunate.

But we move forward. Thank you for listening, Mr. Speaker, and for your fairness in guiding this process as always.

Having said that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Thank you, Mr. McKeon. I would like to build a new extension on my house, Mr. Chair. I'd like to have a lot of things, but cannot afford it. All of us as individual Americans in our private life and business life live within our means.

As the gentleman from Tennessee said so eloquently, our local and State governments must operate within balanced budget requirements. They must live within their means. They don't build facilities or operate programs that they cannot afford to pay for. And the Federal Government is at a pivotal moment in the history of this Nation.

This new leadership in Congress, the new liberal leadership here in the Congress, our new President has, as Mr. McKeon said so well, taken over and nationalized huge segments of the banking industry, the automobile industry, the insurance industry, the mortgage industry. And here today, this leadership has presented to the Congress, to the Nation, for the first time, the Federal Government is going to get into the school construction business.

At a time of record debt, at a time when the Nation must focus on its fundamental financial security, we are stepping into an area where the Federal Government has never really gone before.

The bill, section 1, reading from the bill, Mr. Chair, page 5, ``Grants under this title shall be for the purpose of modernizing, renovating, or repairing public school facilities, based on their need.'' Absolutely noble purpose. But we cannot afford it.

Page 10, section 103, ``Allowable uses of funds. A local education agency receiving a grant under this title shall use the grant for modernization, renovation, or repair of public school facilities.'' And a long list--repairing, replacing, installing roofs, walls, plumbing systems, et cetera. This is a bottomless pit.

Ross Perot's famous phrase, ``a giant sucking sound.'' We're going to hear a giant sucking sound out of the United States Treasury paying for utterly endless repairs and construction of local school buildings while we could use this $40 billion just in southeast Texas.

In 8 years, Medicare is exhausted. Let that sink in. In 96 months, the trustees of the Social Security and Medicare system just reported yesterday that Medicare is exhausted, Mr. Chair--in 96 months.

This is an urgent, critical emergency. The United States of America needs to follow Dave Ramsey's advice and live on a little beans and rice. Focus on the fundamentals. This stuff isn't complicated.

We are in this magnificent Chamber surrounded by the greatest minds in the history of the civilized world. I look here at a portrait of my hero, Thomas Jefferson, and of George Mason. My hero, Mr. Jefferson, liked to say that if you apply core constitutional principles, the knot will always untie itself.

Here today Congress needs to focus on the fundamentals, keeping America on a path to financial security and solvency. It is not complicated. Let us follow Mr. Jefferson's wisdom, follow the Constitution and the separation of powers, and limit the Federal Government to those functions set out in the Constitution. At a time of critical financial emergency, when literally Medicare payments will stop in 96 months, let's focus on the fundamentals, America. Congress needs to quit spending money; no new taxes, no new debt, no new spending, and save our children from being buried in a mountain of debt that they cannot pay.

This is a noble purpose, but we cannot afford it, anymore than I can afford to build an extension on my house. I cannot borrow money to pay off borrowed money. That is what this bill, what this Congress, what this liberal leadership has been doing since January when we all got sworn in, spent more money in less time than any Congress in history.

I am not playing favorites. I voted against $2.3 trillion of new spending under George Bush. I have already voted against $1.6 trillion of new spending under this bunch. This cannot be sustained. We are living on borrowed money. These Treasury bonds are being bought by foreign investors and foreign national sovereign wealth funds that our kids are going to have to repay.

This isn't complicated. Let's get back to the fundamentals. As Mr. Jefferson said, the knot will always untie itself, if we will only follow the Constitution. There is nowhere in the Constitution that it is authorized for the Federal Government to get into the business of school construction. This will literally become a bottomless pit, Mr. Speaker.

I am, as every Member of Congress, as committed as anyone to making sure our local schools are well built and maintained and our kids have a safe environment that is a good place for them to get an education. But let that be done by the local and State governments who are best suited to do it, who know the needs better than anyone else, and will pay as they go. And let us in Congress follow Dave Ramsey's advice and live on a little beans and rice and don't spend money we don't have, Mr. Speaker; and let's just stick with the fundamentals that these great men and women left for us, this great Nation, this great treasure, this great trust we all have.

Let's not destroy the financial solvency of this Nation by continuing to expand the power and scope of the Federal Government into areas it was never intended at a time of critical financial emergency, when a mere 96 months from now Medicare payments run out. We can do something about it, but it takes action today. It is something we can all do together as Americans to make sure our kids do not inherit a debt they cannot afford to repay.

I am proud to join my colleague Mr. McKeon and the Republican--excuse me, conservative members of the minority. I am going to try to avoid saying party labels. I think it is too important at a time of national emergency. We need to focus on no new debt, no new taxes, no new spending. I am going to quit saying Republican or Democrat. It is being fiscally conservative and responsible. I am proud to join the fiscally conservative and responsible members of the minority who are ready to lead this Nation back into solvency in opposing this utterly irresponsible liberal piece of legislation.