[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 149 (Thursday, September 18, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H8435-H8451]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    NO CHILD LEFT INSIDE ACT OF 2008

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to at this time yield to the 
gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) such time as she may consume.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from California 
for yielding me time.
  He made a couple of comments earlier, I won't try to repeat 
everything that he said, but he asked a question; he doesn't know why 
we're here dealing with this bill that normally would be under 
suspension and certainly wouldn't be a rule bill, but I agree that we 
know why we're here: it's to fill time because the majority has so 
little of consequence for us to deal with when we should be dealing 
with consequential things such as the American Energy Act.
  However, I want to also point out the fact that this bill is not 
going to solve all of the problems of the world. It's not going to 
create the alternative energies that we need. I read the Constitution. 
I read it fairly frequently. Yesterday we celebrated Constitution Day. 
And I have searched in vain for the word ``education'' there. Nowhere 
did our Founding Fathers just think that the Congress of the United 
States should be involved in education. That was an issue that they 
thought best left to the States, and I think it is best left to the 
States and is not something that we should be dealing with here in the 
Congress.
  Almost every day someone from the majority party comes to the floor 
and decries the deficit that we're facing. Well, one of the reasons 
that we're facing a terrible deficit is because the majority party is 
involved in everything and many things it should not be involved in, 
especially in education. That is something we should leave to the 
States. If we did that and left the hardworking people's money at the 
State level, we would be able to do a lot more than we're currently 
doing.
  But I want to point out the fact that we should be dealing with the 
American Energy Act. We had a chance this week to do that, and we 
refused. Bipartisan passage of the American Energy Act would 
demonstrate to the world that America will no longer keep its rich 
energy resources under lock and key as the Democrats want to do. Not 
only will it help bring down the price of gasoline now, but it will 
make needed investments in the alternative fuels that will power our 
lives and our economy in the future.
  Now as my colleague also mentioned earlier, there's been a very fine 
survey done. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit the entire survey for 
the Record today. I want to just point out some of the things that came 
out in the survey that my colleague had not pointed out.
  This survey was launched in July by the Republicans on the Education 
Committee. It was provided via the Caucus Web site and was sent to 
education stakeholders all across the country. We asked those people to 
give us their reactions and the impact on the high cost of energy to 
the schools. Ninety percent of the people who responded indicated that 
high gas prices are having an impact on schools in their community. 
Ninety-six percent of these respondents demanded that Congress do more 
to address the energy crisis.
  ``Nearly half of the respondents reported that high fuel costs have 
forced schools in their community to cut field trips and after-school 
activities; one-third of respondents reported that high costs forced 
schools to limit bus routes, and nearly a quarter of respondents 
reported that rising energy costs have led to higher school lunch 
prices.''
  We don't need to create more programs to encourage students to go on 
field trips. They're not going to be able to go on field trips because 
there's no

[[Page H8436]]

money to buy gas for the buses to take them on field trips.
  This is just one of the most ridiculous things that we've been 
talking about in this session of Congress.
  ``Since Democrats took control of Congress''--and I'm quoting again 
from the survey--``in January 2007''--they took control of Congress, 
and I think it's very important the American people know who's in 
charge--``the energy crunch has been swift and severe. Gas prices have 
risen from an average of $2.33 per gallon in the first days of the 
Democrat majority to more than $3.75 per gallon today while diesel 
prices--particularly important for school transportation purposes--have 
risen from $2.44 a gallon to more than $4 per gallon today.''
  Even the liberal New York Times has talked about the problem that the 
schools are facing. We don't usually find ourselves agreeing with the 
New York Times on issues, but they talked about the pain that schools 
are feeling. ``As the cost of diesel fuel has soared well past what 
many districts budgeted for last spring, school officials are 
rethinking their transportation needs, making big-ticket spending cuts 
and a host of surgical trims.''
  They go on to quote, ``In a national survey of superintendents 
released in July by the American Association of School Administrators, 
99 percent said that rising fuel costs had forced across-the-board 
cuts.'' This was the New York Times, September 5, 2008.
  Here we are setting up programs, new programs, that cost a lot of 
money in bureaucracy and administration to try to do something we could 
do very, very easily by passing the American Energy Act.

                              {time}  1530

  That's all within our power here to do, and here are some individual 
comments in their own words from Americans who demand energy reform.
  This is from Robert in Hamilton, Ohio: ``Yes, drill, build new 
refineries, solar, nuclear and anything else to break the dependence on 
foreign oil.''
  That is exactly the position of Republican Members of this House. We 
want to break our dependency on foreign oil and we can do this. We are 
pro-American energy. Our colleagues, the Democrats, are anti-American 
energy. They will not do things that help us increase the supply in 
this country.
  Here's another comment from Lori from Middletown, Ohio: ``I work at 
(a local) Head Start program. Our families are struggling to get their 
children to preschool. They must choose between gas in the car or food 
in many cases.''
  I listened to these platitudes by our colleagues across the aisle, 
and frankly, they sound pretty hollow to me when we hear comments like 
this. The American people are suffering. They are doing nothing.
  Another comment from Reeves in Gastonia, North Carolina: ``The rising 
cost of energy is impacting our school district in many ways: pupil 
transportation, employee travel, staff development, cost of goods/
services, et cetera. It is getting increasingly difficult to reduce 
costs and not have an impact on the instructional day.''
  Again, the American people are hurting and the Democrats are turning 
a deaf ear.
  From Thomas from Joelton, Tennessee: ``We have to increase the supply 
of domestic oil. When my family grew in size, I did not reduce the 
amount of food provided to each member, I increased the supply. 
Gasoline is the same way.''
  The American people are very, very smart and the Democrats are 
selling them short. They understand the issue. They understand that the 
issue is supply and demand, and this report concludes:
  ``Education stakeholders overwhelmingly report they are being hurt by 
the energy squeeze and demand that Congress do more. But instead of 
doing more, rank-and-file Democrats voted overwhelmingly with their 
leadership to kill a Republican measure that would have given schools 
relief and continue to block a comprehensive plan to bring down fuel 
prices. The House Republicans' `back-to-school' energy survey confirms 
a New York Times report from earlier this month: `School officials are 
rethinking their transportation needs, making big-ticket spending cuts 
and a host of surgical trims.' How much longer will the Democrat-led 
Congress wait to give them--and families, seniors, and small 
businesses--the relief they are demanding from today's high energy 
costs?''
  It is time that the Democrats listened to the will of the American 
people and provide an opportunity for us to provide more supply for the 
American people and give relief to them.
  I say to them again, you're either pro-American energy or you're 
anti-American energy. So far, the position you've taken is anti-
American energy, and I don't believe that's where the American people 
want you to be.

   Strapped: Students and Schools Pay the Price for Democrats Failed 
                            Energy Policies


                        summary and key findings

       A survey launched in late July by House Republicans has 
     yielded some eye-opening results as the Democratic leadership 
     of the 110th Congress has refused to allow a vote on the 
     House Republicans' American Energy Act (H.R. 6566), which 
     aims to lower gas prices by increasing production of American 
     energy, encouraging more conservation and efficiency, and 
     promoting the use of more alternative and renewable fuels.
       The survey--provided via the Education & Labor Committee 
     Republican caucus' website--was made available to education 
     stakeholders across the country, from parents and students to 
     teachers and administrators and sought their input on the 
     impact of today's high gas prices on schools, colleges, and 
     universities as the 2008-09 academic year begins. Key 
     findings of the survey follow:
       90 percent of the survey's nearly 1,000 respondents 
     indicated that high gas prices are having an impact on 
     schools in their community.
       96 percent of respondents demand that Congress do more to 
     address the energy crisis.
       Nearly half of respondents reported that high fuel costs 
     have forced schools in their community to cut field trips and 
     after-school activities; one-third of respondents reported 
     that high costs forced schools to limit bus routes, and 
     nearly a quarter of respondents reported that rising energy 
     costs have led to higher school lunch prices.
       In spite of these stark findings, the Democratic leadership 
     of the House has refused to schedule the American Energy Act 
     for a vote and defeated Republican proposals on June 4, June 
     26, and September 16, 2008 to assist schools feeling the 
     greatest impact from high energy costs. In fact, the 
     Democrat-led Education & Labor Committee has not even held a 
     single hearing on this issue.


               schools feel the pain of high energy costs

       American families, seniors, and small businesses are 
     hurting amid high gas prices and heating costs that are 
     poised to rise this fall and winter. But they are not alone. 
     As schools across the country settle into the 2008-09 
     academic year, they too are feeling the pain of today's 
     energy crunch. Indeed, from elementary and secondary schools 
     to community colleges and universities, schools at every 
     level are grappling with this crisis and making all-too-often 
     painful adjustments just to get themselves through the year.
       Since Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007, 
     the energy crunch has been swift and severe. Gas prices have 
     risen from an average of $2.33 per gallon in the first days 
     of the Democratic Majority to more than $3.75 per gallon 
     today, while diesel prices--particularly important for school 
     transportation purposes--have risen from $2.44 per gallon to 
     more than $4.00 per gallon today.
       Simply put, the surge in energy costs has been dramatic, 
     and the Majority has yet to offer the ``commonsense plan'' to 
     lower gas prices then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) 
     promised during the 2006 campaign season. Instead, the 
     Speaker and her colleagues in the Democratic leadership have 
     offered one ``no energy'' bill after another--proving 
     themselves more interested in votes to provide political 
     cover for vulnerable Democrats than they are in giving the 
     American people an ``all of the above'' energy strategy to 
     lower fuel costs. And all the while, families, seniors, small 
     businesses, and--yes--schools are left to pay the price . . . 
     literally.
       Earlier this month, the New York Times put the pain schools 
     are feeling into perspective:
       ``As the cost of diesel fuel has soared well past what many 
     districts budgeted for last spring, school officials are 
     rethinking their transportation needs, making big-ticket 
     spending cuts and a host of surgical trims.
       ``Some districts are eliminating field trips and after-
     school buses. Many are consolidating routes, causing some 
     students to walk farther to their stops and others to lose 
     their buses altogether. They are holding off on new teachers, 
     counselors and textbooks, and teaming with neighboring 
     districts for prekindergarten, special education and private 
     school transportation . . .
       ``In a national survey of superintendents released in July 
     by the American Association of School Administrators, 99 
     percent said that rising fuel costs had forced across-the-
     board cuts.'' (New York Times, ``Fuel Prices Squeeze School 
     Districts,'' September 5, 2008)

[[Page H8437]]

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

       To help understand the scope of this problem, House 
     Republicans launched a web-based initiative in late July 
     focused on how high energy prices are impacting schools all 
     across the nation. Housed at the Education & Labor 
     Committee's Republican website, this survey gathered input 
     from school officials, teachers, and families over a period 
     of six weeks to determine the extent of the energy crisis for 
     schools at all levels--input that Republicans hope will 
     provide both parties even more of an incentive to come 
     together in these final days of the 110th Congress and pass 
     an ``all of the above'' plan to increase American energy 
     production, encourage more efficiency and conservation, and 
     promote the use of alternative and renewable fuels. The 
     survey follows:
       1. Are high gas prices having an impact on back-to-school 
     preparations in your community?
       Yes, a very significant impact.
       Yes, somewhat of an impact.
       No, not much of an impact.
       No, not at all.
       2. If you answered ``yes'' above, how are your local 
     schools coping with high energy prices?
       Limiting bus routes.
       Cutting field trips/after-school activities.
       Increasing school lunch prices.
       Moving to a four (or fewer) day week.
       Expanding online course offerings.
       Other (please describe below).
       3. Should Congress be doing more to lower gas prices and 
     promote long-term American energy independence?
       Yes.
       No.
       No comment.
       4. Additional comments:
       5. Name:
       6. E-mail (optional):
       7. City, State:
       8. May we share your story with others?


       Overstretched Schools Want Action from Democratic Congress

       The above-referenced New York Times article depicts the 
     types of problems being experienced nationwide. In fact, 
     according to the ``back-to-school'' energy survey, 90 percent 
     of all respondents indicated that high gas prices are having 
     an impact on schools in their community (72 percent 
     responding that gas prices are having ``a very significant 
     impact,'' with 18 percent responding that they are having 
     ``somewhat of an impact''). The most common ramifications of 
     high fuel costs are cutting field trips and after-school 
     activities (provided by 48 percent of respondents), limiting 
     bus routes (33 percent), and increasing school lunch prices 
     (23 percent).
       As a result, nearly every respondent to the survey (96 
     percent) indicated that Congress should be doing more to 
     lower gas prices and promote long-term American energy 
     independence. Congress, however, has not answered the call, 
     in spite of the fact that House Republicans unveiled the 
     comprehensive American Energy Act to lower fuel prices nearly 
     two months ago. Democrats also turned back a House Republican 
     effort to provide more funding to assist schools dealing with 
     high energy costs.


 House Republican Proposals for Reform Defeated by Democratic Majority

       As the recently-completed survey suggests, schools across 
     the country are feeling the pain from rising energy costs. 
     Even before the survey was launched, however, House 
     Republicans attempted to provide more assistance to those 
     schools feeling the greatest pain from today's energy crunch.
       On June 4, 2008, the Democratic leadership scheduled for 
     House consideration the 21st Century Green High-Performing 
     Public School Facilities Act (H.R. 3021), a bill that takes 
     $20 billion in taxpayer dollars away from low-income students 
     and students with disabilities and creates a massive, 
     unproven school construction program run by bureaucrats in 
     Washington. During consideration of the legislation, Rep. 
     Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) offered a motion to recommit 
     proposal to allow schools that have seen their energy costs 
     rise by more than 50 percent since January 4, 2007--Rep. 
     Pelosi's first day as Speaker--to use funds under the bill to 
     help cover their energy expenditures. Unfortunately, 
     Democrats killed the proposal, leaving the schools to fend 
     for themselves. (Rollcall Vote 378, with 225 Democrats voting 
     against the proposal.)
       On June 26, 2008, during consideration of the Saving Energy 
     Through Public Transportation Act (H.R. 6052), Democrats 
     blocked a Republican proposal to assist rural schools and 
     students. The measure--offered by Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR)--
     would have required that in any area where school bus 
     services are being cut back because of high fuel prices, the 
     funds under the Democratic bill must be used to help restore 
     those services. Walden's proposal gave preference to rural 
     and suburban areas where school buses have to travel greater 
     distances to transport students. (Rollcall Vote 466, with 217 
     Democrats voting against the proposal.)
       On September 16, 2008, Democrats turned back a bipartisan 
     plan--co-sponsored by 38 Democrats, 24 of whom inexplicably 
     voted against it--that would have aided schools suffering 
     from the effects of the energy crisis as well. During 
     consideration of the Democrats' so-called Comprehensive 
     American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act (H.R. 
     6899), Rep. John Peterson (R-PA) offered a bipartisan plan he 
     originally authored with Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) to 
     begin taking steps toward lower gas prices and energy 
     independence. The plan, in part, would have enabled states to 
     enter into revenue-sharing agreements with the federal 
     government as part of increased energy production far off of 
     their coasts. Under the bipartisan plan, states would be 
     permitted to use revenues to increase funding to schools 
     feeling the impact of the energy crunch. But once again, the 
     Democratic Majority blocked the plan, depriving schools of 
     critical funding to help them cope with rising energy costs. 
     (Rollcall Vote 598, with 216 Democrats voting against the 
     proposal.)


           In Their Own Words: Americans Demand Energy Reform

       Following is a sampling of remarks left by respondents to 
     the ``back-to-school'' energy survey detailing exactly what 
     parents, teachers, and students are facing while the 
     Democratic Congress refuses to act on meaningful legislation 
     to bring down gas prices and other energy costs:
       ``Yes, drill, build new refineries, solar, nuclear and 
     anything else to break the dependence on foreign oil.''--
     Robert from Hamilton, OH.
       ``I work at [a local] Head Start program. Our families are 
     struggling to get their children to pre-school. They must 
     choose between gas in the car or food in many cases.''--Lori 
     from Middletown, OH.
       ``The rising cost of energy is impacting our school 
     district in many ways: pupil transportation, employee travel, 
     staff development, cost of goods/services, etc. It is getting 
     increasingly difficult to reduce costs and not have an impact 
     on the instructional day.''--Reeves from Gastonia, NC.
       ``What are schools to do? The price of diesel, which most 
     school buses use, is even higher than the price of gasoline. 
     The option of passing or even sharing the cost of the fuel 
     increase with the consumers (parents) is not an option. 
     Levies are increasingly more difficult to pass. Field trips 
     and busing for athletics are either eliminated or the parents 
     are charged a fee to help offset the transportation cost. 
     Lengthening the school day and providing a 4-day week is 
     vehemently opposed by many parents who do not want to pay for 
     child care for that 5th weekday the child would not be in 
     school. Freezing wages and cutting back on insurance benefits 
     for teachers and support personnel deters people from 
     teaching at a time when the country desperately needs to be 
     focusing on Math, Science and Technology so its students are 
     better prepared for employment in our global economy . . . I 
     repeat--what are schools to do?''--Shari from Medway, OH.
       ``We cannot believe Congress went on vacation. We must have 
     a complete policy. Drill for oil, build new refineries, build 
     nuclear plants, and anything else that will work. Everything 
     is being affected, cost of groceries and all other goods. 
     Please help. Keep up the fight for us. We need an energy 
     policy.''--Ruth from Vacaville, CA.
       ``We have to increase the supply of domestic oil. When my 
     family grew in size, I did not reduce the amount food 
     provided to each member, I increased the supply. Gasoline is 
     the same way.''--Thomas from Joelton, TN.
       ``As an educator I am very concerned on the impact of 
     budget cuts for all students and staff operating in our 
     school system.''--Tessa from Waleska, GA.
       ``Being a rural community where most of the students come 
     to school on buses, high fuel prices cause a big problem.''--
     Edward from Wapato, WA.
       ``The high price of fuel and energy costs [has] 
     significantly reduced the amount of funding we have for 
     educating our children to be competitive in a world class 
     economy.''--Pam from Medical Lake, WA.
       ``Every school child that I know has had their bus route 
     increased. My 6 year old is now on the bus for more than 2 
     hours a day.''--Claudia from Stevenson Ranch, CA.
       ``This year we may not be able to go on any field trips 
     because the school bus rates have gotten so expensive. 
     Families are having a tough time as it is. It is sad because 
     the kids are missing out on those experiences.''--Tar from 
     DeLand, FL.


                               Conclusion

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

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I want to share with the gentlewoman that 
I am and I know my party is pro-American energy. In fact, the more I 
listen to testimony on the other side, the more convinced I am that 
this legislation that we're debating right now is exactly what we need 
to make sure that the advances with respect to energy technology are 
there.
  With respect to education stakeholders and their view of No Child 
Left

[[Page H8438]]

Inside, this is a list of over 700 organizations nationally 
representing 40 million members. Many of these organizations are 
education organizations who understand how important it is for our 
young people to get this sort of opportunity.
  We can all agree, Democrats and Republicans, in this debate that 
we've been having over energy for the last few weeks and months that 
it's important for us to develop alternative sources of energy, 
renewable sources of energy. To do that, of course, we're going to need 
the scientists and the entrepreneurs who can make it happen, and they 
are not going to land on a spaceship from outer space. We are going to 
have to develop them right here, and the next generation is where we 
are going to find those scientists and those entrepreneurs that are 
going to make those sort of advances. But they are not going to be able 
to do it if we don't put the resources behind the kind of environmental 
education that this will provide.
  And then just the last point I wanted to make is, yes, there are 
field trips that will be funded by this, but a lot of what this has to 
do is getting kids outside, and you don't have to take a bus from 
inside of the classroom to outside of a classroom. You can walk. And a 
lot of these young students are doing things right there in their own 
backyard, right there around their school, right there in a stream 
that's a quarter mile away, and they can use the walk. The idea is to 
get them outside and experiencing the environment.
  It is my pleasure now to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Ms. Clarke), a member of the Education and Labor Committee and 
someone who brought a very important amendment regarding environmental 
justice to this bill in the committee.
  Ms. CLARKE. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of H.R. 3036, the 
No Child Left Inside Act of 2008. The effects of global warming and 
climate change, as evidenced by wildfires, tornadoes, hurricanes, and 
floodings has been experienced by hundreds of thousands of Americans. 
These things, coupled with the energy crisis, are calling out for 
investment in renewable energy.
  We must be ever cognizant that future generations will inherit a 
myriad of complicated environmental challenges. By encouraging schools 
to incorporate environmental education into their curriculum, H.R. 3036 
will give future generations a solid understanding of environmental 
issues and a knowledge base that will equip and empower them with the 
tools needed to overcome the environmental problems that plague our 
civil society and our environs.
  I am pleased to have language from my bill, H.R. 5902, the GREEN Act, 
incorporated into this bill. My bill's language would give schools the 
option of integrating an environmental justice curriculum into their 
own educational program.
  Located in my congressional district, the Brooklyn Academy of Science 
and the Environment provides an innovative example of how environmental 
justice concepts can be used as an integrating context for learning. 
Created through a partnership with the Brooklyn Botanic Gardens, 
Prospect Park Alliance, and the New York City Department of Education, 
this is one of New York City's first public environmental education 
high schools.
  In closing, I want to thank Congressman Sarbanes for being a champion 
for America's scholars and for his consistent leadership on 
environmental education and for including my bill, H.R. 5902, as part 
of the No Child Left Inside Act of 2008, a bill that I believe will 
greatly transform our Nation in the years to come.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield at this time 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I am rising in support of H.R. 3036, the No Child Left Inside Act, 
which would authorize a grant program to provide States the resources 
to include environmental literacy education programs in their K-12 
curriculum.
  Protecting the environment is one of the most important jobs I have 
as a Member of Congress. We simply will not have a world to live in if 
we continue our neglectful ways.
  It is imperative we instill the need for environmental responsibility 
upon the next generation, and I can't think of a better place to foster 
a sense of environmental stewardship than in the classroom.
  Just this week, Congress finally debated a bill to begin reducing our 
dependence on foreign oil and encouraging alternative energy solutions. 
The repercussions of the debate we had this week will not be dealt with 
by us, but rather, by our children. By ignoring our environmental and 
energy crisis for so long, we have passed significant challenges on to 
the next generation to find solutions. The time to invigorate our youth 
to tackle these challenges is now.
  I have heard from teachers and school administrators throughout 
Connecticut's Fourth Congressional District, and from across the 
country, who have felt a narrowing of school curricula in the wake of 
No Child Left Behind's (NCLB) high stakes testing requirements. It 
seems to me this bill should have been considered in the context of a 
larger No Child Left Behind reauthorization. Unfortunately, the 
majority has yet to bring comprehensive reform to the floor for 
consideration, and I am hopeful these types of curricular enrichments 
remain a priority as we work towards reauthorizing this critical bill.
  In the absence of reauthorization efforts this Congress, I am pleased 
we are providing the resources school districts need to enrich their 
curricula and cultivate an awareness of environmental issues in our 
public schools.
  I support No Child Left Behind because it is forcing us to improve 
and deal with gaps in our public education, but I realize there are 
several improvements that need to be made in the reauthorization 
process. I look forward to a reauthorization of this bill that 
reevaluates priority curricula to ensure our students are not only 
achieving in the areas of math, reading, and science, but are well-
prepared to engage in a 21st century, global society.
  Mr. SARBANES. May I inquire as to whether the other side has any more 
speakers?
  Mr. McKEON. I will be concluding for our side, if we could inquire 
how much time we have left.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California has 5\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Maryland has 12 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, I will reserve my time to allow the 
gentleman to close.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  One week before the 110th Congress is scheduled to adjourn, we are 
devoting precious legislative hours to debating a noncontroversial bill 
to extend a minuscule environmental education program for 1 year. I 
think we all agree that environmental education is important now and 
for future generations, and I want to commend the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) for the work that he's done on this bill. I 
think, as he has eloquently stated, environmental education is very 
important. But how we spend our time in this Chamber is a reflection of 
our priorities, and today, our priorities are all wrong.
  Chairman Miller and I work well together on the Education and Labor 
Committee, and we often reach agreements before bills are brought to 
the floor. On this bill, we worked together to resolve our differences, 
and we agreed that while important, this bill was straightforward and 
noncontroversial--most of our Members will vote for it--enough that it 
should be considered on the suspension calendar. I believe that two-
thirds of this body would easily have supported the legislation, making 
these hours of debate unnecessary.
  For whatever reason, whether to mask their continued failure to offer 
comprehensive energy solutions or simply to avoid a debate on the issue 
altogether, the majority has opted to bring this bill to the floor 
today under a rule. So let me just take a moment to reflect on H.R. 
3036.
  The Federal Government has a role to play in education. That role is 
to provide support and assistance to ensure that all children are 
provided a quality education. It is to support the academic achievement 
of disadvantaged children, children with disabilities, and other at-
risk students who might otherwise be left behind. In pursuing these 
goals, we must be careful

[[Page H8439]]

not to create too much bureaucracy nor too many Federal programs that 
could undermine local control.
  That's why I appreciate the efforts that were made to limit the scope 
of this bill, extending an existing program at the EPA and 
supplementing it with similar activities through the Department of 
Education rather than establishing a massive new environmental 
education bureaucracy as some had originally proposed.

                              {time}  1545

  This is a reasonable bill, and at the end of the day, I will support 
it. But, Mr. Chairman, if I had my choice, we would not be here 
debating this legislation today. Although environmental education is 
important, this Congress has a limited amount of time to challenge our 
mammoth problems facing this Nation.
  As of a few minutes ago, when we found we won't be in session 
tomorrow, if we work all of next week, we will have 5 days left to 
finish the work of this Congress. Instead of tinkering around the edges 
of an existing environmental education program, we ought to be debating 
comprehensive, all-of-the-above approaches to reform our Nation's 
energy policy and put America on the path to energy independence.
  Here we are, going into the last week of this Congress. We've been 
here 2 years, we only have now 13 days of work scheduled for the last 5 
months of this year--and that, after our Democrat leadership, during 
the last election, said that we would be a harder working Congress, we 
would be a more open Congress, we would be one that would follow 
regular order, we would be open to the way this House was meant to 
function.
  At this point, we have not passed one spending bill. The spending 
bills that were passed last year run out on September 30, the new year 
starts October 1, and not one spending bill to continue to fund the 
Government through the next year has yet been passed. We did pass one 
on this floor, but not one has been passed through the whole process--
the House, the Senate, and been sent to the President's desk, not one 
spending bill.
  I guess the people throughout the country will be watching and seeing 
what happens on October 1. Will the Government be shut down? I don't 
know. I don't know how they plan to solve this problem. I just know 
that at this point they have not brought one spending bill to 
completion for the President to sign.
  We have not finished our work on this committee on No Child Left 
Behind. That was a very, very important piece of legislation. We worked 
on it last year. We haven't talked about it for over a year now. And I 
guess that's just going to be let go into next year, when a new 
Congress will be here.
  I am greatly disappointed, Mr. Chairman, with the work product of 
this Congress. We had the ability. We had new leadership that came in 
with lots of promises, lots of enthusiasm, lots of things that were 
going to be done to make things better for the American public. The 
most important issue facing us today is the energy issue. Every one of 
us in America sees that every day when we fill our tanks or at least 
drive by the gas stations and see how the price has gone up--or maybe 
down a couple cents, depending, but it's a couple dollars more than it 
was when the Republicans were in charge here a couple years ago.
  We had the opportunity this year, even this week, to address an all-
of-the-above energy solution: More conservation, more alternative 
fuels, more biomass, more wind, more solar--yes, and more oil, more 
coal, more shale.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, the desire to move forward with the 
reauthorization of No Child Left Behind is one that certainly we shared 
on this side of the aisle, and we are prepared to do that this year. 
The problem is that the administration, for the last 2 years, sent 
budgets which suggested there wasn't going to be the resources behind 
that effort that needed to be there, and so we're where we are. But 
that doesn't mean that we can't, as we're going to do with this bill, 
begin to set the table for what can be a very comprehensive and 
meaningful reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act next year. And what I'm so excited about is, if we put our stamp on 
this bill today, we're going to be sending a very powerful message that 
environmental education should be part and parcel of that 
reauthorization next year.
  I would like to thank, again, the members of the No Child Left Inside 
Coalition, as I noted, over 700 organizations across the country 
representing upwards of 40 million people. These are folks who just 
want to see this happen. They understand how important it is to get our 
children outdoors and into nature. I want to thank them for all the 
work that they did to make this possible, to get this to the floor. It 
would not be here without the work that they have done.
  I want to close by noting some of the benefits of this. I've talked 
about the contents of the bill, but I want to talk more generally about 
the benefits that it offers.
  Many of the witnesses that we heard from, many of the advocates who 
are behind this bill are public health advocates. They're pointing to 
epidemic levels, for example, of childhood obesity that we see now 
across the country. Kids just aren't active. One of the benefits of 
getting children outdoors, getting them engaged in environmental 
activities is they start to become more active, and that is going to be 
good for their health and the health of our Nation.
  We've talked about the economic development benefits; that 
environmental education spurs interests, it leads to children wanting 
to go into science, into technology, and so forth. And so we are going 
to be unleashing a tremendous economic potential if we put resources 
into the No Child Left Inside Act.
  It is a great way for kids to learn. There is all the evidence that 
shows that when kids are outdoors, it activates all their senses, it 
fully engages them, and their performance increases across the board 
because of that experience. And of course it raises awareness in the 
next generation of the environment and the need to preserve our 
environment. The fact of the matter is that the only way we're going to 
save our environment, the only way we're going to preserve treasures 
like the Chesapeake Bay in the State of Maryland is if millions of 
people develop good habits in dealing with the environment. That's what 
we can impart to our young people, to the next generation.
  Let me just finish with two articles, or anecdotes. The first is from 
the Rochester, Minnesota Post-Bulletin. It's an article titled, 
``Program urges kids to ditch couches for canoes.'' It talks about a 
program that a woman named Sara Grover founded, Project Get Outdoors, 
where she brings kids outside. She talks about a fifth grader on his 
first camping trip. She said he was practically crying and he said, 
``This is the best day of my entire life.'' There are a lot of good 
days ahead for a lot of great kids if we get this legislation in place.
  Just to put a punctuation mark on this notion of kids going into 
science as a result of their experiences outdoors, I just got this e-
mail on my BlackBerry notifying me that a young man from my district 
was named a finalist in the science competition for middle school 
students. His project was, ``The Effectiveness of Limestone Aggregates 
to Mitigate Acid-Mine Drainage.'' He came up with the idea for this 
project while rafting and kayaking on the Cheat River in West Virginia.
  This is what I'm talking about. This is what's going to happen if we 
provide our children, our young people, the next generation with the 
environmental education that they deserve and integrate it fully into 
the instructional program in their schools.
  That's why I'm supporting this bill. That's why I introduced it. 
That's why the coalition of advocates that supports it is so excited 
about it. I urge this House to pass H.R. 3036, the No Child Left Inside 
Act.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
6604, the Commodity Markets Transparent Accountability Act.
  Before I outline my opposition to this legislation, I want to be 
clear that I am seriously concerned about the cost of oil and the cost 
Americans are paying at the pump. To this end, I have been proud to 
support a series of other bills that this House has considered to

[[Page H8440]]

help bring down the cost Americans are paying at the pump as well as 
efforts to create new alternative and renewable sources of energy. I 
have been a long-term supporter of reforming the royalties the oil and 
gas industry pays for the natural resources they extract from public 
lands. Last year I was proud to stand with my colleagues as we, for the 
first time in a generation, increased the fuel efficiency standards on 
cars sold here in the United States. Just yesterday, I was pleased to 
vote in favor of H.R. 6899, the Comprehensive American Energy Security 
and Consumer Protection Act. The legislation is a bold step forward, 
helping end our dependence on foreign oil and increase our national 
security. It launches a clean renewable energy future that creates new 
American jobs, expands domestic energy supply--including new offshore 
drilling--and invents and builds more efficient vehicles, buildings, 
homes, and infrastructure. It will lower costs to consumers and protect 
the interests of taxpayers. It is a comprehensive strategy and the 
product of bipartisan compromise.
  I want to be clear that I am completely opposed to energy 
manipulation, which is a crime, but what we are talking about here is 
the role of legitimate investors in the commodities market. To that 
end, my main concern with this legislation is that it would crack down 
on legitimate trading practices, resulting in the loss of American 
jobs.
  Additionally, I am concerned that this legislation will significantly 
reduce liquidity in the U.S. futures and derivatives markets and drive 
trading overseas at a very precarious time for U.S. financial markets. 
This legislation also could create legal uncertainty and could also 
increase market disruption in the over-the-counter, OTC, markets. 
Moving this trading overseas and creating legal uncertainties could 
result in lost jobs here in the United States, especially for our 
constituents who work in these markets. At a time we are fighting to 
keep New York City and the United States as the financial capital of 
the world, any measure that could cost our economy quality jobs without 
providing any benefit in return is not a measure I can support.
  Joining me in my skepticism that speculators have been able to 
manipulate the oil market is what many may consider an unlikely source, 
Paul Krugman of the New York Times.
  In a May 12, 2008 column, titled ``The Oil Nonbubble'', Krugman 
writes:
  ``The only way speculation can have a persistent effect on oil 
prices, then, is if it leads to physical hoarding--an increase in 
private inventories of black gunk. This actually happened in the late 
1970s, when the effects of disrupted Iranian supply were amplified by 
widespread panic stockpiling.
  But it hasn't happened this time: all through the period of the 
alleged bubble, inventories have remained at more or less normal 
levels. This tells us that the rise in oil prices isn't the result of 
runaway speculation; it's the result of fundamental factors, mainly the 
growing difficulty of finding oil and the rapid growth of emerging 
economies like China. The rise in oil prices these past few years had 
to happen to keep demand growth from exceeding supply growth.''
  To be clear, I stand ready to support legislation that will reduce 
the cost Americans are paying at the pump, and I am fully in support of 
efforts to create new, affordable and renewable energy options that 
will move us towards energy independence. However, this legislation, 
while certainly well intentioned, could potentially create more harm 
than good and lead to the loss of American jobs.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Chairman, today, the House will consider H.R. 
3036, the No Child Left Inside Act. I rise in strong opposition to this 
legislation.
  First of all, H.R. 3036 continues our Nation down the ill-fated road 
of shifting control of school curricula away from the parents and 
teachers and local school boards who best know what their children need 
into the hands of Federal Government and its one-size-fits-all 
approach. To best serve our children's educational needs, local school 
boards need flexibility to target resources where they are needed 
most--from school construction and class size reduction efforts to 
higher teacher salaries and technology in the classroom. The needs of 
individual school districts are dynamic and complex. They are not 
homogenous and are most certainly not best understood by bureaucrats in 
Washington.
  I fervently believe that parents and teachers and local school boards 
know best how to educate our children, and it is time for Congress to 
stop removing them further and further from the equation. Congress must 
move back down the path to control, accountability, and authority at a 
local level for education. H.R. 3036 leads us away from this crucial 
goal.
  Furthermore, while I agree it is important to promote conservation 
and environmental literacy, especially as America faces a crippling 
energy crisis, I do not agree that public school is the place to do it. 
H.R. 3036 would simply add another layer of bureaucracy and Federal 
mandates to our Nation's already overburdened schools, displacing 
important educational building blocks with questionable environmental 
education programs. At a time when American test scores continue to lag 
behind our global counterparts, can we honestly say that we need less 
time for the fundamentals of reading, writing, arithmetic? Church 
groups, scouting, extracurricular organizations, and the family promote 
conservation, love of and respect for the outdoors, and environmental 
messages daily. Let the teachers teach; let parents instill values.
  Finally, let us not forget that Congress has already allotted funds 
for environmental literacy through an Environmental Protection Agency, 
EPA, grant program. Since 1992, that program has allocated over $40 
million, or roughly $2.5 million per year. H.R. 3036 would spend an 
additional $14 million to create an additional grant program 
administered by a whole new executive branch agency, the Department of 
Education. Can there be any question that this represents an expansion 
of the Federal bureaucracy, a duplication of efforts, and a wholly 
irresponsible distribution of taxpayer dollars?
  The No Child Left Inside Act represents a step in the wrong 
direction, adding the weight of increased Federal bureaucracy to an 
already sinking educational outlook. Forcing local school districts to 
direct scarce resources away from core curricula to serve a political 
agenda will only further suppress the academic performance of America's 
next generation. I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the ``No Child 
Left Inside Act,'' H.R. 3036.
  The 21st century global economy increasingly requires scientific and 
environmental literacy. Unfortunately, due to the narrowing of 
curriculum under ``No Child Left Behind,'' schools are struggling to 
offer a comprehensive curriculum inclusive of environmental education.
  I applaud Representative Sarbanes for championing H.R. 3036, to help 
ensure our students are prepared to make informed decisions that impact 
our future, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important bill.
  I share the gentleman from Maryland's passion for environmental 
literacy and environmental education, which are also priorities in a 
bill I introduced, H.R. 1728, the ``Global Warming Education Act.''
  I believe that education is essential to ensuring that the public 
understands both the short- and long-term environmental consequences of 
dangers such as global warming.
  In my bill, I sought to establish a grant program to create 
educational materials, develop climate change curricula, and improve 
the dissemination of scientific developments in the area of global 
warming, along with providing practical learning opportunities for 
people of all ages and from diverse backgrounds.
  The ``No Child Left Inside Act'' will also establish grants to help 
environmental education become more effective and widely practiced, and 
it will provide professional development and training for teachers to 
incorporate environmental education activities as part of school 
curricula.
  It is critical that America fosters an environmentally aware 
citizenry equipped to make informed decisions that will ensure a secure 
environment for our future generations.
  This is why I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
recognize the importance of environmental education by supporting H.R. 
3036.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the No Child 
Left Inside Act. I thank my colleague from Maryland, John Sarbanes, for 
his efforts on this important initiative.
  Mr. Chairman, our Nation faces great environmental challenges. We 
need to combat global warming, curb pollution, and expand conservation 
and energy efficiency. And to confront these challenges, we need to 
ensure that students graduate from our schools with an understanding of 
the environment. We need hands-on outdoor learning opportunities to 
inspire students to enter science fields and develop innovative 
solutions.
  Today's bill extends the authorization for the National Environmental 
Education Act and enhances the Environmental Education and Training 
Program with teacher training and the opportunity for partnerships 
between teachers and working professionals in environmental fields. It 
also establishes the National Capacity Environmental Education Grant 
Program to assist States and local education agencies as they work to 
develop environmental literacy plans and student academic achievement 
standards. It encourages partnerships between states, schools, and 
institutes of higher education and creates and disseminates best 
practices for environmental education programs.

[[Page H8441]]

  No Child Left Inside will give our students the opportunity to 
interact with and understand their environment. It will encourage their 
interest in science and prepare them to solve 21st century 
environmental challenges. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for 
this bill.
  Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
3036, the No Child Left Inside Act. This legislation is vitally 
important to better prepare our students for the environmental, energy 
and natural resource challenges facing our country, and also for the 
career opportunities these challenges open up.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud to represent Iowa's First Congressional 
District. Our district is noted for its rolling farmlands of corn, 
soybeans and other crops, our border on the Mississippi River, the 
largest river in North America, and for the businesses that have come 
to the Quad Cities, Dubuque, and the Cedar Valley. Our citizens have a 
deep appreciation and respect for our natural resources and recognize 
the important opportunities that are opening up in the fields of bio-
energy and other agriculture-based, renewable energy resources. That's 
why I introduced the National Endowment for Workforce Education in 
Renewables and Agriculture Act to help our community colleges support 
the education and training of technicians in these areas. I was happy 
to see this bill included in the 2008 Farm Bill which was signed into 
Public Law.
  I also recently toured the University of Dubuque's Environmental 
Science Education center, a great example of college level 
environmental education. This center provides college students with 
State, regional, and national benefit through educating undergraduate- 
and graduate-level students in the environmental sciences, and helping 
to create the next generation of science professionals. The 
Environmental Science Center allows the University to expand on its 
proven record of educating national scientific leaders. The Center 
specializes in hands-on, applied learning for current science teachers, 
environmental agency personnel, undergraduate environmental science 
majors, and education majors to teach the next generation of American 
scientists.
  I'm proud to represent a University that has taken a leading role in 
educating the next generation of scientists and environmentalists, and 
I'm pleased to support this bill because schools like the University of 
Dubuque will benefit from the competitive grant program authorized in 
this legislation. These grants would be awarded to higher education 
institutions and would be used directly for the study of environmental 
education. The University of Dubuque could use this grant program to 
better improve their already succeeding Environmental Education Center.
  In addition to higher education, we also need to ensure that our 
next-generation of leaders have a basic understanding of the 
environment and our natural resources, before they graduate from high 
school. These are the students currently in our elementary and 
secondary schools and the students who will be coming to our community 
colleges and universities in the coming years. This legislation will 
also provide learning opportunities for these students.
  This bill authorizes much-needed resources to educate students at the 
K-12 levels about the environment, energy and natural resources and to 
help teachers, schools and school districts provide the best 
experiences and instruction for their students. It would begin to 
implement the recommendations of several reports by the National 
Science Foundation, the National Environmental Education Advisory 
Council, and the National Council for Science and the Environment to 
enhance environmental education in our schools. And it would help 
improve student achievement and enthusiasm for learning as several 
studies have demonstrated.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation that will 
improve environmental education for both K-12 students, and students in 
our Nation's colleges and universities. I urge my colleagues to join me 
in supporting this legislation.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3036, the No 
Child Left Inside Act. This legislation, introduced by Representative 
John Sarbanes, would provide sorely needed assistance to States, 
elementary and secondary schools and others to help teach our children 
about the environment and instill within them an appreciation and sense 
of stewardship for our planet.
  The case for extending and enhancing environmental education is quite 
clear. Several recent studies indicate that students perform better in 
science, reading, math and social studies, when environmental education 
is integrated into the core curricula. Indeed, Hollywood Elementary 
School, located in Maryland's 5th Congressional District, was part of 
an intensive study by the State Education and Environment Roundtable 
published in 1998 that documented how 40 schools in 12 States achieved 
remarkable results by implementing an environmental education program. 
The study also found that environmental education increased students' 
enthusiasm for learning and enhanced their creative thinking skills.
  Getting kids outdoors to exercise, play and experience their natural 
world is also an important tool to prevent childhood obesity, reduce 
attention deficit disorder, and address other related health problems. 
Research shows that kids today are spending more than 6 hours a day 
inside plugged in to electronics--but only minutes a day outdoors. That 
could have serious consequences for our children's physical and mental 
development.
  Just as important, environmental education prepares children to be 
responsible stewards and citizens. We face enormous environmental 
challenges including global warming and pollution in the Chesapeake 
Bay. To take on those challenges, the next generation needs a solid 
understanding of environmental Science.
  But even though environmental education is desperately needed, for 
all of those reasons, our Nation has seen it go into decline. In recent 
years, the overall level of federal support for environmental education 
in both policy and funding has unfortunately been woefully inadequate.
  The No Child Left Inside Act seeks to remedy this situation by 
providing new support and funding for environmental education in the 
Nation's public schools in three areas: teacher training, enhanced 
programs, and the development and implementation of State environmental 
literacy plans.
  Specifically, this legislation reauthorizes the National 
Environmental Education Act of 1990 and authorizes funding for the 
Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Education and Training 
Program. It also creates a new National Capacity Environmental 
Education Grant Program to be administered by the Department of 
Education, awarding matched grant funds to local and State educational 
agencies, colleges and universities, and nonprofit groups to develop 
curricula, disseminate information about model programs, and increase 
the number of environmental educators.
  Our looming environmental problems demand a strong generation of 
scientists, researchers, public servants, and citizens. By passing this 
bill, we can help to build that generation and improve our children's 
health and quality of life at the same time.
  I commend Representative Sarbanes for introducing this measure and I 
urge my colleagues to join with me in voting for the No Child Left 
Inside Act.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my strong support of 
H.R. 3036, the No Child Left Inside Act, and the opportunities it 
provides students for a strong environmental education. I have been a 
strong supporter of the No Child Left Inside Act. As a member of 
Education and Labor and Chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, 
this act represents an important confluence of my interests, and I am 
happy to support this legislation. I attended the field hearing for 
this legislation, and have taken a personal interest in its passage 
through the many steps it has taken to the floor. Though I am unable to 
participate in the vote on final passage today, I wish to make it clear 
that I remain a steadfast proponent of the No Child Left Inside Act, 
and am pleased with its consideration by the House today.
  This act will promote environmental literacy and hands-on educational 
experiences, while at the same time promoting core learning of critical 
skills. These programs have also been linked to meaningful improvements 
in student cooperation, conflict resolution, motivation to learn and 
positive behavior. Additionally, these programs add to the 
encouragement of a healthy and active lifestyle of outdoor recreation.
  No Child Left Inside promotes environmental literacy where it is most 
effective--in nature. This, in turn, promotes children's health, 
increases their knowledge of the natural world, and encourages 
students' interests in the lesson. NCLl provides educators with the 
necessary skills to teach environmental education, and provides grants 
for State and local agencies to acquire the needed capacity for 
effective environmental education.
  The benefits of this program have a measureable impact on students' 
core curriculum--improving performance in science, math, reading and 
social studies. The No Child Left Inside Act is important for our 
environment, as it educates the next generation, who will inherit a 
planet whose fragile habitats will increasingly need our help and 
protection.
  Mr. HARE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3036, 
the No Child Left Inside Act, introduced by my good friend and freshman 
colleague, Representative John Sarbanes of Maryland.
  Mr. Chairman, global warming is one of the greatest environmental 
challenges facing our Nation today. But, as the impact of global 
warming becomes more and more visible, our children are increasingly 
disconnected from nature and the world around them.

[[Page H8442]]

  Kids today spend less time playing outdoors than any previous 
generation. The Kaiser Family Foundation found kids ages 8 to 18 spend 
an average of 6\1/2\ hours a day glued to the TV, playing video games, 
surfing the Internet, and talking on cell phones, leading to what has 
been called a ``nature deficit disorder''.
  The No Child Left Inside Act addresses critical environmental 
challenges by strengthening and expanding environmental education in 
the classroom. This bipartisan bill provides schools with more 
resources and teacher training for environmental education.
  Using environmental education in the classroom, we can transform 
playgrounds and parks into learning laboratories and recapture the 
interest and enthusiasm of students in the world around them.
  Not only has environmental education raised test scores in math and 
reading, but it has also inspired school age children to become future 
stewards of the Earth.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3036 is an important step toward combating 
childhood obesity, promoting an environmentally-conscious society and 
improving the health of our planet.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill, and I strongly urge my 
colleagues to vote for the No Child Left Inside Act.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3036, 
the No Child Left Inside Act, which would amend the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1965 to promote the expansion and 
development of environmental education in our classrooms from 
kindergarten to grade 12.
  Environmental education is so important for our students, especially 
with the growing crisis facing our climate. Yet across the country, 
these types of programs are facing cuts due to school budget woes. H.R. 
3036 helps alleviate this problem by extending the National 
Environmental Education Act through 2009 and strengthening the 
Environmental Education Training program under current law. This 
legislation also establishes the National Capacity Environmental 
Education Grant Program, which would authorize the Secretary of 
Education to award 1-3 year competitive grants to nonprofit 
organizations, state educational agencies, local education agencies, or 
institutions of higher education.
  The No Child Left Inside Act will help our students see the real 
world beyond the classroom and better prepare them for the 21st 
century. I am proud that my home State of Rhode Island already stands 
out in this area because of its steadfast commitment to protecting its 
resources--the Narragansett Bay, beaches, parks and forests, lakes and 
rivers, and other beloved spaces. Rhode Island has been ahead of the 
curve in promoting renewable energy sources and conducting climate 
change research. Now we must work to make sure this legacy is passed on 
to future generations. Just as we have worked in our cities and towns 
to preserve the environment, we must ensure that our national policies 
build on these actions. With so many teachers and students already 
involved, the No Child Left Inside Act will only boost our work in 
Rhode Island.
  I would like to thank my colleague, Congressman Sarbanes, for 
introducing this bill, as well as my colleague and fellow Rhode 
Islander, Senator Jack Reed, for introducing the companion bill.
   Mr. Chairman, this bill has bipartisan support and both 
environmental groups and schools are ready to implement these programs. 
I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3036, 
the No Child Left Inside Act of 2008. This bipartisan legislation 
extends the National Environmental Education Act through 2009 and 
strengthens the Environment Education Training Program. It also 
establishes a capacity building grant program to help States and school 
districts expand environmental education.
  Today's students are our future workforce and they must be quipped to 
face the myriad of challenges that threaten our Nation. Our country 
faces an energy crisis, air quality concerns, climate change, and 
diminishing natural resources. It is vitally important that 
environmental education become an integrated part of the curriculum, 
and that our students be trained in the tools necessary for future 
careers in green technology.
  In my home State of Oregon, Portland State University has a renowned 
sustainability program that has just been boosted by a $25 million 
foundation challenge grant. PSU already partners with schools 
throughout the community to teach children about environmental 
sustainability. Because of today's legislation, schools across the 
country will have similar opportunities as those students in Oregon to 
learn the value of our resources and gain the skills necessary to be 
key players in America's future green economy.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in full support 
of passage of H.R. 3036, the No Child Left Inside Act.
  I worked with Chairman Miller and Mr. Sarbanes, the sponsor of the 
bill and a member of my subcommittee which has jurisdiction over 
environmental education.
  It is a pleasure to support the professional development of 
environmental educators and expand the capacity of these teachers and 
the States in which they work to bring environmental education to our 
Nation's young people through this bill.
  The No Child Left Inside Act seeks to improve the professional 
development opportunities of our Nation's environmental educators. We 
know that teachers make the difference in the educational experience of 
young people and their educational outcomes. By creating professional 
development opportunities that are meaningful and relevant for our 
teachers, they in turn will make environmental education meaningful and 
relevant for their students. These students evolve into the voting 
citizens who will craft our Nation's future. The bill contributes to 
ensuring a scientifically literate society through ensuring a more 
scientifically literate teaching force.
  The National Academies of Science recently released a report titled 
``Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision 
Making.'' The first conclusion states that ``When done well, public 
participation improves the quality and legitimacy of a decision and 
builds the capacity of all involved to engage in the policy process. It 
can lead to better results in terms of environmental quality and other 
social objectives. It also can enhance trust and understanding among 
parties. Achieving these results depends on using practices that 
address difficulties that specific aspects of the context can 
present.''
  This is a description of democracy at work.
  It is important to ensure that our society is scientifically literate 
and therefore capable of not only understanding, but critically 
assessing, scientific data and weighing the societal consequences of 
these decisions. Science education is critical for the future of our 
Nation. So many of the skills taught and utilized in science are used 
and necessary for success in the global knowledge economy. We know that 
students learn so much and may even be more inspired when presented 
with opportunities outside the classroom and programs like these are 
often what sparks a student's interest in science. H.R. 3036 has a role 
here.
  Beyond professional development, the bill contains a grant program to 
make environmental education more effective and more widely practiced. 
These grants will have local, regional, and national impact, and will 
increase the number of young people who understand the importance of 
the environment and our interaction with it. To keep American 
competitive and number one, we must have a scientifically literate 
society, and H.R. 3036 works to ensure this. I ask my colleagues to 
join me in a yes vote on this bill.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3036, the No 
Child Left Inside Act of 2008.
  Today our Nation faces a number of pressing environmental issues, 
including clean water, clean air, open space preservation, and the 
looming threat of global warming. Addressing these problems will become 
one of the dominant issues and challenges in the 21st century and our 
workforce needs the knowledge and skills to understand and address 
these complex environmental issues.
  I would like to commend my colleague from Maryland, Representative 
John Sarbanes, for his hard work on H.R. 3036, to expand and enhance 
environmental education. This Federal investment in environmental 
education will help prepare our Nation's youth as responsible citizens 
who will value and protect America's resources and landscapes. 
Environmental education is about more than just science; these programs 
can be designed to have a positive effect in reading, math, and social 
studies.
  Environmental education is best understood by those who have had the 
opportunity to touch it, breathe it, and live it. Where better to learn 
about the importance of our national resources than in our Nation's 
most special and protected places? Imagine seeing the effects of 
climate change firsthand at Glacier National Park rather than learning 
about it in the abstract in a classroom, or learning about the 
ecosystems in Great Swamps National Wilderness Refuge in my home State 
of New Jersey, or learning about the human genome project in 
Yellowstone where crucial breakthroughs about DNA were made.
  As a member of the Committee on Education and Labor, I had the 
privilege of working on this legislation when it passed through our 
committee. My colleague from Indiana, Representative Mark Souder, and I 
successfully offered an amendment to H.R. 3036 which would allow 
schools and local education agencies to partner with Federal agencies, 
including national parks, when developing and administering their 
environmental programs.
  I would like to share a letter of support from one of my 
constituents. John from Pennington,

[[Page H8443]]

New Jersey, wrote ``As parents of a 7-year-old, we see how positive is 
the time he spends out back building his tree fort, or playing in 
Curliss woods, or attending summer camp at the Watershed . . . and how 
often his time before the TV seems deadening by contrast.''
  I firmly support H.R. 3036, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. SARBANES. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Ms. DeGette). All time for general debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered 
read.
  The text of the committee amendment is as follows:

                               H.R. 3036

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``No Child Left Inside Act of 
     2008''.

     SEC. 2. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION ACT AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 3 of the National Environmental 
     Education Act (20 U.S.C. 5502) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (12), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (13), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(14) `principles of scientific research' means principles 
     of research that--
       ``(A) apply rigorous, systematic, and objective methodology 
     to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education 
     activities and programs;
       ``(B) present findings and make claims that are appropriate 
     to, and supported by, the methods that have been employed; 
     and
       ``(C) include, appropriate to the research being 
     conducted--
       ``(i) use of systematic, empirical methods that draw on 
     observation or experiment;
       ``(ii) use of data analyses that are adequate to support 
     the general findings;
       ``(iii) reliance on measurements or observational methods 
     that provide reliable and generalizable findings;
       ``(iv) strong claims of causal relationships, only with 
     research designs that eliminate plausible completing 
     explanations for observed results, such as, but not limited 
     to, random-assignment experiments;
       ``(v) presentation of studies and methods in sufficient 
     detail and clarity to allow for replication or, at a minimum, 
     to offer the opportunity to build systematically on the 
     findings of the research;
       ``(vi) acceptance by a peer-reviewed journal or critique by 
     a panel of independent experts through a comparably rigorous, 
     objective, and scientific review; and
       ``(vii) consistency of findings across multiple studies or 
     sites to support the generality of results and conclusions;
       ``(15) `scientifically valid research' includes applied 
     research, basic research, and field-initiated research in 
     which the rationale, design, and interpretation are soundly 
     developed in accordance with principles of scientific 
     research;
       ``(16) `State' has the meaning given such term in section 
     9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; 
     and
       ``(17) `State educational agency' has the meaning given 
     such term in section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965.''.
       (b) Environmental Education and Training Program.--Section 
     5 of the National Environmental Education Act (20 U.S.C. 
     5504) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by inserting ``creating opportunities for enhanced and 
     ongoing professional development and'' before ``classroom''; 
     and
       (ii) by inserting ``(including integrating scientifically 
     valid research teaching methods and technology-based teaching 
     methods into the curriculum)'' after ``practices'';
       (B) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) by striking ``curriculum, including'' and inserting 
     ``curriculum (including'';
       (ii) by striking ``groups;'' and inserting ``groups) 
     which--''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(A) are aligned with challenging State and local academic 
     content standards to the extent such standards exist; and
       ``(B) advance the teaching of interdisciplinary courses 
     that integrate the study of natural, social, and economic 
     systems and that include strong field components;'';
       (C) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and forums;'' and 
     inserting ``forums, and bringing teachers into contact with 
     working professionals in environmental fields to expand such 
     teachers' subject matter knowledge of, and research in, 
     environmental issues;'';
       (D) in paragraph (8), by striking ``; and'' and inserting 
     ``, including environmental education distance learning 
     programs for teachers using curricula that are innovative, 
     content-based, and based on scientifically valid research 
     that is current as of the date of the program involved;'';
       (E) by redesignating paragraph (9) as paragraph (13);
       (F) by redesignating paragraphs (4) through (8) as 
     paragraphs (5) through (9), respectively;
       (G) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) encouraging individuals traditionally under-
     represented in environmental careers to pursue postsecondary 
     degrees in majors leading to such careers;''; and
       (H) by inserting after paragraph (9) (as so redesignated) 
     the following:
       ``(10) establishment of programs to prepare teachers at a 
     school to provide environmental education professional 
     development to other teachers at the school and programs to 
     promote outdoor environmental education activities as part of 
     the regular school curriculum and schedule in order to 
     further the knowledge and development of teachers and 
     students;
       ``(11) summer workshops or institutes, including follow-up 
     training, for elementary and secondary school environmental 
     education teachers;
       ``(12) encouraging mid-career environmental professionals 
     to pursue careers in environmental education; and''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting ``, in consultation 
     with the Secretary,'' after ``Administrator''.
       (c) Authorization.--Section 11(a) of the National 
     Environmental Education Act (20 U.S.C. 5510(a)) is amended by 
     striking ``Act'' and all that follows through the period at 
     the end and inserting ``Act, except for section 11, 
     $14,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.''.
       (d) National Capacity Environmental Education Grant 
     Program; Accountability.--The National Environmental 
     Education Act (20 U.S.C. 5501 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 11 as section 13; and
       (2) by inserting after section 10 the following:

     ``SEC. 11. NATIONAL CAPACITY ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION GRANT 
                   PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Grants Authorized.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to award 
     grants, on a competitive basis, to nonprofit organizations, 
     State educational agencies, local educational agencies, or 
     institutions of higher education that have demonstrated 
     expertise and experience in the development of the 
     institutional, financial, intellectual, or policy resources 
     needed to help the field of environmental education become 
     more effective and widely practiced. Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of this section, a State educational agency, 
     a local educational agency, an institution of higher 
     education, or a not-for-profit organization may use funds 
     provided under this section to coordinate with any program or 
     unit operated by a Federal Natural Resource Management Agency 
     to carry out environmental education programs based on the 
     full range of the resources and mission of the Agency.
       ``(2) Duration.--The Secretary shall award each grant under 
     this section for a period of not less than 1 year and not 
     more than 3 years.
       ``(b) Use of Funds.--Grant funds made available under this 
     section shall be used for 1 or more of the following:
       ``(1) Developing and implementing challenging State 
     academic content standards, student academic achievement 
     standards, and State curriculum frameworks in environmental 
     education, including the need to balance conservation of the 
     environment with the development of the Nation's energy 
     resources.
       ``(2) Replicating or disseminating information about proven 
     and tested model environmental education programs that--
       ``(A) use the environment as an integrating theme or 
     content throughout the curriculum;
       ``(B) provide integrated, interdisciplinary instruction 
     about natural, social, and economic systems along with field 
     experience that provides students with opportunities to 
     directly experience nature in ways designed to improve 
     overall academic performance, self-esteem, personal 
     responsibility, community involvement, personal health 
     (including addressing child obesity issues), or their 
     understanding of nature;
       ``(C) provide integrated instruction on waste reduction, 
     reuse, recycling, and composting programs and, when possible, 
     promote such activities within the school; or
       ``(D) address issues of environmental justice, including 
     policies and methods for eliminating disparate enforcement of 
     environmental laws and regulations with respect to minority 
     and low-income communities, with particular attention to the 
     development of environmental justice curriculum at the middle 
     and high school level.
       ``(3) Developing and implementing new policy approaches to 
     advancing environmental education at the State and national 
     level.
       ``(4) Conducting studies of national significance that--
       ``(A) evaluate the effectiveness of teaching environmental 
     education as a separate subject, and as an integrating 
     concept or theme;
       ``(B) evaluate the effectiveness of using environmental 
     education in helping students improve their assessment scores 
     in mathematics, reading or language arts, science, and the 
     other core academic subjects; or
       ``(C) evaluate ways to coordinate activities under this Act 
     with existing Federal science teacher in-service training or 
     professional development programs.
       ``(5) Executing projects that advance widespread State and 
     local educational agency adoption and use of environmental 
     education content standards, including adoption and use of 
     such standards in textbook selection criteria.
       ``(6) Developing a State environmental literacy plan that 
     includes the following:
       ``(A) A description of how the State educational agency 
     will measure the environmental literacy of students, 
     including--
       ``(i) relevant State academic content standards and content 
     areas regarding environmental education, and courses or 
     subjects where environmental education instruction will take 
     place; and

[[Page H8444]]

       ``(ii) a description of the relationship of the plan to the 
     secondary school graduation requirements of the State.
       ``(B) A description of programs for professional 
     development for teachers to improve the teachers'--
       ``(i) environmental content knowledge;
       ``(ii) skill in teaching about environmental issues; and
       ``(iii) field-based pedagogical skills.
       ``(C) A description of how the State educational agency 
     will implement the plan, including securing funding and other 
     necessary support.
       ``(7) Developing evidence-based approaches to build 
     capacity to increase the number of elementary and secondary 
     environmental educators.
       ``(c) Applications.--Each nonprofit organization, State 
     educational agency, local educational agency, or institution 
     of higher education desiring a grant under this section shall 
     submit to the Secretary an application that contains a plan 
     to initiate, expand, or improve environmental education 
     programs in order to make progress toward meeting State 
     standards for environmental learning (to the extent such 
     standards exist) and environmental literacy and contains an 
     evaluation and accountability plan for activities assisted 
     under this section that includes rigorous objectives that 
     measure the impact of activities funded under this section.
       ``(d) Requirements.--
       ``(1) Annual report.--In order to continue receiving grant 
     funds under this section after the first year of a multi-year 
     grant under this section, the grantee shall submit to the 
     Secretary an annual report that--
       ``(A) describes the activities assisted under this section 
     that were conducted during the preceding year;
       ``(B) describes the results of the grantee's evaluation and 
     accountability plan; and
       ``(C) demonstrates that the grantee has undertaken 
     activities to accomplish at least one of the following:
       ``(i) Responsibly preparing children to understand and 
     address major challenges facing the United States, such as 
     increasing the supply of clean energy, climate change, 
     environmental health risks, and environmental disaster and 
     emergency preparedness.
       ``(ii) Supporting systemic education reform by 
     strengthening environmental education as an integral part of 
     the elementary school and secondary school curriculum.
       ``(iii) Helping ensure that all students meet challenging 
     State academic content and student academic achievement 
     standards in environmental learning.
       ``(iv) Supporting efforts to enable students to engage in 
     environmental education.
       ``(v) Leveraging and expanding private and public support 
     for environmental education partnerships at national, State, 
     and local levels.
       ``(vi) Awarding grants to initiate, expand, or improve 
     environmental education programs for elementary and secondary 
     students.
       ``(vii) Restoring and increasing field experiences as part 
     of the regular school curriculum and schedule in order to 
     improve students' overall academic performance, self-esteem, 
     personal responsibility, community involvement, personal 
     health (including addressing child obesity issues), and 
     understanding of nature.
       ``(2) Administrative expenses.--Not more than 5 percent of 
     the grant funds made available to a nonprofit organization, 
     State educational agency, local educational agency, or 
     institution of higher education under this section for any 
     fiscal year may be used for administrative expenses.
       ``(3) State environmental literacy plans.--
       ``(A) In general.--A State educational agency receiving a 
     grant under this section shall--
       ``(i) have a State environmental literacy plan that is 
     consistent with the requirements of subsection (b)(6) and 
     that is peer reviewed within the State by a panel composed of 
     experts in environmental education and representatives from 
     other related State agencies; or
       ``(ii) develop a State environmental literacy plan 
     described in subsection (b)(6) with funds made available 
     under this section prior to using the grant funds for any 
     other purpose.
       ``(B) Peer review.--If an environmental literacy plan 
     described in subparagraph (A)(i) has not been peer reviewed 
     within the State, the State educational agency, 
     notwithstanding subsection (b), shall use funds made 
     available under this section to complete such review, as 
     described in such subparagraph, prior to using the grant 
     funds for any other purpose.
       ``(C) Other grantees.--An applicant for a grant under this 
     section that is not a State educational agency and applies 
     for funding to be used for the purpose described in 
     subsection (b)(6) shall demonstrate in the application that 
     the applicant has consulted with the State educational agency 
     about such use of funds.
       ``(e) Administrative Provisions.--
       ``(1) Federal share.--The Federal share under this section 
     shall not exceed--
       ``(A) 90 percent of the total cost of a program assisted 
     under this section for the first year for which the program 
     receives assistance under this section;
       ``(B) 75 percent of such cost for the second; and
       ``(C) 50 percent of such cost for each subsequent such 
     year.
       ``(2) Report to congress.--Not later than one year after 
     enactment of this bill, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Education and Labor of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Health, Education, 
     Labor, and Pensions of the Senate a report that--
       ``(A) describes the programs assisted under this section;
       ``(B) documents the success of such programs in improving 
     national and State environmental education capacity; and
       ``(C) makes such recommendations as the Secretary 
     determines appropriate for the continuation and improvement 
     of the programs assisted under this section.
       ``(3) Availability of funds.--Amounts made available to the 
     Secretary to carry out this section shall remain available 
     until expended.
       ``(f) Supplement, Not Supplant.--Funds made available under 
     this section shall be used to supplement, and not supplant, 
     any other Federal, State, or local funds available for 
     environmental education activities.
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section such 
     sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2009.

     ``SEC. 12. ACCOUNTABILITY.

       ``(a) Quality Indicators.--The Administrator, the 
     Secretary, and the Foundation each shall establish indicators 
     of program quality for the programs and activities funded 
     under this Act (other than fellowship awards funded under 
     section 7) that such official or entity administers.
       ``(b) Minimum Indicators.--Such indicators of program 
     quality, at a minimum, shall--
       ``(1) enhance understanding of the natural and built 
     environment;
       ``(2) foster a better appreciation of the interdisciplinary 
     nature of environmental issues and conditions;
       ``(3) increase achievement in related areas of national 
     interest, such as mathematics and science;
       ``(4) increase understanding of the benefits of exposure to 
     the natural environment;
       ``(5) improve understanding of how human and natural 
     systems interact together;
       ``(6) broaden awareness of environmental issues; and
       ``(7) include such other indicators as the Administrator, 
     Secretary, or Foundation may develop.
       ``(c) Report.--Each recipient receiving funds under this 
     Act, other than fellowship recipients under section 7, shall 
     report annually to the Administrator, the Secretary, or the 
     Foundation regarding progress made in meeting the minimum 
     indicators of program quality established under subsection 
     (b). The Administrator, the Secretary, and the Foundation 
     shall disseminate such information widely to the public 
     through electronic and other means.''.
       (e) Restrictions on Federal Government and Use of Federal 
     Funds.--The National Environmental Education Act (20 U.S.C. 
     5501 et seq.), as amended by subsection (d), is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 14. RESTRICTIONS ON FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND USE OF 
                   FEDERAL FUNDS.

       ``(a) General Prohibition.--Nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal 
     Government to mandate, direct, or control a State, local 
     educational agency, or school's curriculum, program of 
     instruction, specific instructional content, academic 
     achievement standards, assessments, or allocation of State or 
     local resources, or mandate a State or any subdivision 
     thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for 
     under this Act.
       ``(b) Prohibition on Endorsement of Curriculum.--No funds 
     provided to the Administrator or Secretary under this Act may 
     be used by the Agency or Department of Education to endorse, 
     approve, or sanction any curriculum designed to be used in an 
     elementary school or secondary school.
       ``(c) Prohibition on Requiring Federal Approval or 
     Certification of Standards.--No State shall be required to 
     have academic content or student academic achievement 
     standards approved or certified by the Federal Government, in 
     order to receive assistance under this Act.
       ``(d) Restrictions on Partisan Political Influence.--
       ``(1) In general.--In carrying out the activities described 
     in this Act, the Administrator and Secretary shall ensure 
     that such activities--
       ``(A) conform to high standards of quality, integrity, and 
     accuracy;
       ``(B) are objective, neutral, and nonideological and are 
     free of partisan political influence; and
       ``(C) do not advocate a particular political viewpoint.
       ``(2) Actions to implement and enforce.--The Administrator 
     and Secretary shall take such actions as are necessary to 
     ensure that the provisions of this section are vigorously 
     implemented and enforced.''.
       (f) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) of the National Environmental Education Act (20 U.S.C. 
     5501 note) is amended by striking the item relating to 
     section 11 and inserting the following:

``Sec. 11. National capacity environmental education grant program.
``Sec. 12. Accountability.
``Sec. 13. Authorization.
``Sec. 14. Restrictions on Federal Government and use of Federal 
              funds.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in 
order except those printed in House Report 110-854. Each amendment 
shall be considered only in the order printed in the report; by a 
Member designated in the report; shall be considered read; shall be 
debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent of the amendment; shall not 
be subject to amendment; and shall not be subject to a demand for 
division of the question.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Sarbanes

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 
printed in House Report 110-854.

[[Page H8445]]

  Mr. SARBANES. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Maryland the designee of 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller)?
  Mr. SARBANES. Yes, Madam Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Sarbanes:
       Page 10, strike lines 1 through 8 and insert the following:
       ``(D) address issues of environmental justice, including 
     policies and methods for eliminating disparate enforcement of 
     environmental laws and regulations, including with respect to 
     low-income communities.
       Page 10, strike lines 9 through 11 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(3) Developing and implementing new policy approaches to 
     environmental education, which shall include a discussion 
     of--
       ``(A) the benefits and costs to the environment and to 
     consumers regarding increasing  the  supply of energy 
     produced in the United States from--
       ``(i) oil and gas drilling;
       ``(ii) nuclear power;
       ``(iii) new coal technologies; and
       ``(iv) clean renewable and alternative sources of energy, 
     including wind,  solar, geothermal, hydropower,  and advanced 
     biofuels; and
       ``(B) the best strategies for reducing energy consumption 
     through  an enhanced emphasis on  efficiency and 
     conservation.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1441, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Madam Chairman, this amendment would seek to strengthen 
and improve the legislation in a number of ways.
  First, it clarifies that funds that are issued under the National 
Capacity Environmental Education Grant Program, which is the new 
program that's being created here under the U.S. Department of 
Education, that those funds can be used to address environmental 
justice issues that may arise in low-income communities.
  We heard earlier from Representative Clarke of New York, who has made 
this issue a passion of hers and introduced the underlying amendment in 
the mark-up at the committee level. This is an important additional 
element for the bill.
  Secondly, the amendment clarifies that funds used to develop and 
implement new policy approaches to environmental education will include 
a discussion of the benefits and the costs to the environment and to 
consumers with respect to increasing the supply of energy produced in 
the United States from a variety of sources.
  This is, again, an important amendment. It signals, I think, that 
good quality environmental education--almost by definition--is going to 
focus the next generation on dealing with these very challenging issues 
and what the proper balance needs to be between developing our energy 
sources and conservation and other environmental issues, which is, 
frankly, at the heart of much of the debate that we're having these 
days. So this is also, I think, an important addition to the bill.
  And thirdly, the amendment that we are proposing here provides that 
the policy approaches developed under this bill must also include a 
discussion of the best strategies for reducing energy consumption. 
Again, any meaningful environmental education should include looking at 
all of these various policy approaches.
  With that, Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, although I will not oppose it.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from California 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to thank Chairman Miller for offering this amendment, and Mr. 
Sarbanes for filling in.
  This amendment clarifies that the Federal Government will not impose 
an environmental justice curriculum on our Nation's schools. This issue 
was debated during the committee consideration of the bill and it was 
an issue on which there was disagreement between the majority and the 
minority. I believe that the bill approved by our committee went too 
far in this regard because it could have required State and local 
officials to develop specific environmental justice curricula.
  We have long believed that specific curricula--which is taught in 
individual classrooms--is best determined at the local level. And while 
this bill contains a broad prohibition on Federal curriculum 
development, I believe it was necessary to clarify the environmental 
justice language as well so that there would be no confusion as to what 
the Federal Government is or is not demanding of our schools. Chairman 
Miller worked closely with me to refine this language, and I want to 
thank him for his willingness to do so.
  This amendment also contains some interesting language that was added 
earlier this week, presumably in response to efforts on our side of the 
aisle to ensure this bill does not ignore critical energy issues.
  Republicans proposed amendments to advance the understanding of the 
environmental and economic benefits of clean coal and oil shale 
production, energy production in the ANWR, and energy production on the 
Outer Continental Shelf. We proposed amendments to advance the 
understanding of the environmental and economic benefits of nuclear 
power, and of American-made energy, and of the all-of-the-above energy 
strategy, which would increase production, promote conservation, and 
expand innovation. We think that each of these issues deserves a full 
and open debate because an all-of-the-above energy strategy does not 
ignore any aspect of energy reform.

                              {time}  1600

  Although our amendments were not made in order, I was pleased to see 
that the Miller amendment now includes language to ensure that 
environmental education programs include a discussion of the costs and 
benefits of oil and gas drilling, of nuclear power, of new coal 
technologies, and of renewable energy sources. While this language is 
not as strong and comprehensive as what the Republicans had offered, I 
appreciate its inclusion nonetheless.
  The truth is we need to be talking about energy more, not less. We 
passed an energy bill earlier this week that won't increase energy 
production. We passed an energy bill that puts American resources under 
lock and key instead of opening them up to environmentally safe 
production that will create jobs and that will bring down energy 
prices. This sham of a bill that we passed raises taxes and stands to 
drive consumer prices up, not down.
  So I'm glad we're going to be talking to our children about the 
benefits of American energy production. It's a conversation we should 
be having here in Congress as well.
  Once again, I want to thank Chairman Miller for working with me to 
clarify the environmental justice aspect of this legislation, and I 
look forward to supporting this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SARBANES. Does the gentleman have any additional speakers? I'm 
prepared to yield back, and I would reserve the right to close.
  Mr. McKEON. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SARBANES. Madam Chairman, again, I would urge the passage of this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SARBANES. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland 
will be postponed.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands that amendments No. 2 and 
3 will not be offered.


            Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Welch of Vermont

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 
printed in House Report 110-854.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk 
made in order under the rule.

[[Page H8446]]

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Welch of Vermont:
       Page 8, line 7, insert ``municipalities,'' after 
     ``agencies,''.
       Page 8, line 15, insert ``a municipality,'' after 
     ``education,''.
       Page 12, line 8, insert ``municipality,'' after ``Each''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1441, the gentleman 
from Vermont (Mr. Welch) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. My amendment is quite simple.
  It would add municipalities to the list of entities eligible for the 
National Capacity Environmental Education Grant Program. Keep in mind, 
anyone who is going to be successful has to go through a competitive 
grant process.
  The reason for that is the municipalities are the ones that at the 
grassroots level oftentimes provide these services. Obviously, we all 
live in towns or in cities, and this environmental education initiative 
outlined in the legislation is being offered, in many cases, by small 
towns in rural America and in large towns elsewhere. In fact, in 
smaller towns, it's the local Parks and Recreation Department. That's a 
subset, obviously, of the municipality and who is the ultimate intended 
beneficiary of this opportunity. It's the Parks and Rec Department that 
takes the lead in providing environmental education to our kids. This 
amendment would allow those agencies to participate.
  According to the National Park and Recreation Association, an entity 
that has endorsed this amendment, municipal park systems are the best 
and most logical partners for schools and for other educational 
agencies across the country to develop effective environmental 
education programs.
  In my own State of Vermont, environmental education programs are 
offered by almost every town during their summer programming. The 
programs are great for the kids in helping them appreciate the 
environment and the value of protecting it. The town of Colchester, for 
instance, boasts four summer environmental education offerings. 
Killington, Vermont did a survey, and it revealed that the majority of 
citizens thinks their town should offer through parks and recreation 
such an education program.
  Such programs are committed to providing diverse, accessible and 
effective environmental education at the grassroots. This amendment 
will bolster these efforts by assuring properly trained staff and the 
best materials. Tested instruction strategies are available for and are 
integrated into environmental programming.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying 
bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. McKEON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The bill before us is about environmental education. Specifically, it 
is about teaching elementary and secondary students about the world in 
which they live, about the natural resources of our great Nation and 
about the stewardship of our environment and of our resources for the 
future.
  This legislation provides grants to State and local education 
agencies, to institutions of higher education or to nonprofit 
organizations. The resources are targeted to ensure they will directly 
benefit students. This amendment, as I understand it, would make 
``municipalities eligible for these grants as well.'' Unfortunately, 
that term is not defined, leaving open to interpretation just exactly 
how far we would be expanding this program.
  Without a clear and narrow definition, this amendment could open up 
the funding to any number of entities, including cities, townships, 
districts or county governments, to name just a few. In other words, 
this amendment opens the limited resources under the bill to 
organizations that may or may not provide the direct services to 
students that we're seeking.
  I support local control and local partnerships. That's why I support 
the Courtney amendment, which allows partnerships with State and local 
park departments. Through that model, we provide grants directly to 
educational organizations, which can then partner with the local 
organizations we're talking about now that can enrich the environmental 
education experience.
  I understand what the gentleman is trying to accomplish with this 
amendment, and I'd like to work with him to see if we can get there, 
but at this time, I'm opposed to this amendment because it's not clear 
enough about prioritizing funds for educational entities that provide 
direct services to students. I know that the majority is working with 
us to clarify the definition of ``municipality.''
  As this bill moves forward, I look forward to working with them to 
ensure we do not dilute the limited resources of this program away from 
the students they're intended for.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I appreciate the concerns expressed by the 
gentleman from California, but I think I can assure him that the 
definition won't dilute the program, and there are two reasons.
  One, the term ``municipality'' does have a legal definition. It's a 
city, basically, or an entity as defined in the code of the applicable 
State. In Vermont--and I think this is pretty much true around the 
country--you have subdivisions. You have the Parks and Rec Department. 
The point here is that it is the Parks and Rec Department that is 
oftentimes doing this kind of work.
  So what this amendment would do, I think, is it would achieve that 
goal of local control and delivery at the most elemental and local of 
levels, which I think is an objective that the gentleman from 
California and I share.
  The other thing that gives me some reassurance--and it may not quite 
reach the level of assurance that the gentleman from California looks 
to--is that the grants will be competitive, so there will be a process 
that applicants have to go through, whether they're a municipality or 
whether they're any other entity making an application. It will be 
reviewed by an impartial authority. Let's certainly hope that's the 
case. Then the merit-based decision will be that this application looks 
like it's going to help a lot of kids and be effective, and it will be 
granted on that basis, not on the name of the applicant or on that of 
the particular entity.
  So I really do appreciate the concerns that were offered. I have more 
comfort with the constraints of the definition of ``municipality,'' 
apparently, than does my friend from California, but ultimately, the 
backstop here is that independent review that is going to be the final 
arbiter of who gets these competitive opportunities.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. I appreciate the gentleman. As I said, I appreciate his 
amendment, and I appreciate his effort in this regard.
  This points out, once again, to me that we have a large country with 
435 congressional districts. Just within my congressional district, we 
have cities; we have counties; we have towns; we have towns that really 
don't have a government responsibility, but they're kind of granted 
that, and that's just in my district. I haven't had the opportunity to 
visit your district. I'm sure that in each of the 435 districts we 
would find different ways that this would be treated, and that is my 
concern is how we define that.
  I think the gentleman's bill is directed towards students to help 
students get the education of environmental studies that he would like 
to see and that I support. The concern that I have again is that, if we 
direct it as your amendment would, it may be directed away from 
students. I think that this could be worked out. As we know, we are not 
going to finish this up in this Congress anyway, so it will be 
something that will carry over next year. Should we all happen by some 
circumstance to win our elections, we'll be back here in a few months, 
working on this again, but at this point, I would still have to oppose 
the amendment, hoping that we could work this out in the future.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California has the right to 
close.

[[Page H8447]]

  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. I think I've said everything I needed to say.
  I would yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Courtney

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report 110-854.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 12, line 19, after ``section.'' insert the following: 
     ``Such application may describe how the applicant has 
     partnered, or intends to partner, with a State and local park 
     and recreation department.''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1441, the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Chairman, this is the ultimate friendly amendment 
to this very solid bill, on which I commend the gentleman from Maryland 
for his leadership. Based on Mr. McKeon's positive comments earlier, I 
should probably make this very short and sweet.
  In a nutshell, what this amendment does is it encourages 
organizations that apply for this environmental education grant program 
to describe on their application for Federal grants how they have 
partnered or how they intend to partner with a State or with a local 
park and recreation department.
  As was mentioned in the earlier colloquy, Park and Recreation 
Departments all over the country already are very involved in 
environmental education programs, and that certainly holds true also 
for State park systems.
  In Connecticut, we actually have a program, by coincidence, called 
the No Child Left Inside Program, which was instituted in 2006 by the 
Republican Governor of Connecticut, Jodi Rell, and by her outstanding 
commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection, which again 
is following exactly the same mission that Mr. Sarbanes' bill is 
following, to encourage children to get outside, to experience nature, 
to learn about nature, and to hopefully stimulate an interest in 
environmental science, which again, as has been said many times here 
during the earlier debate, is an important way to make sure that we get 
children engaged and involved in science, technology, engineering, and 
math, which the education committee has spent many hours wrestling with 
because we clearly have an educational system which is not producing 
enough scientists and engineers to meet the workforce challenges of our 
country.
  The Connecticut program utilizes State park systems which, again, are 
perfectly established right now to provide trained personnel, 
transportation equipment and programs funding to again provide a very 
solid and an enriching experience in nature. They work together with 
school systems in a variety of programs.
  The Appalachian Connection program, which again uses the Appalachian 
Trail which goes through Connecticut, works collaboratively with school 
systems to bring children out to the Appalachian Trail. It's just an 
extraordinary part of Connecticut's environment.
  In Bolton, Connecticut, they have the geography in October program. 
In Preston, Connecticut, there is a recycling program, which again is 
operated through the No Child Left Inside Program.
  There are many examples of where working in collaboration between the 
State's park system and local school boards has really, again, provided 
a perfect model and an example of what this legislation seeks to 
achieve.
  The National Recreation and Park Association and local parks 
departments all over the country have endorsed this amendment. It's a 
``may'' not ``shall'' amendment, so it is purely voluntary in terms of 
encouraging local school districts to participate.

                              {time}  1615

  In conclusion, I just wanted to comment on some of the prior 
discussion regarding the energy needs of this country and how come we 
are taking up a bill like this.
  In my State, where we have an active nuclear power plant that 
provides 40 percent of the power of the State, we build nuclear 
submarines in my district, if you talk to people in the industry, an 
industry which in America has not built a nuclear reactor since 1973, 
in fact the biggest challenge is not financing or national energy 
policy, because we have over 20 new applications for new nuclear 
reactors before the NRC today. If you talk to the people in the 
industry, their biggest challenge is human capital, that the average 
age of a nuclear engineer in this country is over age 55.
  Because of that gap, which has existed because for a million 
different reasons, if we are really serious about promoting nuclear 
power as an avenue in the future, and with the cap and trade debate 
that is looming on the horizon in the future I believe it is going to 
be part our energy portfolio, the fact of the matter is we have to get 
serious about getting kids engaged and involved in science and 
engineering. And Mr. Sarbanes' legislation is all about that. It is 
exactly focused on the real energy needs that we have in this country, 
which is to create the scientists and engineers that are going to 
provide the solutions in all of the above avenues.
  Madam Chairman, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, although I will not oppose it.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from California 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Chairman, as I stated earlier, I support the 
gentleman's amendment and commend him on it.
  Madam Chairman, over the last several years, the National Park 
Service has increasingly relied on partnerships with outside entities 
to fulfill its mission and foster a shared sense of stewardship for our 
environment and natural resources. In fact, a number of National Park 
Service programs operate almost exclusively through partnerships.
  One way the National Park Service is supporting environmental 
education is through professional development opportunities for 
teachers. These include helping teachers utilize park resources in the 
classroom or preparing classes for a park visit. Most of these 
workshops are accredited and can be taken for college credit, and are 
structured to meet the needs of today's teacher--teaching to academic 
content standards while making the material engaging and relevant.
  Because of the existing commitment on the part of the National Park 
Service to provide educational enrichment, the bill allows grantees to 
enter into National Park Service partnerships as a means to increase 
the knowledge and understanding of environmental education.
  The Courtney amendment goes beyond this focus on the National Park 
Service, by allowing grant applicants to discuss through the grant 
application process how they have partnered, or intend to partner, with 
a state and local park and recreation department.
  I support this amendment because it maintains the current funding 
structure--in which we provide grants to educational organizations--
while making clear that students can benefit from the creativity, 
experience, and resources of local programs. These types of 
partnerships could benefit students by enriching their environmental 
education experience, and I thank the gentleman for offering this 
amendment to clarify that these partnerships are permissible, and 
welcome, under the legislation.
  This amendment builds on the existing emphasis we have placed on 
partnerships with the National Park Service, and I am happy to support 
it.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Sarbanes

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the 
unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 
1 printed in

[[Page H8448]]

House Report 110-854 by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 383, 
noes 23, not voting 32, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 612]

                               AYES--383

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Cazayoux
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Childers
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Drake
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--23

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Boyda (KS)
     Broun (GA)
     Burton (IN)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Conaway
     Deal (GA)
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Foxx
     Gingrey
     Hoekstra
     Johnson, Sam
     Lewis (KY)
     Manzullo
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Paul
     Tancredo
     Weldon (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--32

     Biggert
     Bishop (UT)
     Brady (TX)
     Burgess
     Castor
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Dreier
     Faleomavaega
     Feeney
     Fortuno
     Grijalva
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hulshof
     Issa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Lampson
     Mahoney (FL)
     Marchant
     Nunes
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pitts
     Poe
     Pryce (OH)
     Sestak
     Udall (CO)
     Wu


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in 
the vote.

                              {time}  1647

  Messrs. CANTOR, MORAN of Kansas, ADERHOLT, MILLER of Florida, 
MANZULLO, Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas, Messrs. GINGREY and BURTON of Indiana 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. TIAHRT, CAMPBELL of California, GOHMERT, FLAKE, BONNER, KING 
of Iowa, WALBERG and ROHRABACHER changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in 
the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Weiner) having assumed the chair, Ms. DeGette, Acting Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3036) to 
amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 regarding 
environmental education, and for other purposes, pursuant to House 
Resolution 1441, she reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole? If not, the question is on 
the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


           Motion to Recommit offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the 
desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Price of Georgia moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3036 
     to the Committee on Education and Labor with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith, with the 
     following amendments:
       Page 20, after line 17, insert the following:
       (f) Priorities for and Prohibitions on the Use of Federal 
     Funds.--The National Environmental Education Act (20 U.S.C. 
     5501 et seq.), as amended by subsections (d) and (e), is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 15. PRIORITIES FOR AND PROHIBITIONS ON THE USE OF 
                   FEDERAL FUNDS.

       ``(a) Priority for Federal Funds.--In distributing funds 
     under this Act, priority shall be given to applications from 
     local educational agencies before funds are awarded to other 
     eligible applicants.
       ``(b) Prohibition on Lobbying.--No funds made available 
     under this Act may be made available to an organization, 
     defined to include any affiliated organization, that lobbies 
     or retains a lobbyist for the purpose of influencing a 
     Federal, State, or local governmental entity or officer, 
     including lobbyists

[[Page H8449]]

     employed or retained to advocate against the production and 
     exploration of American energy.
       ``(c) Balanced Presentation of Information.--No funds made 
     available under this Act may be made available to an 
     organization, defined to include any affiliated organization, 
     that, in its information and publications (including paper, 
     electronic, web-based and any other format), fails to provide 
     a balanced presentation of environmental issues by providing 
     readers with the full spectrum of scholarly viewpoints on the 
     subjects examined.''.
       Page 20, line 18, strike ``(f)'' and insert ``(g)''.
       Page 20, in the matter following line 21, after the table 
     of contents item relating to section 14, insert the 
     following:

  ``Sec. 15. Priorities for and prohibitions on the use of Federal 
              funds.''.

  Mr. SARBANES (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent to dispense with the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will continue to read.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, environmental education increases 
awareness and knowledge about environmental issues while providing 
needed skills to make informed decisions. When utilized appropriately, 
it enhances critical thinking and problem solving but does so without 
advocating a particular viewpoint or a course of action.
  But the bill before the House today is establishing a framework that 
could become ripe for abuse, with outside factions directing learning 
in the classroom. It is why Republicans are offering this motion to 
recommit in order to ensure there is no undue political influence in 
the classroom while protecting the interest of taxpayers.
  This motion to recommit is a commonsense package of safeguards aimed 
at protecting taxpayers' wallets, limiting special interest influence, 
and taking partisanship out of the classroom. Currently, none of those 
safeguards are present in this bill.
  The first safeguard ensures that priority funding goes to local 
school districts first. Since 1992, more than 50 percent of 
environmental education grants have gone to nonprofit organizations. 
American taxpayers are paying for these programs, so it makes sense 
that their dollars go to local schools and children before third 
parties.
  The second safeguard prohibits funding to any organization that 
lobbies or retains a lobbyist, especially those special interests that 
routinely advocate against more American-made energy for Americans. It 
is no coincidence that the same groups and affiliates which are suing 
to block oil and gas leases are also lobbying and receiving funds for 
environmental education.
  And the final safeguard makes certain that information in the 
classroom is fair and balanced. Its aim is to ensure that classrooms 
remain free of partisan or political influence and that science, not a 
political or ideological agenda, is what students are taking away from 
their learning experiences.
  In committee I raised the point that certain organizations, 
textbooks, and curricula have misinformed students by advocating 
erroneous specific measures to address environmental problems. Even 
worse, environmental information has been presented with unbalanced or 
scientifically inaccurate data.
  On this side of the aisle, Republicans do not want such uneven 
portrayal. But there is a greater reason for offering this package of 
reforms: Republicans do not want the very same radical special 
interests that are directing energy policy in the United States to have 
the same influence in our classrooms.
  The high price of gasoline is squeezing family budgets. And this 
Congress has yet to cast a vote during this energy crisis that truly 
expands exploration and the production of American-made energy.
  Republicans have a plan to increase domestic production, provide tax 
credits to promote clean and reliable sources of energy, and encourage 
conservation to ease demand for gasoline. But roadblock after roadblock 
has been erected.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly 50 days since the Speaker and this 
majority, the majority party, turned off the microphones, turned off 
the cameras, and turned down the lights and silenced the will of the 
American people on the House floor. Nearly 50 days since the good folks 
across the aisle made it abundantly clear that election year special 
interests are more important than the public interests.
  Republicans are going to continue to champion for an all-of-the-above 
energy solution. But this is a moment in which the House can make 
certain that those who are writing our Nation's anti-energy policies 
are not directing learning in the classroom as well.
  Republicans want to hold these programs to the highest standards of 
quality, accuracy and neutrality. This will only happen if funding is 
going to schools first, special interests are not shaping the education 
agenda, and there is a balanced presentation of information.
  In conclusion, this motion to recommit is a trio of commonsense ideas 
that keeps children at the forefront while maintaining high standards 
for science in the classroom.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt this forthwith motion to recommit.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, there are two ways to effectively kill a 
bill. One is to make a motion ``promptly,'' which would send it back to 
committee. That is not what has happened here. This is a ``forthwith'' 
motion which brings it right back with the instructions that have been 
put on it. But the other way to kill a bill is to put instructions on 
it that essentially gut it and completely undermine what it is supposed 
to do, and that is the nature of this particular motion to recommit.
  I object to it on a number of grounds. First of all, the provision 
relating to priority with respect to LEAs, there are a number of 
eligible entities under this bill that can participate in the 
competitive grant process, local education agencies, State educational 
agencies, higher education institutions, nonprofits and so forth. They 
all should be part of the same competitive bidding process to get these 
dollars to try to fund environmental education.
  Secondly, I object because this second provision that has to do with 
lobbying in fact will end up having the effect that some of the very 
organizations that are in the best position to provide good strong 
environmental education to the next generation will be prohibited from 
delivering. And as far as that goes, it means that A and B are 
internally inconsistent because A would give a priority to the very 
kind of organization that B seeks to prevent from getting these funds. 
So it doesn't make sense on its face.
  So I would urge very strongly that my colleagues oppose the motion to 
recommit forthwith.
  This is a good bill. It is an important bill. You don't have to take 
my word for it. There are 750 organizations across the country that are 
part of the No Child Left Inside Coalition. This is made up of public 
health advocates, sportsmen, environmentalists, educators, all 
recognizing the need to provide this critical education to the next 
generation.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SARBANES. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding, 
and I just want my colleagues to fully understand.
  This is a bill that is designed for environmental education. I 
understand the gentleman doesn't like the bill. He voted against it in 
committee, one of the few Republicans that did. He doesn't like it. 
They are disappointed because we passed comprehensive energy reform and 
they have lost their energy debate.
  But most importantly this: under this amendment, a school could not 
get money for environmental education. The Governors Association could 
not get money for environmental education, universities could not get 
money for environmental education, so who the hell would get the money 
for environmental education because

[[Page H8450]]

under this amendment the very organizations that are supposed to be 
developing the program are prohibited because they hire lobbyists. Yes, 
the Governors have a lobbyist; universities have a lobbyist; school 
districts have lobbyists for the State or what have you. They are 
immediately excluded.
  So here we are again. The gentleman from Maryland has presented a 
comprehensive bill, a well-thought-out bill that has incredible support 
across the board by educational organizations and nonprofits and others 
who want to engage and step up the environmental education in this 
country. This amendment would absolutely prohibit these organizations 
from participating.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. SARBANES. Just to reiterate, Mr. Speaker, I oppose this motion 
vehemently. This bill will provide so many benefits to the next 
generation, public health benefits by getting our kids outside and into 
nature and active, economic development benefits because we're going to 
be educating the next generation of scientists and entrepreneurs that 
are going to make the difference when it comes to pursuing alternative 
sources of fuel and renewable sources of fuel. It will engage kids in 
learning, activate all their senses.
  And finally, finally, it's going to raise awareness about the 
environment. The only way we're going to save our environment, save 
treasures like the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland is if millions of people 
develop good habits when it comes to the environment. Our children are 
the ones that are going to do it, but they can only do it if we provide 
them with this educational support.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to recommit.
  I yield back.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 
5-minute votes on passage of H.R. 3036, if ordered; and motion to 
suspend the rules on H.R. 6460.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 172, 
noes 230, not voting 31, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 613]

                               AYES--172

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Paul
     Pearce
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Platts
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--230

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Cazayoux
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--31

     Biggert
     Bishop (UT)
     Brady (TX)
     Burgess
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Dingell
     Dreier
     Flake
     Grijalva
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hinojosa
     Hulshof
     Issa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Lampson
     Marchant
     Markey
     Nunes
     Pence
     Pitts
     Poe
     Pryce (OH)
     Ryan (OH)
     Sestak
     Shays
     Slaughter


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are reminded there 
are less than 2 minutes remaining on the vote.

                              {time}  1717

  Mr. HALL of Texas changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, on September 18, 2008, I missed one recorded 
vote.
  I take my voting responsibility very seriously. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no'' on recorded vote No. 613.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 613, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 293, 
nays 109, not voting 31, as follows:

[[Page H8451]]

                             [Roll No. 614]

                               YEAS--293

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Cazayoux
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hayes
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--109

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Duncan
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Hall (TX)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Inglis (SC)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCotter
     McHenry
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Paul
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Scalise
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Walberg
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--31

     Biggert
     Bishop (UT)
     Brady (TX)
     Burgess
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Dreier
     Everett
     Flake
     Grijalva
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Lampson
     Marchant
     McCrery
     McMorris Rodgers
     Nunes
     Pence
     Pitts
     Poe
     Pryce (OH)
     Richardson
     Sestak
     Walden (OR)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are reminded there 
are less than 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1725

  Mr. BROWN of South Carolina changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The title of the bill was amended so as to read: ``A bill to 
reauthorize and enhance the National Environmental Education Act, and 
for other purposes.''.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________