[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12337-12343]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1030
   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2187, 21ST CENTURY GREEN HIGH-
                PERFORMING PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES ACT

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution H. Res. 427 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 427

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2187) to direct the Secretary of Education to 
     make grants to State educational agencies for the 
     modernization, renovation, or repair of public school 
     facilities, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Education and Labor. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Education and Labor now 
     printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of 
     a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     are waived except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. 
     Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may 
     be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-
Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. POLIS. I further ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 
5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and 
insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 427 provides for a structured rule for 
consideration of H.R. 2187, the 21st Century Green High-Performing 
Public School Facilities Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the rule and the underlying bill. I 
thank Congressman Chandler, Congressman Loebsack, Congressman Kildee, 
Chairman Miller, and the entire staff of the Education and Labor 
Committee for their hard work in reintroducing this bipartisan, 
critical legislation to modernize and green American schools.
  Every child in America has the right to an excellent education. This 
can only be achieved through the best teachers in safe schools and 
productive learning environments equipped with the resources required 
to succeed. Anything else is increasingly unacceptable in the 21st 
century.

[[Page 12338]]

  Unfortunately, as a Nation, we are unable to meet this basic 
standard. According to the American Federation of Teachers, our schools 
fall short of being in good condition by an estimated $255 billion. The 
American Society of Civil Engineers gave our Nation's schools a D on 
the national infrastructure report card.
  The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which we passed earlier 
this year, will go a long way towards correcting this horrifying 
statistic. However, we can't stop with the Recovery Act. This is too 
important an issue.
  Overcrowding and crumbling and unsafe schools and classrooms are an 
everyday reality for students, teachers, and staff in too many parts of 
our country. In Colorado, the backlog of school construction and 
maintenance needs that has been documented has been estimated between 
$6 billion and $10 billion.
  This backlog puts the health, safety, and achievement of our students 
at risk. Healthy students learn better and are better prepared to meet 
the high standards of the workforce. The students of today will be the 
professionals and citizens of tomorrow. They must be ready to meet 
unexpected challenges, such as today's economic crisis, and they must 
be empowered to bring America to the next level of innovation and 
discovery and the pathway to prosperity.
  As a former superintendent, I can tell you that modern, 
environmentally friendly classrooms are necessary for teachers to 
perform and for students to learn. Research shows that high-quality 
school environments contribute to higher education achievement and 
lower teacher attrition. Yet, States and school districts are unable to 
keep up with these basic needs. This is especially true during the 
severe recession. This $6.4 billion investment will produce direct and 
major economic and environmental benefits.
  This legislation represents a giant step forward in ensuring that 
school buildings are modernized, repaired, and renovated to meet 
students' and teachers' needs. This will be a positive impact on 
residential property values and economic development efforts. It 
creates an estimated 136,000 jobs in communities across the country at 
a time when we desperately need them.
  By making schools more energy efficient and less reliant on fossil 
fuels, this bill will also help reduce the emissions that contribute to 
global warming, as well as cut energy costs, saving operational money 
for schools and local governments.
  This bill will stimulate local economies, while protecting the 
environment. The added benefit of job creation in the areas hardest hit 
by the recession will be an important component of our economic 
recovery.
  When I think about the devastation of the Gulf Coast, where schools 
have been overlooked for decades and, in many cases, were washed away 
by flood waters of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, it really brings home 
the need for passing this Federal assistance program.
  The African America Environmentalist Association estimates that the 
legislation will support hundreds of thousands of new construction jobs 
and invest more than half a billion dollars for school facility 
improvements in the troubled region of the Gulf Coast.
  In 2006, I had the honor of cochairing a successful campaign for a 
$300 million bond initiative for Boulder Valley School District in my 
congressional district to address their school needs. But many low-
income districts in Colorado don't have the capacity to finance the 
necessary school upgrades.
  That's why I'm particularly pleased that this legislation addresses 
income disparities by allocating funds to States and districts based on 
their share of students from low-income families. This way, we can 
ensure that the funding reaches the schools and students that need it 
the most.
  Communities in my home State of Colorado will receive over $70 
million, which will enable much needed improvements in our schools. I 
look forward to visiting these schools as they continue to work on 
making their improvements.
  Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to visit schools in Adams 
County, Boulder Valley, Mapleton, and Westminster, and observed the 
progress that this bill will make possible for the children of 
Colorado.
  Finally, I'd like to again thank Chairman Miller and the committee 
for ensuring that public charter schools receive their fair share of 
the funding as well.
  On behalf of my constituents in Colorado, especially the students, 
parents, and educators, I'd like to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' 
on the bill and the rule.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank my friend, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Polis), for the time. I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  The condition of our public schools is increasingly becoming a 
troubling issue. Parents, students, and teachers feel that many schools 
are increasingly overcrowded, unsafe, and obsolete, detracting from 
student performance.
  The deteriorating conditions in many schools has forced school 
systems throughout the Nation to spend progressively more of their 
budgets on school renovations and construction projects instead of on 
students and teachers.
  Today, the House of Representatives is set to consider H.R. 2187, the 
21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act. This 
bill will direct the Secretary of Education to make grants and low-
interest loans to local educational agencies for the construction, 
modernization, or repair of public educational facilities. These funds 
will help school systems pay for renovations and construction projects 
so that they can dedicate more of their budgets to improving the 
education of our Nation's students.
  It also requires the funds to be used only for projects that meet 
certain green standards, such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental 
Design, known as LEED; Energy Star, or an equivalent State or local 
standard.
  One of the central tenets of the majority party's campaign both in 
2006 and in 2008 was that they would run Congress in a more open and 
bipartisan manner. For example, the distinguished Speaker said, We 
promise the American people that we would have the most honest and open 
government--and we will. However, that promise has yet to come to 
fruition, as the majority has consistently blocked an open process 
through their control of the Rules Committee.
  A prime example of how they have consistently stymied openness and 
bipartisanship can be seen by looking at the virtual absolute lack of 
open rules that they have allowed since they took control of the House 
of Representatives in 2006. In nearly 2\1/2\ years, the majority has 
allowed one open rule--and that was over 2 years ago.
  Instead of fulfilling their campaign promise, the majority 
consistently closes the amendment process and keeps Members from 
offering amendments to important legislation.
  Earlier this year, the majority rushed through some of the largest 
and most significant pieces of legislation through a closed rule 
process, including the nearly $800 billion so-called stimulus and the 
over $400 billion so-called omnibus appropriations bills.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I bring up this lack of an open process and the 
continued use of the closed rule by the majority because later today 
the Rules Committee is expected to meet to consider yet another closed 
rule for fiscal year 2009, the War Supplemental Appropriation Act. That 
legislation will provide over $90 billion to fund the Department of 
Defense and related programs.
  Now it is time that the majority lives up to its campaign promise and 
allows an open debate process. It's not enough to allow amendments on 
generally noncontroversial legislation like the one we bring to the 
floor today that authorizes over $6 billion for school construction. 
They should allow an open process, Mr. Speaker, on, for example, the 
over $90 billion supplemental appropriations bill that we will consider 
later this week, and on energy and health care legislation expected to 
be taken up in the coming weeks.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 12339]]


  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Hall).
  Mr. HALL of New York. I thank the gentleman from Colorado. Mr. 
Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill, 
H.R. 2187. I also must comment, I'm sorry that my friend and colleague 
from Florida feels that things like the 2009 appropriations bill was 
somehow closed, because not only was it agreed to last year in 
committee and subcommittee and through the normal appropriations 
process, but there were hundreds, if not thousands, of special 
appropriations or earmarks that some would say that were asked for and 
granted to Republican Members of Congress.
  So it's simply in that case not true that----
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Will my friend yield?
  Mr. HALL of New York. Yes, just for a second.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I was talking about the process 
that does not permit amendments on the floor. That's what we're 
referring to when we talk about closed rules.
  Mr. HALL of New York. I understand. Reclaiming my time, I want to 
talk----
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. The fact that there were earmarks 
in the bill is a separate debate.
  Mr. HALL of New York. Reclaiming my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York controls the 
time.
  Mr. HALL of New York. I'm reclaiming my time, sir. I only have 2 
minutes.

                              {time}  1045

  I just wanted to correct that bit of the Record.
  America's aging schools are in dire need of assistance. I am a former 
trustee and school board president. I have seen it. Buildings are 
crumbling while school districts are having trouble paying their energy 
bills. This bill would help school districts invest in repairs, 
construction and green modernization without passing the burden on to 
local taxpayers who in New York, I know, can't afford any more property 
tax.
  Schools in my district are already doing some of this work. For 
example, Arlington High School is installing solar panels to offset 
carbon emissions, panels that were lobbied for by the students who went 
to their school board, went to the State and came to us asking us if 
our office could help. The Haldane Central School District is planning 
to replace their old HVAC system with a cost-effective and renewable 
geothermal power system. But these and other districts in the Hudson 
Valley could use some help.
  As schools make repairs, hundreds of thousands of jobs will be 
available to hardworking Americans, good-paying jobs that cannot be 
outsourced.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and this legislation 
because it is good for our environment, good for our students, and good 
for our economy.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as 
he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Mr. KIRK. I rise in opposition to this rule on what is a relatively 
noncontroversial bill just to ask the majority, What are you afraid of? 
You have a 78-seat majority in the House of Representatives, but you 
are afraid that amendments may carry. It is an astonishing admission of 
weakness by the leadership that you cannot withstand a House vote on 
amendments. As someone who has been here as a staffer and a Member 
since 1984, I will tell you that closed rules generally end 
speakerships over time.


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will address his remarks to 
the Chair.
  Mr. KIRK. I stand corrected.
  I would just say that closed rules generally end speakerships over 
time because what happens is if you do not let democracy reign on the 
House floor, what happens is big bills wipe out. And we certainly saw 
this in the end of Speaker Wright's service when on closed rules he 
misguided the rules on the Chamber and then collapsed entire huge 
pieces of legislation, by the way, reconciliation legislation, which 
then wiped out his speakership.
  With a 78-seat majority, it is an astonishing admission of weakness 
that the leadership cannot win on amendment votes on the House floor 
and that they do not want to be subjected to scrutiny and feel that in 
the Speaker's office alone there is a judgment which will always carry 
the day on the House floor. And I will refer to the end of Speaker 
Wright's career, the end of Speaker Foley's career, even the end of 
Speaker Hastert's career, as a reflection that democracy is much better 
served if you can actually allow some controversial amendments or two. 
And to sit on a 78-vote majority and think you are going to lose on the 
House floor is an amazing admission on your part.
  Now one of the things that is not being considered, because this 
legislation closes down amendments, is a bipartisan amendment by 
Congressman Carney and me. Now, what we wanted to do was simply open up 
eligibility under this legislation to the 44 percent of American 
schools that, under the terms of this legislation, are not eligible for 
funding. This legislation stands for the principle that only roughly 60 
percent of schools in America can even apply for funding under this 
legislation and that 44 percent cannot apply.
  In my congressional district, we have seen good green school 
initiative programs like at the Thomas Middle school in Arlington 
Heights, in which they assembled public and donor funds for a 1-
kilowatt solar array on their roof and for conservation measures. They 
learned an important lesson. And by the way, the kids learned an 
important lesson that maybe solar power in Chicagoland did not have the 
greatest potential as in other parts of the country because we only 
have about 58 sunny days a year. It was an important renewable energy 
lesson where in the Windy City wind power might be the more appropriate 
solution. And I'm very happy that our students learned that lesson. And 
some of them may be inspired by their experience at Thomas to pick up a 
career in the field of science and engineering.
  We had a similar program at the Elm Place middle school in Highland 
Park, Illinois, a greening project in which the students reported that 
despite all of the attention on the renewable energy side, they 
actually saved more money with conservation. These are important 
lessons that we know apply to the Nation, as well, and I'm very happy 
the students were able to learn this lesson.
  Under our amendment that was rejected by this rule, we would have 
opened up just 1 percent of the funding in this legislation to the 
other 44 percent of schools, mainly suburban schools, which are locked 
out of any consideration of funding under this bill. In Illinois, there 
are 32 school districts that may not receive funding from this 
legislation. And I think that the other 44 percent should have been 
considered, that 44 percent of kids should have participated in green 
school projects, as the kids in my congressional district have done 
with their own money; and yet we rejected that possibility.
  It is astonishing because I think the Carney-Kirk amendment would 
have carried, would have provided an opportunity for a lot of kids in 
America to learn some very valuable lessons about the future of the 
economy, but also astonishing that on a 78-vote majority in this House 
of Representatives, the Democrat leadership feels that they will still 
regularly lose in open debate on this House floor.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, a few times I have heard reference to a 
closed rule. And I want to be entirely clear that what we are proposing 
is, in fact, a structured rule on this bill. There were 34 amendments 
that were submitted. We are forwarding for the consideration by the 
full House 14. So I do believe that arguments against a closed rule on 
this particular bill are not founded.
  I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Sutton).
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time and for 
the clarification about the nature of this rule.

[[Page 12340]]

  I rise today in support of the underlying legislation, H.R. 2187, the 
21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act, a bill 
that was considered, discussed, and passed already once by this House 
in the last Congress.
  This bill will improve the foundations of our education system and 
modernize our buildings to reflect the environmental realities before 
us. We know all too well that our treasured school districts are 
struggling to make essential improvements during these challenging 
economic times.
  It is critical that we improve our schools to ensure that students 
have a healthy and safe environment in which to learn and develop the 
skills necessary to compete in today's workforce. By facilitating 
development of sustainable schools, our students will have a healthy 
learning environment that will naturally promote environmental 
literacy. It is also essential that our schools are structurally sound 
and updated with the needed safety measures that will protect our youth 
from today's threats.
  And, Mr. Speaker, I am particularly supportive of a measure that was 
included in this Congress when this bill passed the House. That measure 
included an initiative which I championed that will allow schools to 
use funding from this bill to improve their building infrastructure 
with the necessary security measures and security doors.
  I am pleased that my provision remains in the current bill. And let 
me tell you why it is important. Brunswick High School, in my district, 
is the largest single-level high school building in Ohio, stretching 
one-quarter of a mile from end to end with 60 entrances. As you can 
imagine, this presents a difficult security challenge for teachers and 
administrators. But with this provision, the district can use the 
funding to update the high school's entrances to meet today's security 
needs.
  I am also proud that this legislation includes a ``Buy American'' 
provision. This provision will require that steel, iron and other 
manufactured goods used for the construction of these improvement 
projects are produced right here in the United States. The economic 
downturn has taken a toll on U.S. manufacturing, including the steel 
plants in my congressional district, and we need to put Americans back 
to work doing the work that America needs to have done.
  This bill also contains Davis-Bacon protections requiring that 
contractors who build these projects pay their workers the local 
prevailing wage which is so important to ensuring that workers are able 
to provide for their families. This is about families.
  Mr. Speaker, in these challenging economic times, important, 
innovative legislation such as this will go a long way to creating new 
opportunities for America's students and workforce.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, in case there was 
some confusion, we have not alleged that this is a closed rule. This is 
a rule that is known as a ``structured rule'' that permits, authorizes, 
some amendments to be debated and made other amendments not in order, 
in other words, did not authorize other amendments. We heard Mr. Kirk, 
for example, of Illinois, who had an amendment, proposed an amendment 
before the Rules Committee, and he explained it in detail. It was a 
bipartisan amendment. And it was not authorized. It was not made in 
order for debate today.
  What we are pointing out is that on legislation like this, for 
example, that has passed the House before, that today will likely pass 
the House again with a bipartisan vote, it really does not seem 
logical, and Mr. Kirk was quite eloquent in describing it, that ideas 
brought forth by Members are not allowed to be considered by the House.
  And with regard to closed rules, I pointed out that the rules that 
allow any Member to propose an amendment and have it debated, those 
are, as you know, Mr. Speaker, called ``open'' rules. And the majority, 
both in 2006 and 2008, promised an open process in their campaigns. In 
2\1/2\ years, they have allowed one open rule. So that is a major 
contrast with the promise. The reality contrasts quite dramatically 
with the promise.
  At this point, I would yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Miami for his 
management of this rule and his very, very thoughtful remarks and the 
way in which he addresses every single issue that comes before us. He 
has spoken very thoughtfully about the problem of shutting down the 
process and preventing Members who have an idea to come forward. He 
used the example of our friend from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  I want to talk, Mr. Speaker, about the overall thrust in which we are 
headed with this legislation. We had an interesting debate in the Rules 
Committee last night. And I will say that we all share the goal of 
ensuring that young people in this country have the best quality 
education possible, that they have a safe environment and that they 
have a comfortable environment in which to study. After all, if we are 
going to, as a Nation, remain competitive in this global economy, the 
single most important thing that we need to do is ensure that we have 
well educated young people to proceed with the challenges that exist in 
a global economy.
  But, Mr. Speaker, there is something that we need to remember that 
was a hallmark of the vision that the Framers of our Constitution put 
forward. And that is the notion of federalism, the responsibility of 
things that fall at the Federal level here in Washington, D.C., and the 
responsibility of things that should remain at the State and local 
level.
  My State of California is going through the toughest economic times 
that it has ever faced, I believe. We just received a report that the 
deficit itself is double what had been projected. And we have, I think, 
really difficult days ahead. But we need to remember, Mr. Speaker, that 
the number one priority for the number one budget item for our State of 
California happens to be the issue of education.

                              {time}  1100

  There are States across this country that are not faced with the 
difficulty that we are in California. The best example came forward by 
our new colleague, Mr. Roe, who was the former mayor of Johnson City, 
Tennessee. And he was able to outline in his role as mayor the success 
that they are having with the expenditure of $50 million to not only 
improve the physical quality of the schools themselves, but their 
effort to reduce energy costs, which I know is part of the greening 
goal here. They are saving money by using more efficient ways to heat 
and cool the schools, so they are actually witnessing a savings there. 
But this is all being done at the local level. That is the argument 
that we have here.
  As we look at a budget deficit this year that is larger than the 
entire Federal budget was a mere decade ago, I think we need to analyze 
what responsibilities under this role of federalism the Federal 
Government should continue to take. No one is going to stand here and 
say that they don't want to ensure that the ceilings don't collapse in 
schools. They will not stand here and say that they should be air-
conditioned in the winter and heated in the summer. No one is going to 
argue in favor of a less than perfect physical structure for students.
  But what I believe we need to argue is how do you pay for that. And 
again, I believe very strongly that we, as a Federal Government, have 
reached way too far into so many different areas. Right now we are 
looking at doing this in the area of health care, energy, a wide range 
of areas. We are looking at dramatically increasing the exercise and 
scope and reach of the Federal Government. Today we have another 
example of that.
  Now, there will be people who will argue that if you are not 
supportive of this measure that you somehow want substandard schools in 
this country. That is just absolute lunacy. We are just saying that the 
Federal Government can't do absolutely everything.
  So in the name of fairness, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule 
which

[[Page 12341]]

 does not provide Mr. Kirk and others the chance that they should have 
to offer amendments. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Klein).
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and rise in 
strong support of H.R. 2187. This important legislation will fund much-
needed repairs to public school buildings, reduce their carbon 
footprint, and maximize scarce education resources by saving our 
schools money on energy costs. By investing up front in sustainable 
renovations to our public school facilities, we can help slash their 
energy bills by as much as 33 percent in the long term and free up more 
money to invest in teacher retention, textbooks, after-school 
activities, and a number of other things that are so important to our 
children's education.
  In my home State of Florida, school construction and renovation 
projects for school buildings are a desperate situation. Unfortunately, 
they have been postponed indefinitely time and time again as our 
schools struggle to fund their most basic needs, such as school 
supplies, school lunch programs, teacher salaries, and general 
operating costs. These Federal funds that we are talking about today 
will help bring these school buildings up to code, all while creating 
thousands of jobs in the construction industry, an industry hit 
particularly hard in these tough economic times. We are talking about a 
great benefit from this bill. It is short term in terms of construction 
jobs and support for the schools, and long term in terms of better 
quality school buildings.
  I was proud to support, along with my colleague, Congressman 
Blumenauer, to facilitate greater bicycle and pedestrian access to our 
Nation's schools. When I went to school when I was a kid, I rode my 
bike to school, I walked, and all of these things today are the kinds 
of things that we want to encourage in the future. By authorizing funds 
to facilitate healthy alternative modes of transportation to our 
schools, we can also reduce the cost of school buses and various other 
things. We can reduce vehicle congestion on our roads, decrease 
emissions, and improve the health and well-being of our students.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Congressman Chandler for 
introducing this important legislation, and I urge my colleagues to 
support the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
thank my friends on the other side of the aisle for their participation 
as well, obviously, as my friends and colleagues from our side of the 
aisle.
  As I stated before, this is legislation that has passed before. It 
passed with some bipartisanship. There is some legitimate substantive 
debate on the underlying legislation, but I think more objection, 
certainly, on our part to the unfortunate nature in which the way the 
process, the debate in the House has been closed down unnecessarily by 
the majority. We had an example today, an amendment that was brought 
before the Rules Committee with bipartisan authorship, and yet it was 
not allowed for discussion and consideration by the full membership, 
and that is unnecessary and unfortunate.
  Having said that, we will consider without any doubt this legislation 
even though I think the rule that brings it to the floor should have 
been an open rule, and the majority would have thus had an opportunity 
to double its record of open rules. Since they took the majority about 
2\1/2\ years ago, they have allowed one open rule. That is something I 
would have never expected. I would have never expected. Certainly it is 
very different from the promise made to the American people of an open 
process. It is unfortunate.
  But we move forward. Thank you for listening, Mr. Speaker, and for 
your fairness in guiding this process as always.
  Having said that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, just this last week I had the opportunity in 
Colorado to visit a number of schools in several school districts 
across the district that I represent. I visited Adams County, Boulder 
Valley, Mapleton, and Westminster.
  With regard to Boulder Valley School District, having recently passed 
a $300 million bond initiative, it was very exciting to see some of the 
renovations that were taking place. I had an opportunity to go on the 
roof of one of the schools and observe the solar panels that were being 
installed, as well as a device that focuses sunlight to provide natural 
light for the classroom. That is called a Sundolier, and what that 
encompasses is twofold. One, it saves the need for artificial light and 
saves energy for the school. Two, there are a number of studies that 
show that natural light can actually serve to improve learning. This 
was an item that Boulder Valley School District was able to purchase. 
There are four that are now pilot projects in Colorado. There are 
studies being done to document the learning impact. This is the type of 
activity that many school districts cannot afford to consider.
  Mapleton School District, just 10 miles down the road, it has been on 
their ballot twice with bond initiatives, but they have been unable to 
get them to pass. They have a much lower local tax base and it is very 
difficult, and many of the constituents are struggling to stay in their 
homes. For that reason, this Federal money will be particularly 
welcomed in those districts that serve the most at-risk children, which 
is why I applaud the efforts of Chairman Miller and the committee and 
the sponsors to target this money to districts that serve a high count 
of low-income students using the title I criteria.
  Mapleton School District, which serves just a few thousand kids, will 
receive $578,000 under this bill; Westminster School District in 
Colorado will receive $1.8 million; and Adams County 12 District will 
receive $2.36 million.
  Mr. Speaker, a few folks have mentioned, Oh, this shouldn't be the 
Federal Government's responsibility.
  The question I would pose is: Who, then, can repair these schools? 
Who can ensure that these classrooms are safe? Where can the money come 
from? Certainly there are many wealthy districts that can afford to do 
that themselves. But by allowing only wealthy districts to build 
classrooms for the 21st century, we are not only creating a divide on 
the operations side of school funding, we are actually making that 
considerably worse by creating an enormous gap on the capital front, 
leading to attrition of good teachers from dangerous and poor-quality 
schools in poor areas, as well as lower student outcomes because of 
lack of heating, lack of air-conditioning, dangerous conditions, et 
cetera. This bill will help reduce those disparities. We certainly have 
a long way to go, but this bill will help do that.
  In addition, there are a number of schools that actually are 
dangerous and represent a danger for the teachers and for the students. 
For instance, there was an incident last year in Massachusetts where a 
roof fell in and actually injured a teacher. They had a leaky roof for 
decades in Billerica, Massachusetts. The district was not able to 
afford to repair or replace the school. In fact, when it rained, the 
principal would announce, Heavy rains are expected; clear the counters. 
The water damage had caused the floor to rot and a teacher actually 
fell through the floor and injured herself because of that. Some of the 
rooms are so hazardous they are closed to students and staff.
  That is not an unusual phenomenon. In my district, I was at one 
elementary school where the gym has been closed for several years 
because pieces of ceiling are falling off the gymnasium and it is a 
danger for kids, so the school has not had a gym for those kids to use 
for several years.
  In this school in Massachusetts, they have now moved the girls' 
locker room to the library, and there is so little space available 
because of the closure of the rooms that are dangerous that special 
education classes now meet in what was the boys' locker room. They are 
trying to use every available place that they have because of the 
unsafe nature of some of those schools.

[[Page 12342]]

  School districts do a good job with what they have. They try their 
best. They approach their voters when they can, but there are districts 
in Colorado and, indeed, nationally that have very little local tax 
base from which to draw. In Colorado, we had a lawsuit a number of 
years ago which was ultimately settled by the State with regard to the 
failing state of our schools and our capital infrastructure in Colorado 
school districts that had very little local tax base. The decision 
stated that the State had in fact not lived up to its responsibility of 
providing a safe, thorough and uniform education to all of its 
citizens.
  Certainly every child in this country deserves the opportunity to 
succeed. They deserve a safe learning environment. This bill will go a 
long way towards doing that, along with the provisions of the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The American Recovery and Reinvestment 
Act provided funding in two main areas for education, both operational. 
One was IDEA, special education. And my colleagues on the Rules 
Committee will recall we had some discussion about special ed and IDEA 
in committee yesterday. I am proud to say that under this Congress, we 
have gone further than ever as a country in meeting towards reaching 
that unfunded mandate of making sure that the needs of all students, 
including special needs students, are met and increasingly funded by 
the Federal Government. We had a bipartisan consensus in our Rules 
Committee meeting yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that our Federal Government 
needs to do more with regard to funding special education. I am very 
pleased to say that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was the 
first step.
  The second area of investment was in title I programs directed to 
schools that serve low-income families and families that face a lot of 
challenges that others don't. To help reduce those disparities, the 
opportunity disparity that exists, Colorado is a State that has a very 
strong equalization formula for funding schools. We are very fortunate 
in that regard.
  Our poorer districts on the operational side receive roughly the same 
funding, in fact, sometimes even more funding because of their at-risk 
criteria than the wealthy districts. That is not the case nationally. 
There are other States where there are large operational disparities 
between large and small districts.
  However, in Colorado, and indeed nearly every State, there continue 
to be large disparities on the capital front. That is why what passes 
for a school in one district would hardly pass for a school in another 
district. Schools with low tax bases, with voters that are struggling 
to stay in their own homes and are, therefore, unwilling or unable to 
pass another bond initiative, are threatening the education of their 
kids compared to some of the wealthier districts that are able to 
invest in some of things that I had the opportunity to see just last 
week in Boulder Valley School District due to their own $300 million 
bond initiative.

                              {time}  1115

  The needs, Mr. Speaker, are great. In fact, I dare say they are 
greater than this investment that we, if the House passes this bill 
today, will be making.
  The rule, Mr. Speaker, is fair. Of the 34 amendments that have been 
offered, 14 have been ruled in order, including several from Members on 
the other side of the aisle, including one from Mr. Roe, who my 
colleague, Mr. Dreier, mentioned in his remarks. That was ruled in 
order, as well as an amendment from the ranking member of the Education 
and Labor Committee.
  So this is not a closed rule. This is a structured rule that allows 
for nearly half of the amendments that have been offered to be 
considered by the full House and advances in there for that purpose, 
including several that were also incorporated into the chairman's 
amendment, who has worked with Members on both sides of the aisle to 
improve the initial piece of legislation.
  Let me focus once more on the safety issue. There is an enormous 
backlog of capital construction--particularly in poor districts across 
this country--that puts the health and safety as well as the 
achievement of our students at risk every day. Students should be free 
of risk regardless of where in this country they attend school. 
Students have enough challenges to face. They need to be able to face 
the economic crisis, their family issues, preparation for college. The 
last thing students need to worry about are roofs falling in, ceilings 
collapsing, floors collapsing, or asbestos.
  At the same time that we can accomplish this, as my colleague from 
New York (Mr. Hall) mentioned, we have the great opportunity to make 
some progress on the front by reducing our carbon emissions and 
greening our schools. This has, of course, beyond the environmental 
benefits, which are significant, they also have economic benefits 
because when you save money by reducing your power needs or producing 
power locally, you are freeing up more operational money to actually 
help educate kids, meaning lower class sizes, meaning better teacher 
training, meaning programs that can be continued or expanded because of 
the energy. One of the biggest complaints that I heard from districts 
over the last several years were the rising costs of energy and 
utilities as part of what they pay as a fixed cost. By investing in the 
capital side--and again, many districts don't have the capability of 
doing that themselves--we are able to save operational money for those 
school districts where truly some of the modernization and green 
investment can become the gift that keeps on giving.
  Mr. Speaker, I am the last speaker for this side. I would like to 
urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and the rule.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker I rise today to oppose the rule 
under consideration. By refusing to allow us to debate pertinent 
amendments that address some of the many challenges facing our public 
schools, this rule prevents my colleagues and me from improving upon 
the good intentions of the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public 
School Facilities Act.
  Similar to legislation passed last summer, the bill we are about to 
consider commits billions of dollars in funding to public schools for 
modernization, repair, and renovation projects. I agree with Chairman 
of the Education and Labor Committee George Miller who said in support 
of this bill: ``Especially in this economy, with state budgets 
dwindling, schools have fewer resources to make classrooms top-notch 
learning environments for students . . . No student should have to 
learn in a classroom or school that is literally falling apart.'' I 
couldn't agree more.
  But I wonder whether there might be a better way to address these 
challenges than to throw even more federal dollars at the problems and 
add to our rapidly growing federal debt.
  Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that by fully funding the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), we would free up desperately 
needed resources schools across America could use to address their 
specific needs--whether it is state of the art classrooms, additional 
teachers, or new textbooks.
  In the Education and Labor committee last week, and again before the 
Rules Committee yesterday, I introduced an amendment that would 
prohibit the expenditure of federal funds for this bill until Congress 
fulfills its commitment to provide 40 percent of the national average 
per pupil expenditure for special education. Unfortunately, 
partisanship prevailed, and members will not have the opportunity to 
vote on my amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, our nation's schools have been waiting patiently for 
Congress to fulfill its promise to provide full federal funding IDEA 
for far too long. It is time for government to live up to its promises 
and provide our schools the resources they so desperately need.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition 
to this rule and the underlying bill.
  Yesterday the Rules Committee voted along party lines to keep the 
House of Representatives from considering two amendments I offered that 
would have helped school districts whose tax bases are significantly 
reduced by the presence of tax-exempt federal lands.
  As some of you may recall, I offered the very same amendments to H.R. 
3021 last year, when the interests of these school districts were also 
ignored by Democrats on the Rules Committee.

[[Page 12343]]

  The bill before us today drastically expands the Federal Government's 
role in school construction and maintenance--activities historically 
funded at the State and local level--BEFORE meeting its existing 
responsibilities to schools that are impacted by federal land 
ownership.
  As I have noted before, over 33 percent of my district in central 
Washington is owned by the Federal Government--making 11 school 
districts eligible for Impact Aid. I know all too well about the 
consequences of federal land ownership and the impact it has on the 
ability of schools to make needed improvements.
  In Grand Coulee Dam, Washington, students attend classes in buildings 
more than half a century old that are literally falling apart. While 
local residents have agreed to pay one of the highest levies in the 
State of Washington, the school district remains unable to secure a 
bond to make improvements because the community is surrounded by 
federal lands and has a limited tax base.
  The Federal Government has a responsibility to ensure that no child's 
education is shortchanged because of federal land ownership. And in my 
view, it's only fair that the Federal Government take care of federally 
impacted schools before launching a brand new spending program costing 
billions of dollars that's aimed at other schools that aren't federally 
impacted.
  I offered two amendments in the Rules Committee yesterday. The first 
would have required that our commitment to federally impacted schools 
be met through full funding of the Impact Aid program before funding is 
spent on the new federal spending program in this bill. My second 
amendment would have simply given preference to federally impacted 
schools as the new construction and maintenance funds are distributed.
  Unfortunately, Democrat leaders again blocked both of my amendments 
from being debated or voted on today by the full House.
  Mr. Speaker, the federal government is not meeting its current 
responsibilities to federally impacted schools. As I said last year, we 
certainly have no business creating a brand new $33 billion spending 
program for other schools--especially at a time when the federal 
deficit is at astonishing levels.
  Rather than passing this massive expansion of the Federal 
Government's role in school construction, we should refocus our efforts 
toward fulfilling existing obligations to schools and children impacted 
by federal actions.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this restrictive rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and move 
the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of House Resolution 427 will be followed by 5-
minute votes on the motion to suspend the rules on House Concurrent 
Resolution 84, if ordered; and the motion to suspend the rules on H.R. 
2162, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 248, 
nays 175, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 246]

                               YEAS--248

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Cao
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--175

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Cardoza
     Himes
     Johnson (IL)
     Myrick
     Paul
     Pingree (ME)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Schock
     Stark
     Tanner

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. PLATTS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________