[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3926-3944]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1100
              OCEAN, COASTAL, AND WATERSHED EDUCATION ACT

  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to H. Res. 1192, I call up the 
bill (H.R. 3644) to direct the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration to establish education and watershed programs which 
advance environmental literacy, including preparedness and adaptability 
for the likely impacts of climate change in coastal watershed regions, 
and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Edwards of Maryland). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 1192, the bill is considered read.
  The amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill is 
adopted.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 3644

       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 ``Ocean, Coastal, and 
     Watershed Education Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The United States faces major challenges, such as 
     mitigating and adapting to the impacts of climate change, 
     stewarding critical coastal and marine resources including 
     fish and wildlife habitat while sustaining the commercial and 
     recreational activities that depend on these resources, and 
     improving resilience to natural disasters, that collectively 
     threaten human health, economic development, environmental 
     quality, and national security.
       (2) Communities in coastal watersheds are particularly 
     vulnerable to these increasingly urgent, interconnected, and 
     complex challenges and need support for teacher professional 
     development and experiential learning among students of all 
     ages.
       (3) These challenges can be met with the help of 
     comprehensive programs specifically targeted to engage 
     coastal watershed communities,

[[Page 3927]]

     schoolchildren, and the general public to develop engaged and 
     environmentally literate citizens who are better able to 
     understand complex environmental issues, assess risk, 
     evaluate proposed plans, and understand how individual 
     decisions affect the environment at local, regional, 
     national, and global scales.
       (4) The intrinsic social and conservation values of 
     wildlife-dependent and other outdoor recreation can play an 
     important role in outdoor educational programs that address 
     the myriad of coastal and ocean concerns, as well as instill 
     a sustainable conservation ethic that will enable them to 
     face those challenges to the betterment of both the 
     environment and coastal communities.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to advance 
     environmental literacy, develop public awareness and 
     appreciation of the economic, social, recreational, and 
     environmental benefits of coastal watersheds, and emphasize 
     stewardship of critical coastal and marine resources, 
     including an understanding of how climate change is impacting 
     those resources, through the establishment of--
       (1) an Environmental Literacy Grant Program; and
       (2) regional programs under the B-WET Program.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration.
       (2) Bay-watershed education.--The term ``bay-watershed 
     education'' means environmental education focused on 
     watersheds, with an emphasis on stewardship of critical 
     coastal and marine resources, including an understanding of 
     how climate change is impacting those resources.
       (3) B-WET program.--The term ``B-WET Program'' means the 
     Bay-Watershed Education and Training Program of the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as in effect 
     immediately before the enactment of this Act and modified 
     under this Act or any subsequently enacted Act.
       (4) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means a 
     State agency, local agency, school district, institution of 
     higher education, or for-profit or non-profit nongovernmental 
     organization, consortium, or other entity that the 
     Administrator finds has demonstrated expertise and experience 
     in the development of the institutional, intellectual, or 
     policy resources to help environmental education become more 
     effective and widely practiced.
       (5) Environmental education.--The term ``environmental 
     education'' means interdisciplinary formal and informal 
     learning about the relevant interrelationships between 
     dynamic environmental and human systems, and which results in 
     increasing the learner's capacity for decisionmaking and 
     stewardship regarding natural and community resources.
       (6) Environmental literacy.--The term ``environmental 
     literacy'' means the capacity to perceive and interpret the 
     relative health of environmental systems and the 
     interrelationships between natural and social systems and 
     technology, and to assess options and take appropriate action 
     to maintain, restore, or improve the health of those systems.
       (7) High-leverage projects.--The term ``high-leverage 
     projects'' means projects supported by grants authorized 
     under this Act that use Federal, State and nongovernmental 
     financial, technical, and other resources in such a manner 
     that the potential beneficial outcomes are highly magnified 
     or enhanced.
       (8) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, 
     American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands, any other territory or possession of the United 
     States, and any Indian tribe.

     SEC. 4. ENVIRONMENTAL LITERACY GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator shall establish a 
     national competitive grant program, to be known as the 
     ``Environmental Literacy Grant Program'', under which the 
     Administrator shall provide, subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, financial assistance to--
       (1) expand the adoption of coastal, ocean, Great Lakes, and 
     climate on all time scales education;
       (2) build administrative and technical capacity with 
     coastal, ocean, and watershed communities and stakeholder 
     groups to enhance their effectiveness;
       (3) encourage water-dependent, wildlife-dependent, and 
     other outdoor recreation, experiential learning, and hands-on 
     involvement with coastal and watershed resources as a method 
     of promoting stewardship of those resources; and
       (4) develop and implement new approaches to advance 
     coastal, ocean, Great Lakes, and climate on all time scales 
     education and environmental literacy at national, regional, 
     and local levels.
       (b) Priorities.--In awarding grants under this section, the 
     Administrator shall give priority consideration to 
     innovative, strategic, high-leverage projects that 
     demonstrate strong potential for being sustained in the 
     future by a grant recipient beyond the time period in which 
     activities are carried out with the grant.
       (c) Guidelines.--No later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and after consultation with appropriate 
     stakeholders, the Administrator shall publish in the Federal 
     Register guidelines regarding the implementation of this 
     grant program, including publication of criteria for eligible 
     entities, identification of national priorities, 
     establishment of performance measures to evaluate program 
     effectiveness, information regarding sources of non-Federal 
     matching funds or in-kind contributions, and reporting 
     requirements for grant award recipients.
       (d) Limitation on Use of Funds by Administrator.--Of the 
     amounts made available to implement this section--
       (1) no less than 80 percent shall be used for competitive 
     grants or cooperative agreements;
       (2) no more than 10 percent may be used by the 
     Administrator to implement the grant program; and
       (3) no less than 10 percent of the annual funds 
     appropriated for the program authorized under this section 
     shall be used to fund contracts or cooperative agreements to 
     conduct strategic planning, promote communications among 
     grant recipients and within communities, coordinate grant 
     activities to foster an integrated program, and oversee 
     national evaluation efforts.

     SEC. 5. B-WET PROGRAM.

       (a) Existing Program.--The Administrator shall conduct the 
     B-WET Program, including each of the regional programs 
     conducted or under active consideration for creation under 
     such program immediately before the enactment of this Act.
       (b) New Regional Programs.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator may create new regional 
     programs under the B-WET Program in accordance with a 
     strategy issued under this subsection.
       (2) Strategy.--
       (A) In general.--The Administrator shall issue a strategy 
     for establishing such new regional programs.
       (B) Contents.--The strategy shall include the following:
       (i) Evaluation of the need for new regional program in 
     areas that are not served under the B-WET Program on the date 
     of enactment of this Act.
       (ii) Identification of potential new regional programs, 
     including a listing of potential principal non-Federal 
     partners.
       (iii) A comprehensive budget for future expansion of the B-
     WET Program over the period for which appropriations are 
     authorized under this Act.
       (iv) Such other information as the Administrator considers 
     necessary.
       (C) Consultation and public comment.--The Administrator 
     shall consult with relevant stakeholders and provide 
     opportunity for public comment in the development of the 
     strategy.
       (D) Submission to congress.--The Administrator shall submit 
     the strategy to the Committee on Natural Resources of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation of the Senate by not later than 
     270 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (3) Priority consideration.--In creating new regional 
     programs under this subsection, the Administrator shall give 
     priority consideration to the needs of--
       (A) United States territories, including Guam, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and American 
     Samoa;
       (B) the Great Lakes States;
       (C) Alaska; and
       (D) the mid-Atlantic region.
       (c) Modification of B-WET Program.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator may modify or realign 
     regional programs under the B-WET Program, based on--
       (A) changes in regional needs;
       (B) mutual interest between the Administrator and relevant 
     stakeholders within a region or regions;
       (C) changes in resources available to the Administrator to 
     implement the B-WET Program; and
       (D) other circumstances as determined necessary by the 
     Administrator.
       (2) Consultation and public comment.--The Administrator 
     shall--
       (A) consult with the persons conducting a regional program 
     and provide opportunity for public comment prior to making a 
     final decision to modify or realign such regional program; 
     and
       (B) publish public notice of such a decision no less than 
     30-days before the effective date of such a modification or 
     realignment.
       (d) Regional Program Managers.--
       (1) Appointment of regional program manager.--The 
     Administrator shall be responsible for the selection, 
     appointment, and when necessary replacement of a regional 
     program manager for each regional program under the B-WET 
     Program.
       (2) Qualifications.--To qualify for appointment as a 
     regional program manager, an individual must--
       (A) reside in the region for which appointed; and
       (B) demonstrate competence and expertise in bay-watershed 
     education and training.
       (3) Functions.--Each regional program manager shall--
       (A) be responsible for managing and administering the B-WET 
     Program in the region for which appointed, in accordance with 
     this Act;
       (B) determine the most appropriate communities within the 
     region to be served by the B-WET Program;
       (C) encourage water-dependent, wildlife-dependent, and 
     other outdoor recreation, experiential learning experiences 
     for students, and hands-on involvement with coastal and 
     watershed resources as a method of promoting stewardship of 
     those resources and complementing core classroom curriculum;

[[Page 3928]]

       (D) support communication and collaboration among 
     educators, natural resource planners and managers, and 
     governmental and nongovernmental stakeholders;
       (E) share and distribute information regarding educational 
     plans, strategies, learning activities, and curricula to all 
     stakeholders within its region;
       (F) provide financial and technical assistance pursuant to 
     the guidelines developed by the Administrator under this 
     section; and
       (G) perform any additional duties as necessary to carry out 
     the functions of the program.
       (e) Program Guidelines.--No later than 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act and after consultation with 
     appropriate stakeholders, the Administrator shall publish in 
     the Federal Register guidelines regarding the implementation 
     of the B-WET Program, as follows:
       (1) Contracts.--The Administrator shall create guidelines 
     through which each regional program manager may enter into 
     contracts (subject to the availability of appropriations) to 
     support projects to design, demonstrate, evaluate, or 
     disseminate practices, methods, or techniques related to Bay-
     watershed education and training.
       (2) Grant making and cooperative agreements.--
       (A) In general.--The Administrator shall create guidelines 
     through which each regional program manager may provide 
     financial assistance in the form of a grant (subject to the 
     availability of appropriations) or cooperative agreement to 
     support projects that advance the purpose of this Act. The 
     guidelines shall include criteria for eligible entities, 
     identification of national priorities, establishment of 
     performance measures to evaluate program effectiveness, and 
     reporting requirements for grant award recipients.
       (B) Priority.--In making grants under this paragraph, each 
     regional program manager shall give priority to those 
     projects that will--
       (i) promote bay-watershed education throughout the region 
     concerned;
       (ii) advance strategic initiatives to incorporate bay-
     watershed education into formal and informal education 
     systems;
       (iii) build capacity within bay-watershed education 
     communities and stakeholder groups for expanding and 
     strengthening their work;
       (iv) build bay-watershed education into professional 
     development or training activities for educators; and
       (v) broadly replicate existing, proven bay-watershed 
     education programs.
       (f) Non-Federal Share.--
       (1) In general.--In awarding grants under this section, the 
     regional program managers shall give priority consideration 
     to a project for which the Federal share does not exceed 75 
     percent of the aggregate cost of such project.
       (2) In-kind contribution.--The non-Federal share of the 
     costs of any project supported by an award of grant funding 
     under this section may be cash or the fair market value of 
     services, equipment, donations, or any other form of in-kind 
     contribution.
       (3) Other priority.--The regional program managers shall 
     give priority consideration to a project that will be 
     conducted by or benefit any under-served community, any 
     community that has an inability to draw on other sources of 
     funding because of the small population or low income of the 
     community, or any other person for any other reason the 
     Administrator considers appropriate and consistent with the 
     purpose of this Act.
       (g) Regional Program Coordination.--Within the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Office of 
     Education shall work with regional program managers on the 
     following regional B-WET Program functions:
       (1) Strategic planning efforts.
       (2) Integration and coordination of programs.
       (3) Coordination of national evaluation efforts.
       (4) Promotion of network wide communications.
       (5) Selection of new Regional Program Managers.
       (6) Management, tracking, and oversight of the B-WET 
     Program.
       (h) Limitation on Use of Funds by Administrator.--Of the 
     amounts made available to implement this section--
       (1) no less than 80 percent shall be used for 
     implementation of regional program activities, including the 
     award of grants; and
       (2) no more than 20 percent may be used by the 
     Administrator to implement the regional programs and regional 
     program coordination.

     SEC. 6. BIENNIAL REPORT.

       Not later than December 31, 2011, and biennially 
     thereafter, the Administrator shall submit to Congress a 
     report on the grant programs authorized under this Act. Each 
     such report shall include a description of the eligible 
     activities carried out with grants awarded under the Act 
     during the previous two fiscal years, an assessment of the 
     success and impact of such activities, and a description of 
     the type of programs carried out with such grant, 
     disaggregated by State.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Administrator to carry out this Act such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of fiscal years 2011 through 2015.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, as 
amended, it shall be in order to consider the further amendment in the 
nature of a substitute printed in part A of House Report 111-445 if 
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) or her 
designee, which shall be considered read, and shall be debatable for 20 
minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent.
  The amendment to the further amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in part B of House Report 111-445, if offered by the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake) or his designee, shall be considered read, and 
shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent.
  The gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) and the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
that may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 3644.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my 
legislation, H.R. 3644, which I introduced on September 24, 2009.
  Madam Speaker, in California, we are often inundated with reports of 
the impacts of climate change, overfishing, wildfires and droughts. 
Such reports may frighten or dampen a child's innate curiosity and 
wonder of the natural environment. Fortunately, we have found that 
connecting children to their environment through hands-on experiences 
offers an effective way to overcome these challenges.
  Over the past 7 years, two NOAA education programs, the Bay-Watershed 
Education and Training regional program, or as it's known, B-WET, and 
the Environmental Literacy Grants, or ELG, programs, have been critical 
tools in advancing a nationwide strategy of experiential education in 
building ocean, atmospheric and environmental awareness in the United 
States.
  In my district, the MERITO program, which has been funded through the 
California B-WET program for the past 4 years, has allowed hundreds of 
children to enjoy the benefits of hands-on, bilingual ocean 
conservation experiences with trained scientists and professionals in 
Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties.
  Many of these children have taken their first trips to the beach 
under this MERITO program, even though they may live only a few miles 
away. According to the testimonials of their parents and their 
teachers, it has given many of them a new awareness of their local 
environment and their community and opened the world of new 
opportunities that they now know they can pursue.
  Madam Speaker, my bill, H.R. 3644, seeks to formally authorize these 
two innovative and important NOAA education programs that were 
established through the annual appropriations process so we can ensure 
that they are here for our children now and in the future. It also 
ensures that certain standards and criteria for positive implementation 
are met by the agency when they spend these funds. To me, this 
represents a responsible oversight effort on the part of our committee 
to exercise our proper duties.
  Madam Speaker, these programs have been well received by the ocean 
and environmental literacy communities, and in fact, since the ELG 
program was initiated in 2005, the demand for ELG grants has been 10 
times greater than the available funding.
  Each program has gathered significant momentum and prominence since 
the Congress passed the America COMPETES Act in 2007, which elevated 
and enhanced NOAA's educational mission. A recent report released by 
the National Academy of Sciences also commends both programs for their 
positive contributions to increase student interest in science and to 
improve awareness of the ocean and coastal environment.
  H.R. 3644 is fully supported by the administration. The legislation 
is also strongly supported by the Campaign

[[Page 3929]]

for Environmental Literacy. This is a coalition of nearly 60 national, 
regional and local private and non-profit organizations; and they 
represent science, education, conservation, outdoor recreation and 
zoological parks, including the National Wildlife Federation, American 
Fisheries Society, the American Fly Fishing Trade Association, and the 
Association of Zoos and Aquariums, to name just a few.
  At the appropriate time, I will offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute which reflects a bipartisan compromise to address the 
concerns raised by my colleague and my friend, Congressman Cassidy of 
Louisiana, during the markup of this bill by the Committee on Natural 
Resources.
  Madam Speaker, in closing, the B-WET and ELG programs are both 
effective, wildly popular, and in great demand by educators around the 
country. These programs represent two critical investments in our 
efforts to connect children to their natural world and, hopefully as a 
result, inspire their interest in the sciences and in ensuring the 
future of their coastal communities. We should recognize their 
importance today by passing this legislation and codify them as formal 
programs within NOAA.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 3644, the Ocean, Coastal and Watershed Act 
establishes and authorizes funding for two programs, one of which has 
been a total creature of appropriations earmarks.
  There are two simple and compelling arguments for why I am opposed to 
this legislation: first, it spends too much money that our government 
just doesn't have, and it singles out two of the more than one dozen 
NOAA education programs for special treatment when the entire effort is 
subject to a top-to-bottom review.
  The Capps substitute amendment provides authorized spending levels 
that provide a 10 percent increase each year for 5 years. The Federal 
Government and American taxpayers simply cannot afford to increase 
spending by 10 percent year after year. What American gets a 10 percent 
pay raise every year? What small business is guaranteed 10 percent more 
in sales or 10 percent growth? None. And this government program should 
not be promised such lavish increases.
  Now, we are told that they have compromised on these spending levels, 
that the new amounts are lower than in the bill that was first 
introduced last year. And it can be acknowledged that they have floated 
this bloated spending balloon a little lower, but it is still sailing 
high up in the clouds of out-of-control spending. It needs to come all 
the way down out of the sky and face the harsh realities of the ground 
down here. Our Nation is running record Federal budget deficits and the 
national debt is at historic levels, some $12-plus trillion.
  We are paying over $600 million a day just in interest on our debt. 
We need to put a stop to bills like this that just make the problem 
worse.
  It is especially troubling that the Democratic-controlled Rules 
Committee didn't allow the ranking member of the Natural Resources 
Committee, Mr. Hastings of Washington, to offer an amendment that would 
have frozen spending at the amount being spent this year. Apparently, 
giving a government program the same amount next year as they got this 
year is a concept the Democrats believe is so radical and dangerous 
that they don't even want Members of the House to vote on it, which 
isn't surprising these days. And this despite what the President has 
said, that he wants a spending freeze.
  Now, it's not just Republicans that are objecting to these high 
levels of spending on these two programs. In President Obama's own 
budget proposal that he sent up to Congress in February, he proposed 
giving zero funding to one of these two programs included in this bill 
and giving less than half as much to the other one. President Obama has 
proven time and time again he doesn't have a problem with massive 
spending increases; and, yet, even he believes Congress is spending too 
much on these programs.
  The second fundamental objection that I expressed with this bill is 
it is trying to write into law special funding and treatment for just 
two out of many of NOAA's education programs, when the entire effort is 
subject to top-to-bottom review.
  NOAA itself is looking into how to best conduct its education 
program. The agency contracted with the National Academy of Sciences to 
review and critique NOAA's entire education effort. That study was just 
completed 2 weeks ago after more than 2 years of work. Just 2 weeks 
ago, this report came out. The American taxpayer spent over $1 million 
producing this report, and despite this nearly 200-page document just 
being delivered into our hands, this House is apparently ready to 
ignore the work and recommendations by the National Academy of Sciences 
by moving this bill and voting on it today.
  If Congress is going to ignore the National Academy of Sciences 
report and was going to tell NOAA which education programs it was going 
to pick and choose to authorize, we could have saved the National 
Academy a lot of time, and we could have saved the taxpayers over $1 
million.
  This bill needs to be sent back to the drawing board so that spending 
levels can be cut back and so the National Academy of Sciences report 
can be taken into consideration. Until the changes are made, I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this bill and the substitute amendment.
  I would also like to note, Madam Speaker, that to suggest that the 
administration fully supports this bill, I think, is a 
mischaracterization of the facts. In fact, testimony was given that 
``we also note that NOAA supports education and outreach programs in 
the Office of Education and throughout NOAA's line offices. The 
authorization levels of H.R. 3644 could divert funding from these other 
programs.'' That should be noted as Members consider this bill.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPPS. I'm pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from 
California, and I rise in full support of H.R. 3644, the Ocean, Coastal 
and Watershed Training Act. I was proud to be an original cosponsor of 
this bill which creates the Bay Watershed Education and Training 
program.
  Dozens of my constituents have written in support of the Bay 
Watershed Education and Training program which will strengthen local 
environmental education in Northern Virginia and in other parts of the 
Chesapeake Bay watershed.
  When John Smith arrived in 1607, the bay estuary, the largest in the 
country, had an unbelievable profusion of fish, oysters and mussels. 
Smith's men fished from their boats just by dipping a frying pan in the 
water, and Smith wrote that the oysters ``lay thick as stones'' on the 
bay floor. Not true today.
  A central part of restoring America's largest estuary is teaching the 
next generation about how to be good bay stewards. Northern Virginia 
educators do an outstanding job teaching students about the 
environment, including issues ranging from global warming to acid rain, 
to the health of the bay itself.
  Every year, thousands of students will visit Occoquan Bay Wildlife 
Refuge, Mason Neck State Park and Pohick Bay Regional Park to learn 
about the Potomac River tidal ecosystems.
  Unfortunately, constraints on local resources have prevented most 
northern Virginia students from participating lately in these programs. 
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will work with 
local school systems and nonprofits in the Bay Watershed Education and 
Training program and will provide competitive grants to help more 
students participate.
  In our area, the National Capital Region, this means more students 
will be

[[Page 3930]]

able to participate in bird-banding programs, surveys of benthic 
macroinvertebrates and exploration of coastal wetlands.
  I want to thank Congresswoman Capps for her leadership in introducing 
this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this 
bill.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren).
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, once again, we have a bill which has a wonderful name 
with a wonderful purpose; but it appears that we are forgetting the 
fact that we're broke. As I understand this bill, this will be a 10 
percent increase per year for 5 years for this education program.
  I don't know any school district in my district that is going to be 
able to increase their funding by 10 percent per year for the next 5 
years. My State of California, we are broke. I don't know where we're 
going to get funding. At some point in time, the American people are 
going to ask us, do you ever connect your responsibilities with fiscal 
responsibility? And because this is a good idea that we want people to 
be educated on environmental matters, particularly dealing with the 
ocean, with the coastline and with watershed, do we just throw out the 
idea, throw off the table the idea that maybe we ought to be fiscally 
responsible, or do we ignore it? Similarly, we are probably going to 
deal with a bill this weekend that throws out the idea that we need to 
do something to fix some of the problems in our health care system, but 
apparently we just say, forget the costs.
  We also appear to be saying, forget the rules. And we are also 
apparently saying with respect to that, forget the Constitution. Oh, by 
the way, the bill that I understand we are going to be presented with 
later this weekend is entitled this: An act to amend the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time home buyers credit in the 
case of Members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal 
employees, and for other purposes.

                              {time}  1115

  Now, that doesn't sound like the health care bill, does it? And there 
is a reason for it. Once again, we have forgotten about transparency 
and, I would say, responsibility, because the Constitution of the 
United States says that all revenue-raising measures must start with 
the House of Representatives.
  Now, why would the Founding Fathers say that? It is because they 
realized the tremendous power of reaching into the pocket of an 
individual citizen and taking their money by way of taxes for, 
presumably, good programs. But because that power is so immense, the 
Founding Fathers believed that that power should reside initially in 
the House of Representatives because we are to be more responsive to 
our constituency, by way of going before them once every 2 years for 
election or reelection, as opposed to the Senate, which only does one-
third of their membership and Members have 6 years before they have to 
go back to their constituency.
  So what does that have to do with the bill that I just mentioned? 
Well, there was this bill dealing with the first-time homebuyers 
credit, in the case of the Armed Forces, that started in the Ways and 
Means Committee, passed out of the House, went over to the Senate. And 
what they did was they took the title of the bill, and--at least I can 
find nothing left of the bill that came from here over there--they 
gutted the bill and replaced it with this 2,000-plus-page health care 
bill.
  Technically, they are complying with the Constitution, but they are 
violating the spirit of the Constitution, which said that revenue-
raising bills--and this is a super-revenue-raising bill--should start 
here.
  Now, to compound that, we used to talk about something in the 
criminal law called compounding a felony. I will call it compounding a 
political felony. We now are told that that bill that didn't originate 
in the House as the constitutional Founders thought it should will now 
come to the House. But we won't really vote on it. We will vote on some 
other animal called a rule and thereby deem it to be passed.
  So think what we are doing to the spirit of the Constitution. We are 
not starting this humongous bill in the House of Representatives. We 
have allowed it to be captured in a shell bill that went over to the 
Senate, and then, the additional indignity to our constituents is they 
will not have the opportunity for those of us duly elected to vote on 
the precise question that the Senate voted on.
  Now, I heard a lot of talk about transparency. I heard a lot of talk 
about regaining the trust of the American people and regaining the 
confidence of the American people in their institutions, a lot of talk 
about us reestablishing the confidence of the American people in their 
institutions of government.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I yield the gentleman from California 2 additional 
minutes.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I would have to ask, if you were 
to make this a question for a fifth grade government class or a fifth 
grade U.S. history class as to whether or not that is the way in which 
you restore the confidence of the American people in their institutions 
of government. I suspect I know what the answer would be.
  But of course we are not fifth graders. We are presumably adults 
around here. We have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. And 
while we might technically get around that requirement by following the 
letter of the Constitution, wouldn't it be better if we followed the 
spirit of the Constitution?
  And so once again, Madam Speaker, we are presented in this case with 
a bill that sounds very good for a worthy cause but gives no 
consideration whatsoever to the ultimate cost to the American taxpayer 
because, in many cases, they are 2,000 and 3,000 miles away; they are 
not here. So out of sight, out of mind.
  Oh, yes. And let's forget August. It didn't exist. And the people who 
were here have been described by some on this floor as un-American and 
not representative of the American people. I would suggest they are 
representative of the American people, and I would say that we, at some 
point in time, have to get away from our business as usual and get back 
to the people's business.
  This would be a good place to start. I hope we will have a strong 
finish on that this weekend when we come to our senses and recognize 
that the bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the 
first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces 
and certain other Federal employees, otherwise known as the takeover of 
medical care in this country, that we should come to our senses and say 
enough is enough.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. This is a great bill because it will help American kids 
to understand what is going on in the oceans, which is they are 
becoming too acidic to support life as we know it. They are 30 percent 
more acidic because of carbon pollution. We have got to do something 
about that. It is nice to let our kids know what is going on.
  But I want to respond to this criticism of the health care reform 
bill, because this Sunday people are going to stand up on this floor 
and be counted, and they are either going to be with the insurance 
industry in their ability to stop Americans from getting health 
insurance because they have diabetes or they will be with us who are 
going to stop insurance companies from denying coverage to Americans 
with diabetes and Parkinson's and heart problems.
  Now, this criticism of the procedure that is going to be used reminds 
me of an old show I saw, ``To Tell the Truth.'' And they showed a guy 
one time, he was a park ranger in Yosemite National Park. He got hit by 
lightning

[[Page 3931]]

not once, not twice, but five times, and they asked him what advice he 
would give to people in a lightning storm. He thought about it for a 
minute and he said, My advice would be don't stand next to me.
  Well, during this debate, don't stand next to the Republicans who are 
giving you this balderdash poppycock that there is something wrong with 
this procedure we are going to use, and I will tell you why.
  The procedure we are going to use, we are going to vote. Everybody's 
votes are going to be right up there. It comports with the U.S. 
Constitution. I will tell you how I know. It is the same procedure the 
Republicans have used scores of times for the last two decades. Of the 
times this procedure has been used in the last two decades, 72 percent 
of the time it was initiated by the Republican Party.
  Now, if you tell me there is something wrong with that, there might 
be a little hypocrisy involved. And when there is hypocrisy involved, 
maybe you could get struck by lightning.
  So let me suggest that during this debate, for the Republicans who 
are going to say there is something wrong with the constitutional 
process we have of voting, don't stand next to a Republican. They might 
get struck by lightning.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, I am a freshman here. I didn't create 
this mess, but I am here to help clean it up. And to suggest this is 
the direction we should go, I thought the campaign they said was about 
change. I thought we were going to try to raise the bar in this 
institution, but evidently not.
  At this time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Scalise).
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah for 
yielding.
  And it is very interesting that those of us who came here to clean up 
this process are watching as the liberals that are running this 
Congress try to ram through a 2,407-page government takeover of health 
care without even allowing a vote here on the House floor. And maybe 
they really think that the American people will be fooled, but the 
American people will not be fooled.
  And isn't it interesting that we are here right now debating this 
bill, H.R. 3644. It is a 15-page bill. We have a debate here on the 
House floor, and in a little while we are going to have a vote here on 
the House floor on this 15-page bill; yet Speaker Pelosi and her 
liberal attendants want to hide a vote on this 2,407-page bill.
  They are running around this building; they are running all around 
town saying how great this bill is. They are talking about all the 
wonderful things in this bill. Well, if it is so wonderful, why are 
they actually trying to hide a vote on the bill?
  What they are trying to hide, maybe, is all the sweetheart deals that 
are in this bill and the other subsequent language that they just filed 
a little while ago that people are still combing through and finding 
more sweetheart deals.
  Maybe another thing they are trying to hide in this bill are all the 
budget gimmicks, the fact that there is 10 years of taxes in this bill 
with only 6 years of spending, and yet they want to say that it is 
going to reduce the deficits.
  Anybody who thinks that this bill, this $1 trillion fiasco is going 
to reduce the deficit, obviously they didn't follow the Cash for 
Clunkers program that was supposed to last 6 months and ran out of 
money after about 2 weeks.
  So here we are debating this 15-page bill and we are going to have a 
vote on this 15-page bill, and American people across the country are 
wondering right now what they are hiding in this 2,407-page bill that 
they are trying to avoid a vote on.
  Again, maybe it is the $500 billion in new taxes in this bill that 
they are trying to hide, most of which would fall of the backs of 
middle class families and the job creators in this country.
  I will tell you one bill that the American people would like us to be 
debating; not this 2,407-page bill, not this 15-page bill. The American 
people would like us to be debating a bill to create jobs in this 
country to actually get our economy back on track. And those of us on 
the Republican side have put many ideas on the table that would 
actually create jobs in this country, and they have all been pushed to 
the side because they want to try to sneak this bill through without a 
vote on the House floor.
  So what other things are in here that they are trying to hide? What 
about the $500 billion in cuts to Medicare, including the virtual 
elimination of the Medicare Advantage program?
  And I guess that leads us to something else they are trying to hide 
is all the broken promises that are in this bill, because the President 
said on multiple occasions, If you like what you have, you can keep it. 
The problem is, as the American people are finding out, there are 
multiple places in this bill that they take away the health care you 
like, including Medicare Advantage, which hundreds of thousands of 
seniors in Louisiana and all across the Nation like that plan, and yet 
it is taken away from them. And many small businesses will tell you the 
good health care that they provide to their employees, that their 
employees like, will be taken away.
  And, even more importantly, doctors--and ask your family doctor. Many 
doctors across this country have said they are shutting down their 
practice if this 2,407-page monstrosity becomes law because they are 
not going to let a government bureaucrat interfere between the 
relationship of a doctor and patient.
  So what else are they trying to hide? Let's talk about the broken 
promises again. You know, the President said multiple times all of this 
is going to be on C-SPAN. Now, if you are watching C-SPAN today, you 
are watching the debate on this 15-page bill. It is a good debate we 
are having on the 15-page bill, but you are not allowed a debate on the 
2,407-page bill because it is not on C-SPAN.
  In fact, right now while we are here on this House floor, Speaker 
Pelosi and her liberal attendants have been dispatched all throughout 
town to continue cutting sweetheart deals. Yes, they are actually still 
meeting right now cutting sweetheart deals. And what about that C-SPAN 
promise? Not one of those meetings is on C-SPAN, and yet it is going on 
right now and we don't see any of that.
  And so the American people are watching this, and the American people 
are sick of this process; yet all I hear on the other side is, Oh, 
George Bush and those Republicans.
  They are running everything now. President Obama is in the White 
House. They have got a 59-vote majority in the Senate. They have got 
over 250 votes here on this House floor and they only need 216, and yet 
they still think that they can get away with saying, Oh, it is those 
Republicans that are doing all of this. And yet they are trying to 
sneak through this 2,407-page bill while saying, Okay, it is okay to 
have a vote on 15 pages and it is okay to have a debate on 15 pages, 
but they want to hide a debate and hide a vote on 2,407 pages.
  The American people are not going to stand for this process, and they 
are watching.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 22 
minutes remaining and the gentleman from Utah has 13\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).
  Mr. SARBANES. I want to thank my colleague for yielding and for 
introducing the Ocean, Coastal, and Watershed Education Act, H.R. 3644, 
and for working to maintain the Bay-Watershed Education and Training 
programs, watershed approach for environmental education.
  In my own State of Maryland, the Chesapeake Bay B-WET was the first 
B-WET that was established for the country, and it serves as a national 
model of watershed-based environmental education.
  Earlier this fall, I was pleased to join with Congressmen Kratovil 
and Wittman to introduce and then see passage

[[Page 3932]]

in the full House of Representatives legislation that reauthorizes the 
Chesapeake Bay B-WET program.
  The bill before us will codify other existing B-WET programs around 
the country and provide NOAA the authority to create new B-WETs in 
various watersheds throughout the country and the territories. So I 
want to again thank Congresswoman Capps for her leadership.

                              {time}  1130

  One of the things that this does, this education and training for the 
next generation, is that it encourages our kids to become comfortable 
with science; to look at the world through an empirical lens; to make 
decisions based on data and facts, not just opinion. And that's a skill 
that we really need to encourage in the next generation.
  It occurs to me as we talk about this health care bill, I wish more 
people would be bringing a lens of empiricism and fact-based review to 
the health care bill, because if you look at the health care bill 
through that lens, if you look at the facts of this health care bill, 
then it is clear why it responds to all of the grievances that so many 
Americans have had with the current health care system for decades.
  Fact: Not only does it pay for itself, it reduces the deficit. So 
this suggestion that somehow it's not being paid for is misplaced. Not 
only does it pay for itself, but over the next 10 years, the 
independent Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, has projected that 
there will be savings and a reduction to the deficit of about $132 
billion. And then in the next 10 years they've projected that it will 
reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion. So all those people out there that 
want to reduce the deficit, this is your bill. The health care bill is 
a major vehicle for accomplishing that. That's fact number one.
  Fact number two: It's going to make Medicare stronger--not weaker--
because it's going to crack down on fraud and abuse. It's going to take 
those savings and--this is another piece of misinformation that's going 
on, that somehow the savings we're taking from Medicare are going to go 
off into the ether. We're taking the savings from Medicare, and we're 
actually putting them right back into the Medicare program by closing 
the doughnut hole, by making available to our seniors primary care 
opportunities and preventive care measures that currently they have to 
pay out of pocket for. But now, because it makes a lot of sense, those 
things will be covered. So we're taking the savings, we're putting it 
right back into the Medicare program.
  Fact number three: Thirty-two million people who today do not have 
health insurance coverage, when this bill is passed, will be on their 
way to getting that coverage. Ninety-five percent of Americans will be 
covered ultimately when the provisions of this bill take full force. In 
fact, the last fact I'd just like to point out, which is this, is 
finally, after decades in which the health insurance industry has 
pretty much run the show--it's been a health insurance industry 
takeover of the health care system in America. That's who's taking over 
the health care system, the private health insurance industry. This 
bill finally fights back against the health insurance industry and says 
no longer will you discriminate against people based on preexisting 
conditions, no longer will you terminate their coverage right at the 
moment when they need it most.
  Finally, instead of us living in your world, by your rules, you're 
going to start living in our world by our rules. That's what this 
health care bill accomplishes. And that's why we're ready to support 
it.
  Again, I want to thank my colleague for her work on the B-WET, and I 
strongly support that bill as well.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I guess that's the fundamental challenge. I don't want 
to live in his world. And I don't want the people of the United States 
to have to live in his world. That's the fundamental difference in the 
approach that's dealing with this health care bill. We have an 
opportunity in this country to do the right thing. I think the more the 
people of the United States of America have gotten to know this health 
care bill, the less they like it. The more sunshine that's shown on 
this, the less they like it. Only in the United States of America can 
you spend a trillion dollars and it's not going to add to the deficit 
when we're already $12 trillion into debt. This bill that we're 
considering here today will add to that debt. Even the President didn't 
even ask money for this program.
  We can't even take care of our seniors in this country or our 
veterans. We have a Veterans Administration, and I have soldiers in the 
State of Utah that are trying get care and services, yet we got a 
notice recently from the Veterans Administration saying, Don't even 
bother applying because we have such a backlog of people. The American 
people understand this. They understand how deep our deficit and our 
debt is. They understand how irresponsible the health care bill is and 
what a detriment it's going to be to this Nation and this country. And 
I would challenge Members to try to articulate what this bill is even 
going to do. There's some 158 programs, and administrations, and 
departments, and boards. Somebody stand up and try to articulate what's 
going to happen--not what it's going to do, but how is it going to 
work? Because I don't think there's anybody in this body that can 
actually answer, How is it going to work?
  Now going back specifically to this bill that we're considering here 
today. Again, I want to reiterate the point, Madam Speaker, that we 
spent a million dollars coming up with a study from the National 
Academy of Sciences and just totally ignored it. Two hundred pages, 2 
years of work, and yet because we've got to fill some time here so we 
can get to health care--they don't even want Members to go home for the 
weekend--we're going to throw up this bill prematurely. Why are we 
ignoring this report?
  I want to highlight a couple of things that are said in here. This is 
from that National Academy of Sciences report recommendation 1:2: ``In 
order to adequately address the mismatch between its available 
resources and its ambitious education agenda, NOAA should better align 
and deploy its resources. This may require the termination of certain 
activities and programs that, based on appropriate evaluation, do not 
directly and effectively contribute to its education and stewardship 
goals.
  ``NOAA's role in education is shaped by the distributed nature of its 
education efforts across five line offices and the Office of Education. 
Because of their diverse missions, the line offices . . . and the 
Office of Education can act independently and sometimes even in 
competition with each other.''
  Further, ``The differences in management structures, missions, and 
education mandates are obstacles to creating a cohesive and coordinated 
education portfolio.''
  At a time when we are paying over $600 million a day just in 
interest, we have a debt that exceeds $12 trillion, close to a $1 
trillion new health care proposal that's moving forward, some how, some 
way, the Democrats want to offer a bill that gives an automatic 
increase year after year. Ten percent. Just keep adding 10 percent to 
it over the next 5 years. I think that is fundamentally wrong.
  Now the ranking member of Natural Resources, Doc Hastings, offered an 
amendment that said, Let's just keep the funding level flat. That is a 
simple, reasonable proposal. But somehow the Rules Committee couldn't 
find it in their heart to allow Members to vote on it.
  Please, don't come here and lecture to somebody and say, Oh, we're 
about openness and transparency. We're about change in America. I don't 
buy it. You're not living up to it. You have the opportunity to do the 
right thing--and you consistently don't. You consistently offend the 
American people and offend me. I'm a freshman here. I didn't create 
this mess. I don't want to hear about how the Republicans messed up, 
because you know what? They had the House and the Senate and the 
Presidency and they did blow it. I'll be the first one to stand here 
and point criticism to them. But if we're

[[Page 3933]]

going to rise to the level that this body demands, then we need to 
raise the bar and start acting like adults. Vote on what we're supposed 
to vote for. Be open and transparent. Allow a rule that will come to 
this floor and make America proud. Let people without the disguise and 
the nuances. That is within your power, and yet it's not being done. 
And it's not being done consistently. There are a lot of people here 
that are fed up with it. I'm one of them. It's disgusting what you're 
doing. It is disgusting. And I think you know it.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I'll reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPPS. At this point I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today as cosponsor of H.R. 3644, the 
Bay-Watershed Education and Training Regional Programs and National 
Environmental Literacy Grant Program, and with great appreciation for 
my colleague from California, who combines her interest--our interest--
in environmental protection with our interest in the education of 
youth. And I would like to talk about the bill at hand. She combines 
here book learning with field environmental education. Environmentalist 
David Polis once said, ``Must we always teach our children with books? 
Let them look at the mountains and the stars up above. Let them look at 
the beauty of the waters and the trees and flowers on earth. They will 
then begin to think, and to think is the beginning of a real 
education.''
  If we want to teach our children to be responsible stewards of our 
environment, we must foster understanding and awareness of the 
environment as an integral part of our educational curricula. The B-WET 
and National Environmental Literacy Grant Program operated by the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is an excellent example 
of a successful environmental program.
  Now the opponents of this legislation seem to think that because the 
National Research Council says there are other good educational 
programs in NOAA in addition to this, that we somehow should not do 
this. Through these grant programs, elementary students and high school 
students across the Nation have learned to appreciate the importance of 
healthy coastal and ocean resources to the quality of our life and to 
coastal-based economies.
  The legislation before us today would fully authorize and expand 
access to the B-WET and the Environmental Literacy Program. I'd like to 
thank my colleague from California for including a provision in this 
legislation that would allow the Mid-Atlantic region to be a priority 
area for future B-WET programs. This will allow successful New Jersey 
educational programs like Rutgers University and the Jacques Cousteau 
National Estuarine Research Reserve to compete for funds that can 
enrich environmental education throughout the State and the region. New 
Jersey is already taking the lead on coastal and marine resources 
through the K-12 education program developed by the National Estuarine 
Research Reserve System. It's known as KEEP, the K-12 Estuarine 
Education Program. The availability of B-WET funds to the Mid-Atlantic 
region could help to advance KEEP, a field-based estuarine science 
education initiative that features real-time data and innovative 
technology. Research has shown that environmental education, 
particularly field-based education like this, fosters students' 
readiness to learn. It improves scores on standardized tests. Yes, it 
helps book learning, too. And it stimulates student interest in math 
and science.
  I urge my colleagues to support this authorization, and I thank the 
gentlelady from California for her leadership on this.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, we have no additional speakers, but I 
will continue to reserve the balance of my time, unless you're prepared 
to close.
  Mrs. CAPPS. I'd like now to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
  Mr. FATTAH. Let me thank the gentlelady from California. I want to 
congratulate my colleague for her extraordinary leadership on this 
issue of such importance. We know of the real environmental challenges 
facing the oceans throughout the world. Oceans represent the vast 
majority--more than two-thirds of the surface of our planet--and this 
effort to educate our future generations about our responsibilities to 
be good stewards is so very, very important.
  Back home, we have the Lenfest Foundation, in which Gerry and 
Marguerite Lenfest have put forth tens of millions of dollars into 
these types of efforts. And here in Washington, my friend, Tom 
Lindenfeld, with the Blue Guardians. There's so many people, Americans, 
who have focused the Nation's attention on this challenge.
  I want to rise as an appropriator that's on the subcommittee that 
handles the NOAA appropriations. First of all, these authorizations are 
important, but they will be held to the PAYGO rules. It's still vitally 
important that the Congress speak and indicate its preference. I'm a 
supporter of this bill. I want to thank my colleague for her 
introduction and hope that all of my colleagues will favorably support 
it.

                              {time}  1145

  Now, I want to say a little bit about the other subject matter that's 
been raised on the floor, about the health care debate that we're going 
to have on Sunday. Now, all we have to do as Americans when we really 
hear these very different points of view is look at the scorecard. When 
the Republicans had the Presidency, the Congress and the Senate for 6 
years, tens of millions of Americans were uninsured, and they did zero. 
On the question of children's health care, there was just zero and 
vetoes of the children's health care program. In terms of reining in 
the insurance companies and their unfair practices, they did zero.
  Now, the Democrats in less than 16 months have made sure that the 
children's health care program could insure over 10 million children. 
On Sunday--and what an appropriate day for it--we're going to take 32 
million of our fellow citizens and make sure that they have health care 
coverage. Aren't we our brother's keeper? We have a responsibility to 
be stewards of the Earth, but we also have a responsibility to love our 
neighbor. And in this Easter season, we know that on Fridays a lot of 
things can happen. We can hear a lot of things and witness a lot of 
things, but if we just hold on and wait until Sunday, good things 
happen on Sunday.
  I believe that this Democratic majority, when we look at the 
scorecard, when we get held to account for how we were stewards--my 
colleague from California is showing good stewardship in terms of the 
oceans and educating future generations, and this Democratic majority 
is going to show that, indeed, we are our brother's keeper on Sunday. 
So notwithstanding the zero over their 6 years, we've taken less than 
16 months to take the priorities of this country, right them again, and 
move us in the correct direction.
  Now, we've heard this talk about deficits. The last time that we were 
paying down the deficits and balancing the budget, we had a Democrat in 
the White House. We're headed in that direction again. That's what 
PAYGO is about. That's what responsible leadership is about. And that's 
why the President's set up this fiscal commission. I have introduced a 
bill to get us to deal with the debts in our country. We hear a lot of 
nonsense from some of our Republican colleagues. We can stop talking 
about it and vote on it.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Sunday, Bloody Sunday. Can't wait.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, could I again inquire of the time 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California has 10 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Utah has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

[[Page 3934]]


  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from 
California, for yielding her time to me and thank you for this great 
bill. We are veering from the conversation a little bit. But first I 
want to talk about the Capps bill and just say how important it is to a 
State like mine, with a tremendous amount of ocean coastline, with an 
enormous number of young people who grow up on the waterfront, who are 
fishermen, who work in waterfront communities. This is a great program. 
I wholeheartedly endorse this particular piece of legislation. I know 
it's going to be great for our coastal communities, and I commend you 
for doing it. So thank you very much for what you're doing on the floor 
today.
  I just wanted to take a little bit of time to answer my freshman 
colleague from Utah, who is also my office neighbor, and just talk 
about how seriously we disagree on this topic of health care. I, for 
one, am thrilled that we are here this weekend to finally take up an 
issue that is of such great importance to my constituents. I mean, 
frankly, when I go back to my district, I find that the more people 
hear about this health care bill, the happier they are. They are 
thrilled to know that as a small business they're going to start 
receiving subsidies to help support the cost of health insurance. My 
seniors are saying, Thank goodness we no longer will have to pay for 
preventive care under Medicare. Thank goodness we're going to get rid 
of the doughnut hole that was created by the other side, predominantly 
when they passed the Medicare prescription D plan.
  We hear a lot about process, but I just want to talk a little bit 
about the process of insurance companies because that's what makes my 
constituents mad. When they hear about the fact that people are 
constantly denied coverage because of a preexisting condition--in many 
States, being a woman, a woman of child-bearing age is a preexisting 
condition. That will be gone with this bill. Immediately we'll say 
children are not a preexisting condition. None of them can be denied 
coverage. And by 2014, no one can be denied under this piece of 
legislation. We're going to get rid of lifetime caps, people who have a 
long-term illness who find that their insurance runs out in spite of 
the fact that they've been paying these high premiums.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance 
of my time as we have no further requests for time.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank my colleague from California, 
Congresswoman Capps, for yielding the time and for the excellent 
legislation which will help educate our children about the importance 
of our environment, our oceans and our watersheds. She has been a 
leader on environmental legislation, and I am proud to serve with her.
  But, Madam Speaker, I want to just take a moment to comment on some 
of the other debate that's been going on here. I regret very much the 
tone that my Republican colleagues have taken in this debate. Never, 
never in all my time being here have I heard such rhetoric, personal 
attacks, harsh attacks. I regret it because the issue of health 
insurance reform is an important issue, and we should talk about it 
with respect for one another and with respect for each other's 
approaches to health insurance reform.
  This is important. This debate we're going to have on Sunday, this 
vote we're going to have on Sunday is important. My colleagues express 
outrage over the process. Where's the outrage over the fact that tens 
of millions of our fellow citizens do not have health care? Where's the 
outrage over the fact that some of the biggest insurance companies in 
the United States of America regularly discriminate against individuals 
who have preexisting conditions, preexisting conditions like acne, 
believe it or not? And in some States in this country, domestic 
violence is used as a preexisting condition to deny women health 
insurance. So a woman who gets beaten by her husband or her boyfriend 
has a preexisting condition. Give me break. Give me a break.
  I have heard that we're not going to vote on health care. This is 
some kind of crazy process. A process, by the way, which has been 
invoked by them many times when they were in charge. But to the 
question that always gets raised, is the House approving the Senate 
bill without actually voting on it? No.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts 
has expired.
  Mrs. CAPPS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. McGOVERN. The House is voting to approve the Senate bill when it 
votes on the rule. When Members take up the rule, they are considering 
whether to pass the Senate bill at the same time that they pass 
reconciliation, which will improve the Senate bill.
  You want to be outraged, be outraged over the fact that we're the 
greatest country on this planet, the richest country on this planet, 
and tens of millions of our citizens do not have health care. We can do 
better, and we will do better on Sunday.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  Mr. ELLISON. Let me thank the gentlewoman for her excellent work in 
the area of the environment, our oceans and our watersheds. But it 
seems like every conversation here is going to be about health care, so 
let's take that on.
  The fact is, Madam Speaker, this bill that we'll vote on on Sunday 
cuts the deficit by $138 billion in the first 10 years. That level of 
deficit reduction is something the Democrats are known for and 
Republicans, unfortunately, have not been known for. We know that when 
the Democrats left office in 2000, we had a surplus, and then we 
quickly--based on tax cuts for the wealthy and unpaid-for wars and 
other things--we ran into a massive deficit. Quite frankly, if I was a 
Republican, I would be embarrassed to talk about deficits. But it seems 
like they're not.
  So the fact is, we have to talk about the facts and straighten out 
the situation so that the American people will know that the fact is 
that that bill, this health care bill, cuts the deficit by $138 billion 
in the first 10 years, and cuts it by $1 trillion in the second 10 
years. The fact is this bill is good for America. It is fiscally sound. 
It is paid for. It makes sense. And for any Republican to stand up here 
and talk about deficits and lecture on deficits, they really do need to 
review their history because they are the party of deficits. Democrats 
are the party of deficit reduction. Americans all over this country, 
some of whom have said that they're scared about the change that is 
about to come, their fear should be overcome by the good things that 
are in this bill.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I do think we should go back and review 
history. The reality of this bill is the fact that it spends nearly $1 
trillion, and the reason you can try to say that it's deficit-neutral 
or reduces the deficit is because it raises taxes. Only in America do 
you try to get away with saying, Hey, we're going to spend nearly $1 
trillion, and by the way, it's not going to hurt the deficit. And let's 
also go back and review history and understand that during that time 
you like to tout when President Clinton was in office, the reality is 
that the debt continued to increase. There was a reduction in the 
annual deficit, and a Republican Congress was in charge. It is the 
Congress of the United States of America that originates spending. So 
let's also make sure that we're fair on that point as well.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, in closing the debate on this topic, I want 
to spend a couple of minutes responding to some claims from the other 
side. First with respect to the authorization levels, Congress is 
already investing in both of these programs under discussion today 
through the appropriations process. The authorized funding levels 
contained in my bipartisan compromise amendment were based upon

[[Page 3935]]

existing appropriations and allow for the continuation and measured 
growth of both programs, which are in high demand by educators 
nationwide. They were negotiated with my colleague Mr. Cassidy, and I 
do appreciate his efforts.
  My bill would authorize the programs that Congress is already 
spending money on and makes sure that certain standards and criteria 
for implementation are met by the agency when they do spend these 
funds. To me, this represents a responsible effort on the part of our 
committee and our Congress to exercise our oversight function.
  Second, with respect to the argument that we should not consider this 
legislation because we need time to study the recommendations from the 
NAS evaluation of NOAA's education program, it is true that the 
National Academy of Science report on NOAA's education program was 
released last week. Nothing in the report, however, was specifically 
critical of either the B-WET or ELG programs. And because of this, this 
report should have no bearing on my legislation to codify both 
programs.
  Indeed, the NAS' National Research Council panel found that over the 
relatively short lives of both programs, they have made positive 
contributions to fulfill NOAA's educational mission and that they 
reflect well the agency's diverse capabilities in science, resource 
stewardship, and education.
  In short, these are both very good programs with broad support from 
more than 60 science education, outdoor recreation, and conservation 
organizations. By authorizing them, we ensure money already being spent 
is spent well and responsibly. I urge all Members to support the bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McGovern). All time for debate on the 
bill, as amended, has expired.


     Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mrs. Capps

  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk made in 
order under the rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part A 
     of House Report 111-445 offered by Mrs. Capps:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Ocean, Coastal, and 
     Watershed Education Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The United States faces major challenges, such as 
     mitigating and adapting to the impacts of climate change, 
     stewarding critical coastal and marine resources including 
     fish and wildlife habitat while sustaining the commercial and 
     recreational activities that depend on these resources, and 
     improving resilience to natural disasters, that collectively 
     threaten human health, sustainable economic development, 
     environmental quality, and national security.
       (2) Communities in coastal watersheds are particularly 
     vulnerable to these increasingly urgent, interconnected, and 
     complex challenges and need support for teacher professional 
     development and experiential learning among students of all 
     ages.
       (3) These challenges can be met with the help of 
     comprehensive programs specifically targeted to engage 
     coastal watershed communities, schoolchildren, and the 
     general public to develop engaged and environmentally 
     literate citizens who are better able to understand complex 
     environmental issues, assess risk, evaluate proposed plans, 
     and understand how individual decisions affect the 
     environment at local, regional, national, and global scales.
       (4) The intrinsic social and conservation values of 
     wildlife-dependent and other outdoor recreation can play an 
     important role in outdoor educational programs that address 
     the myriad of coastal and ocean concerns, as well as instill 
     a sustainable conservation ethic that will enable them to 
     face those challenges to the betterment of both the 
     environment and coastal communities.
       (5) The economic importance of coastal areas and resources 
     to the overall economy of the United States is significant. 
     According to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, coastal and 
     ocean-related activities support millions of American jobs 
     and generate more than $1 trillion, or one tenth of the 
     Nation's annual gross domestic product. Sustainable use of 
     the Nation's natural resources can provide additional 
     economic opportunities to the United States economy.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to advance 
     environmental literacy, develop public awareness and 
     appreciation of the economic, social, recreational, and 
     environmental benefits of coastal watersheds, and emphasize 
     stewardship and sustainable economic development of critical 
     coastal and marine resources, including an understanding of 
     how climate change is impacting those resources, through the 
     establishment of--
       (1) an Environmental Literacy Grant Program; and
       (2) regional programs under the B-WET Program.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration.
       (2) Bay-watershed education.--The term ``bay-watershed 
     education'' means environmental education focused on 
     watersheds, with an emphasis on stewardship and sustainable 
     economic development of critical coastal and marine 
     resources, including an understanding of how climate change 
     is impacting those resources.
       (3) B-WET program.--The term ``B-WET Program'' means the 
     Bay-Watershed Education and Training Program of the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as in effect 
     immediately before the enactment of this Act and modified 
     under this Act or any subsequently enacted Act.
       (4) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means a 
     State agency, local agency, school district, institution of 
     higher education, or for-profit or non-profit nongovernmental 
     organization, consortium, or other entity that the 
     Administrator finds has demonstrated expertise and experience 
     in the development of the institutional, intellectual, or 
     policy resources to help environmental education become more 
     effective and widely practiced.
       (5) Environmental education.--The term ``environmental 
     education'' means interdisciplinary formal and informal 
     learning about the relevant interrelationships between 
     dynamic environmental and human systems, including economic 
     systems that depend on coastal, watershed and marine 
     resources for job creation and economic growth, that results 
     in increasing the learner's capacity for decisionmaking, 
     stewardship, and sustainable economic development of natural 
     and community resources.
       (6) Environmental literacy.--The term ``environmental 
     literacy'' means the capacity to perceive and interpret the 
     relative health of environmental systems and the 
     interrelationships between natural, economic, and social 
     systems and technology, and to assess options and take 
     appropriate action to maintain, restore, or improve the 
     health of those systems and promote sustainable economic 
     development.
       (7) High-leverage projects.--The term ``high-leverage 
     projects'' means projects supported by grants authorized 
     under this Act that use Federal, State and nongovernmental 
     financial, technical, and other resources in such a manner 
     that the potential beneficial outcomes are highly magnified 
     or enhanced.
       (8) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, 
     American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands, any other territory or possession of the United 
     States, and any Indian tribe.

     SEC. 4. ENVIRONMENTAL LITERACY GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator shall establish a 
     national competitive grant program, to be known as the 
     ``Environmental Literacy Grant Program'', under which the 
     Administrator shall provide, subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, financial assistance to--
       (1) expand the adoption of coastal, ocean, Great Lakes, and 
     climate on all time scales education;
       (2) build administrative and technical capacity with 
     coastal, ocean, and watershed communities and stakeholder 
     groups to enhance their effectiveness;
       (3) encourage water-dependent, wildlife-dependent, and 
     other outdoor recreation, experiential learning, and hands-on 
     involvement with coastal and watershed resources as a method 
     of promoting stewardship and sustainable economic development 
     of those resources;
       (4) develop and implement new approaches to advance 
     coastal, ocean, Great Lakes, and climate on all time scales 
     education and environmental literacy at national, regional, 
     and local levels; and
       (5) encourage formal and informal environmental education 
     about the systemic interrelationships between healthy 
     coastal, watershed, and marine resources and sustainable 
     economic systems that depend on such resources for job 
     creation and economic development.
       (b) Priorities.--In awarding grants under this section, the 
     Administrator shall give priority consideration to 
     innovative, strategic, high-leverage projects that 
     demonstrate strong potential for being sustained in the 
     future by a grant recipient beyond the time period in which 
     activities are carried out with the grant.
       (c) Guidelines.--No later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and after consultation with appropriate 
     stakeholders, the Administrator shall publish in the Federal 
     Register guidelines regarding the implementation of this 
     grant program, including publication of criteria for eligible 
     entities, identification of national priorities, 
     establishment of performance measures to evaluate program 
     effectiveness, information regarding sources of non-Federal 
     matching funds or in-kind contributions, and reporting 
     requirements for grant award recipients.

[[Page 3936]]

       (d) Limitation on Use of Funds by Administrator.--Of the 
     amounts made available to implement this section--
       (1) no less than 80 percent shall be used for competitive 
     grants or cooperative agreements;
       (2) no more than 10 percent may be used by the 
     Administrator to implement the grant program; and
       (3) no less than 10 percent of the annual funds 
     appropriated for the program authorized under this section 
     shall be used to fund contracts or cooperative agreements to 
     conduct strategic planning, promote communications among 
     grant recipients and within communities, coordinate grant 
     activities to foster an integrated program, and oversee 
     national evaluation efforts.

     SEC. 5. B-WET PROGRAM.

       (a) Existing Program.--The Administrator shall conduct the 
     B-WET Program, including each of the regional programs 
     conducted or under active consideration for creation under 
     such program immediately before the enactment of this Act.
       (b) New Regional Programs.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator may create new regional 
     programs under the B-WET Program in accordance with a 
     strategy issued under this subsection.
       (2) Strategy.--
       (A) In general.--The Administrator shall issue a strategy 
     for establishing such new regional programs
       (B) Contents.--The strategy shall include the following:
       (i) Evaluation of the need for new regional program in 
     areas that are not served under the B-WET Program on the date 
     of enactment of this Act.
       (ii) Identification of potential new regional programs, 
     including a listing of potential principal non-Federal 
     partners.
       (iii) A comprehensive budget for future expansion of the B-
     WET Program over the period for which appropriations are 
     authorized under this Act.
       (iv) Such other information as the Administrator considers 
     necessary.
       (C) Consultation and public comment.--The Administrator 
     shall consult with relevant stakeholders and provide 
     opportunity for public comment in the development of the 
     strategy.
       (D) Submission to congress.--The Administrator shall submit 
     the strategy to the Committee on Natural Resources of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation of the Senate by not later than 
     270 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (3) Priority consideration.--In creating new regional 
     programs under this subsection, the Administrator shall give 
     priority consideration to the needs of--
       (A) United States territories, including Guam, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and American 
     Samoa;
       (B) the Great Lakes States;
       (C) Alaska; and
       (D) the mid-Atlantic region.
       (c) Modification of B-WET Program.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator may modify or realign 
     regional programs under the B-WET Program, based on--
       (A) changes in regional needs;
       (B) mutual interest between the Administrator and relevant 
     stakeholders within a region or regions;
       (C) changes in resources available to the Administrator to 
     implement the B-WET Program; and
       (D) other circumstances as determined necessary by the 
     Administrator.
       (2) Consultation and public comment.--The Administrator 
     shall--
       (A) consult with the persons conducting a regional program 
     and provide opportunity for public comment prior to making a 
     final decision to modify or realign such regional program; 
     and
       (B) publish public notice of such a decision no less than 
     30-days before the effective date of such a modification or 
     realignment.
       (d) Regional Program Managers.--
       (1) Appointment of regional program manager.--The 
     Administrator shall be responsible for the selection, 
     appointment, and when necessary replacement of a regional 
     program manager for each regional program under the B-WET 
     Program.
       (2) Qualifications.--To qualify for appointment as a 
     regional program manager, an individual must--
       (A) reside in the region for which appointed; and
       (B) demonstrate competence and expertise in bay-watershed 
     education and training.
       (3) Functions.--Each regional program manager shall--
       (A) be responsible for managing and administering the B-WET 
     Program in the region for which appointed, in accordance with 
     this Act;
       (B) determine the most appropriate communities within the 
     region to be served by the B-WET Program;
       (C) encourage water-dependent, wildlife-dependent, and 
     other outdoor recreation, experiential learning experiences 
     for students, and hands-on involvement with coastal and 
     watershed resources as a method of promoting stewardship and 
     sustainable economic development of those resources and 
     complementing core classroom curriculum;
       (D) support communication and collaboration among 
     educators, natural resource planners and managers, and 
     governmental and nongovernmental stakeholders;
       (E) share and distribute information regarding educational 
     plans, strategies, learning activities, and curricula to all 
     stakeholders within its region;
       (F) provide financial and technical assistance pursuant to 
     the guidelines developed by the Administrator under this 
     section; and
       (G) perform any additional duties as necessary to carry out 
     the functions of the program.
       (e) Program Guidelines.--No later than 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act and after consultation with 
     appropriate stakeholders, the Administrator shall publish in 
     the Federal Register guidelines regarding the implementation 
     of the B-WET Program, as follows:
       (1) Contracts.--The Administrator shall create guidelines 
     through which each regional program manager may enter into 
     contracts (subject to the availability of appropriations) to 
     support projects to design, demonstrate, evaluate, or 
     disseminate practices, methods, or techniques related to Bay-
     watershed education and training.
       (2) Grant making and cooperative agreements.--
       (A) In general.--The Administrator shall create guidelines 
     through which each regional program manager may provide 
     financial assistance in the form of a grant (subject to the 
     availability of appropriations) or cooperative agreement to 
     support projects that advance the purpose of this Act. The 
     guidelines shall include criteria for eligible entities, 
     identification of national priorities, establishment of 
     performance measures to evaluate program effectiveness, and 
     reporting requirements for grant award recipients.
       (B) Priority.--In making grants under this paragraph, each 
     regional program manager shall give priority to those 
     projects that will--
       (i) promote bay-watershed education throughout the region 
     concerned;
       (ii) advance strategic initiatives to incorporate bay-
     watershed education into formal and informal education 
     systems;
       (iii) build capacity within bay-watershed education 
     communities and stakeholder groups for expanding and 
     strengthening their work;
       (iv) build bay-watershed education into professional 
     development or training activities for educators; and
       (v) broadly replicate existing, proven bay-watershed 
     education programs.
       (f) Non-Federal Share.--
       (1) In general.--In awarding grants under this section, the 
     regional program managers shall give priority consideration 
     to a project for which the Federal share does not exceed 75 
     percent of the aggregate cost of such project.
       (2) In-kind contribution.--The non-Federal share of the 
     costs of any project supported by an award of grant funding 
     under this section may be cash or the fair market value of 
     services, equipment, donations, or any other form of in-kind 
     contribution.
       (3) Other priority.--The regional program managers shall 
     give priority consideration to a project that will be 
     conducted by or benefit any under-served community, any 
     community that has an inability to draw on other sources of 
     funding because of the small population or low income of the 
     community, or any other person for any other reason the 
     Administrator considers appropriate and consistent with the 
     purpose of this Act.
       (g) Regional Program Coordination.--Within the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Office of 
     Education shall work with regional program managers on the 
     following regional B-WET Program functions:
       (1) Strategic planning efforts.
       (2) Integration and coordination of programs.
       (3) Coordination of national evaluation efforts.
       (4) Promotion of network wide communications.
       (5) Selection of new Regional Program Managers.
       (6) Management, tracking, and oversight of the B-WET 
     Program.
       (h) Limitation on Use of Funds by Administrator.--Of the 
     amounts made available to implement this section--
       (1) no less than 80 percent shall be used for 
     implementation of regional program activities, including the 
     award of grants; and
       (2) no more than 20 percent may be used by the 
     Administrator to implement the regional programs and regional 
     program coordination.

     SEC. 6. BIENNIAL REPORT.

       Not later than December 31, 2011, and biennially 
     thereafter, the Administrator shall submit to Congress a 
     report on the grant programs authorized under this Act. Each 
     such report shall include a description of the eligible 
     activities carried out with grants awarded under the Act 
     during the previous two fiscal years, an assessment of the 
     success and impact of such activities, and a description of 
     the type of programs carried out with such grant, 
     disaggregated by State.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Administrator--
       (1) to carry out the Environmental Literacy Grant Program 
     authorized by section 4 (including administrative expenses 
     for preparing the report under section 6)--
       (A) for fiscal year 2011, $13,200,000;
       (B) for fiscal year 2012, $14,500,000;
       (C) for fiscal year 2013, $16,000,000;
       (D) for fiscal year 2014, $17,600,000; and
       (E) for fiscal year 2015, $19,300,000; and
       (2) to carry out the B-WET Program authorized by section 5 
     (including administrative expenses for preparing the report 
     under section 6)--
       (A) for fiscal year 2011, $10,700,000;
       (B) for fiscal year 2012, $11,700,000;

[[Page 3937]]

       (C) for fiscal year 2013, $12,900,000;
       (D) for fiscal year 2014, $14,200,000; and
       (E) for fiscal year 2015, $15,600,000.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1192, the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, my amendment in the nature of a substitute 
reflects changes to the bill, as ordered reported by the Committee on 
Natural Resources, that, as I mentioned, were negotiated between myself 
and Congressman Cassidy of Louisiana. I wish to thank Mr. Cassidy and 
his staff for their cooperation and thoughtful suggestions to improve 
this bill, and I think that the final bipartisan compromise does just 
that.
  In particular, the amendment makes several changes to reflect the 
significant economic importance of coastal areas and resources to the 
overall economy of the United States.
  As a Representative of a coastal district, I could not agree more 
that the economic health and viability of our coastal communities is 
intrinsically connected to the health of the natural resources of the 
watersheds in which we live. You cannot have one without the other. In 
addition, my amendment will authorize a gradual increase in authorized 
appropriations for fiscal years 2011 through 2015. This modest annual 
increase of 10 percent will allow for the responsible expansion of both 
programs to incorporate new regions that are not currently served, 
particularly by the regional B-WET programs.
  I applaud the gentleman from Louisiana for his leadership on this 
front. Both of our districts enjoy the benefits of the regional B-WET 
programs, and we would like to see those benefits extended to other 
watersheds around the country where, I can assure you, there is an 
overwhelming demand. Mr. Speaker, the changes reflected in this 
amendment serve to strengthen the overall purposes of this bill. I 
would like once more to thank Congressman Cassidy and his staff for 
their work on these revisions, and I do encourage support of my 
colleague's amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, there are several concerns with this. In fact, in the 
bill there are several good programs and things of quality that I would 
applaud, but there are some basic fundamental flaws that put me in a 
position, and others in a position, where we are unable to support this 
amendment and the overall bill.
  First of all, it addresses simply two programs within a list of 16 
that are found within NOAA's education programs and supporting offices. 
Further, you see, and actually Jared Polis, a colleague of ours, had a 
Dear Colleague letter talking about Environmental Protection Agency 
educational programs. I don't think it has been addressed how cohesive 
or incohesive it might be between the overlap and what might be 
happening or not happening. I don't think that has been properly 
ferreted out.
  Now through some foresight in previous Congresses here, the National 
Academy of Sciences was tasked with a 2-year study to go out and look 
at what is going on over at NOAA and what their recommendations are. We 
have spent, as American taxpayers, over a million dollars to get this 
report, and yet it seems to be totally ignored. Why does this Congress 
continue to spend money on worthless reports if the Members are going 
to simply ignore them and say, Oh, well, these are my two pet projects; 
and, by the way, let's go ahead and give them 10 percent increases year 
after year after year?
  Is there no recognition that this country is over $12 trillion in 
debt?
  We are paying over $600 million a day in interest on the debt, and 
yet we continue to fund these programs at record levels, and giving 
them amazingly high increases without recognition of the fact that this 
body has got to make difficult decisions.
  We can't be all things to all people. We are going to have to make 
some difficult decisions in this body. And to what is this body 
actually going to say ``no''? Where do we actually turn around and say, 
No. You know what; we are this far in debt and, I'm sorry, we just 
can't increase the funding for another educational program?
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my 
colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) who is the pioneer 
in the area of coastal education.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise on B-WET. I want to talk about B-WET 
rather than all wet.
  I rise in support of this legislation, and I think it is interesting 
that people are talking about health care because, if you don't have a 
healthy planet and healthy ocean, all of this discussion about how you 
care for human beings on the planet is for naught. So let's, for a 
moment, just focus on a healthy Earth that we may understand, and this 
bill does that by this program called B-WET.
  I am a strong advocate for California's B-WET program, and I come to 
the floor today to share a few of the stories that I have heard over 
the years from students and teachers who have benefited from the 
support.
  I would like to tell you about a student who went through California 
State University of Monterey Bay's Recruitment in Science Education 
program, a program called RISE, which we all support, to try to get 
young people interested in the sciences. This young fellow started the 
RISE program when he was in the sixth grade. He was never very engaged 
in activities. He was very shy, and he got average grades. He probably 
would have quit if it hadn't been for his mom and the RISE staff 
pushing him to stay active. His experiences during a water testing 
program on the Salinas River while he was a sophomore in high school 
motivated him to get better grades and to get into college. RISE, the 
program that he went through grammar school and high school with, is 
happy to announce that he is now studying microbiology at the 
University of California, Davis. This program motivated him to go into 
higher education.
  The other story I would like to share with you is about a teacher 
from Moss Landing Marine Laboratory. That teacher participated in the 
marine lab program for 3 years. Unfortunately, this year that teacher 
was given a pink slip and does not have a job, but he told me that his 
participation in the Moss Landing Marine Lab program was the only thing 
that kept him going.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. CAPPS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. FARR. I thank the gentlewoman.
  This interaction and relationship that he built with the teachers in 
the program have kept him motivated and excited about bringing 
meaningful watershed educational experiences to the classroom with 
something that he knew was making a big difference to his students.
  These are stories about students and teachers that wouldn't exist 
without this program.
  Mr. Speaker, we in Congress are constantly trying to think of new 
ways to get students engaged in science. I can attest that this program 
works and is money well spent. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would like to echo some of the comments that have already been made 
here. There seems to be no recognition at all that we have a $12 
trillion debt. We are paying $600 million a day to service the debt 
that we have, and yet we are going to be adding, this bill authorizes 
$23.9 million just in FY 2011. That is more than the President has 
recommended for all of the education programs at NOAA. He has 
recommended that we zero some out, but

[[Page 3938]]

we have doubled down and said let's increase, by a factor of 100 
percent, everything we are doing over there in terms of education.
  The gentleman from Utah pointed out that we commission these reports, 
and then they come back to us and we simply don't follow their 
recommendations. It has been pointed out that they weren't criticizing 
the programs that we are actually plussing up funding for; but mark my 
words, when the President's recommendations come to Congress to zero 
out some of these programs, we will ignore them and say we can't zero 
out those programs just because a report says they are not working.
  I remember one that we dealt with a while ago. I think it was the 
DARE program. We commissioned a report, and it came back and said this 
program is not working at all. It is not delivering the benefits that 
you say should be delivered. What did we do? I think we doubled funding 
for it that year instead of saying, all right, recognizing maybe we are 
not spending money wisely, let's not spend it. Let's pay down the 
deficit a little or pay down the debt. Let's not increase the deficit. 
And yet we get these reports, we throw them on a shelf, and we never 
see them again. That is not the proper oversight we should be doing.
  Congress, as we have been going through this earmark debate, we hear 
Congress say that we are jealously guarding our congressional 
prerogative. We have the power of the purse; we have the power to 
earmark. We do have the power of the purse. We have the power to 
appropriate; and what bothers me more than anything is we spend so much 
time on the 1 percent we earmark and ignore the other 99 percent that 
is spent by the Federal agencies. Instead of offering true oversight, 
and when we get reports saying programs don't work, then following 
those reports and say, We are not going to fund these programs any 
more, instead, we plus up year after year after year until our deficits 
are exploding and our debt is exploding. We cannot continue to do this. 
We cannot continue to go on this path.
  I will be offering an amendment in a couple of minutes that will 
simply say that none of the programs that are authorized in this bill 
should be earmarked. That is a start, because often we will establish 
these competitive grant programs and, within a couple of years, they 
are all filled up with congressional earmarks and no one can even 
compete. I assume that amendment will be adopted. That is a good first 
start.
  Still, we have to look at the overall impact of what we are doing 
here. We are spending $23.9 million, and the total over 10 years is 
$150 billion or so that we are authorizing in new spending, every dime 
of which we spend we are borrowing. We have a deficit of over a 
trillion dollars. We have deficits as far as the eye can see. We are 
scheduled to triple the debt just in a few years, and yet we are 
authorizing new programs, more spending, to add to this deficit that we 
already have. Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue to do this.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
  Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the 
gentlelady from California for yielding me the time and for the 
underlying bill.
  I come from the State of Maryland, and we have the largest estuary, 
the Chesapeake Bay, in and around the State of Maryland, and this 
notion of educating young people, investing them in science and also 
educating them about the deep impacts that we have through all of our 
communities onto this estuary is so important.
  But I would like to take a moment and talk about an issue which has 
consumed us and over which we will hear a lot of discussion and 
misinformation over the ensuing days and hours. Let's talk about health 
care, Mr. Speaker.
  I am so pleased that on Sunday we will have an opportunity in this 
country, finally, to bring health care to the American people. All of 
us as Members of Congress will have an opportunity to say that we 
either stand on the side of the American people or we stand on the side 
of insurance companies; insurance companies that continue to raise 
their rates for premiums; insurance companies that deny care and 
coverage; insurance companies that determine that it is maybe better to 
pay a CEO $23 million a year than it is to deliver quality, affordable, 
and accessible health care to the American people.
  So at long last, the Democrats in Congress and our Democratic 
President are going to bring health care to the American people. We are 
going to ensure that at a cost of $940 billion over a decade, saving 
and cutting the deficit by $138 billion in just the first 10 years and 
by $1.2 trillion in the second 10 years. This is deficit reduction like 
we haven't seen since the last time we had a Democrat in the White 
House. And yet, that is exactly what this health care reform package 
will do.
  And what do we get for $940 billion? Well, I am going to tell you 
what the American people get. Our small businesses will receive tax 
credits so they can provide the kind of health care coverage that they 
want to their employees. Our seniors will see their Medicare coverage 
strengthened and those programs strengthened. Thirty-two million people 
across this country who don't have health care coverage now will 
finally be able to relieve themselves and their families of the worry 
of disease or illness that they can't take care of.
  And, of course, all of us who have health care will see the stopping 
of the escalation of our premium costs because we will be taking a look 
at what insurance companies do. This and more is what we will get for 
$940 billion, saving $138 billion in the first 10 years, $1.2 trillion 
over the next 10 years.
  This is a real bargain for the American people. It is an opportunity 
for the American people. We have long waited for that.
  It will eliminate exclusions for preexisting conditions. Can you 
believe, Mr. Speaker, that, over on the other side of the aisle, we 
would let the practice continue where a preexisting condition is 
identified as domestic violence? Those of us in this Chamber and across 
the country know that domestic violence is a crime; it is not a 
preexisting condition for excluding medical conditions.
  We know that there are exclusions for preexisting conditions like 
acne or even for childbirth. This is unconscionable in this country 
that we have allowed insurance companies to determine health care, and 
we are going to put a stop to that. We are going to say, You know what; 
we need everybody out there covered. We want to make sure that people 
are covered and they get quality care and they get accessible care. And 
we are going to do it at a cost to the American people that is not 
going to continue to break the bank in the way it has over the decades.
  I want to say, Mr. Speaker, we are going to end rescissions. We are 
going to stop insurance companies from telling you, You know, you've 
reached your cap. You can't get covered any more, even though you have 
paid into this system. We have to end discrimination against our 
children because they have a preexisting condition. These practices are 
unacceptable.
  Every American, whether you have insurance or you don't have 
insurance, you know that it is unacceptable and unsustainable. And we 
are going to make sure that it is affordable for the American people. 
That is what they deserve. This is what will happen. You can listen to 
all of the mythology, Mr. Speaker. You can listen to the mythology and 
points that are put out there that don't describe this bill at all. But 
I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, as one Member of Congress who, in 
fact, has read the House and Senate bill and stayed up late into the 
night looking at the reconciliation, I am confident about what we are 
going to do for the American people to bring quality, affordable, and 
accessible health care.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  America gets it, what is happening with this health care bill. 
America gets it. They understand. The Peoria-based Caterpillar just 
announcing that in the

[[Page 3939]]

first year alone they believe their costs will increase $100 million in 
their first year. I would like to read a quote from Caterpillar, Mr. 
Gregory Folley, the vice president and chief human resources officer at 
Caterpillar. Quote, ``We can ill afford cost increases that place us at 
a disadvantage versus our global competitors. We are disappointed that 
efforts at reform have not addressed the cost concerns that we have 
raised throughout the year.''
  Wasn't it the President of the United States that traveled to Peoria 
to go visit Caterpillar to tout all these great programs he was going 
to do? And yet Caterpillar, one of our most important manufacturers in 
this country, is saying they alone will have $100 million in additional 
costs to their company. I fear for the small businessman and the small 
businesswoman, while it is touted on the other side, we're going to put 
root beer in every drinking fountain and it's just going to be 
glorious, and somehow this $900-plus billion isn't going to add to the 
deficit. Come on. Come on. Who believes that?
  This government can't get anything right when it comes to cost. That 
is why we are $12 trillion in debt. That is why we are paying over $660 
million a day just in interest. At some point we have to become 
responsible. We can no longer take money out of the American people's 
pockets only to redistribute it to where the Congress thinks it should 
go. That is wrong. It is wrong. It is not the proper role of government 
to mandate this.
  These solutions to health care will best come at the States. They 
will not come from this body, they will not come from Washington, D.C. 
And we have to have across this country for people to let their Members 
of Congress know they are not going to stand up for it anymore. 
Caterpillar is standing up and saying $100 million. Who do you think 
that is going to affect? It is going to affect the rank and file, the 
members there in Illinois who may not have a job anymore.
  The number one thing we can do to actually help people with their 
health care is get this economy, get jobs going again, because I 
guarantee if you have a job, you have much more of a propensity to be 
able to go out and get the health care that you want and you deserve.
  Yet today we are looking at a bill and the other side is saying, we 
need to spend money on this education program and we're going to 
increase its spending, its costs, 10 percent year after year after 
year.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, as I close my discussion of this 
amendment, let me remark that over the past 7 years these two programs, 
the environmental and coastal programs have cumulatively introduced 
millions of students to unique hands-on learning experiences. The 
National Academy of Sciences report that was requested by NOAA, not by 
Congress, reaffirms that each program has increased student interest in 
science, increased teacher capabilities to instruct science, and 
increased awareness and appreciation of the environment.
  So I urge Members to support the amendment and the bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, one of the things we are going to have 
to be careful with this health care debate is trading votes for jobs. 
Let's keep an eye on Mr. Gordon, where it was reported that he was 
promised the job of NASA administrator in exchange for his vote. Maybe 
we ought to pay attention to Mr. Tanner, who it was reported that he 
wants an appointment as U.S. Ambassador to NATO in exchange for his 
vote.
  I hope we pay very close attention to these types of backroom deals 
that unfortunately might be happening in this very body.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.


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

  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Edwards of Maryland). The Clerk will 
designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment printed in part B of House Report 111-445 offered 
     by Mr. Flake:
       At the beginning of section 7, insert ``(a) Authorization 
     of Appropriations.--'' before ``There are authorized''.
       At the end of section 7, insert the following:
       (b) Prohibition on Earmarks.--None of the funds 
     appropriated pursuant to subsection (a) may be used for a 
     congressional earmark as defined in clause 9(e) of rule XXI 
     of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1192, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Chair. I just have to say something about the 
discussion that just went on. I guess only in this body can it be said 
that we are going to spend nearly a trillion dollars and pay down the 
deficit somehow, or pay down the debt over 10 years. When the CBO was 
figuring the savings or costs of this document, the health care bill, 
they have to assume what Congress says it will do, Congress will 
actually do. In this bill I think we are saying that we are going to be 
cutting $500 billion out of Medicare. Now, who among us really believes 
that will happen? I can tell you nobody out there does. Nobody really 
believes that will happen. It wouldn't happen if we managed the bill on 
our side and said we were going to do it or on the other side of the 
aisle. But CBO has to score it as if we are going to follow through on 
our promises.
  That is the problem you get into in believing some kind of CBO score 
that says we are going to pay down the debt over 10 years by spending a 
trillion dollars more. Now, you can say we are going to increase taxes, 
but you don't really want to say that. But there is a lot of that in 
here as well. So I would just encourage anybody who is watching this 
debate to actually look at the argument here. It is being said that we 
are going to pay down the debt by nearly a trillion dollars over the 
next 10 years, or over a trillion dollars, by spending another trillion 
dollars. That may make sense to us here, but it shouldn't make sense to 
anybody else.
  On the substance of this amendment, this amendment should be 
noncontroversial. This similar amendment has been adopted on a 
bipartisan basis on other programs that we have authorized. This bill 
before us, H.R. 3644, is to establish education and watershed programs 
that advance environmental literacy. This bill creates a competitive 
grant program titled the National Environmental Literacy Grant Program. 
This amendment would simply ensure that the new grant program is not 
earmarked by Members of Congress in the future.
  Unfortunately, we talk a lot about getting control over earmarks. 
There are proposals before the Congress this year, gratefully, on the 
Republican side to have an overall moratorium, and on the Democratic 
side to at least restrict earmarks somewhat. I hope we follow through 
on these. But it is good to adopt these kind of amendments to these 
kind of bills to ensure that grant programs that are established, if we 
are going to fund them, they should go for their intended purpose.
  The problem is too often in the past when grant programs like this 
have been established, then they are simply earmarked by Members of 
Congress, and those hoping to apply for those grants in the future 
simply have no money in the account to draw on.
  Let me give a couple examples. FEMA's National Pre-Disaster 
Mitigation Program is a competitive grant program that was designed to, 
quote, ``save lives and reduce property damage by providing funds for 
hazard mitigation planning, acquisition, and relocation of structures 
out of the floodplain.'' The fiscal year 2010 Homeland Security 
appropriations bill appropriated $100 million for the program. Almost 
$25 million of that was earmarked for projects in Members' districts. 
That meant that only three-quarters of the money was available. Believe 
me, go a couple years in the future and all of that money will likely 
be gone because Members of Congress have earmarked it.

[[Page 3940]]

  In some cases, these projects are earmarked when the applicant has 
applied for the grant and didn't get it. The grant wasn't deemed 
worthy, and so the Member of Congress steps in and simply earmarks it. 
There may have been a good reason why it wasn't deemed worthy.
  But the thing is if we are going to establish these programs as 
competitive grant programs, then we better either trust the agencies 
that they are going to do it right or we provide the proper oversight 
to ensure that they do, instead of running a parallel track program 
where we Members of Congress say, they don't do it right over there in 
the agency so we're going to do that ourselves. That is not proper 
oversight. That is just handing out Federal largesse. And we shouldn't 
be doing that.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentlewoman from 
California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. CAPPS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman from Arizona for offering his amendment to 
ensure that funds appropriated to support the implementation of the B-
WET and the ELG programs are not earmarked. One of the primary purposes 
of this legislation is to finally codify these programs as permanent 
educational programs within NOAA's larger educational initiative so 
that they can be incorporated into NOAA's base budget. In addition, 
this legislation will establish the purposes and policies of both 
programs, which should improve the ability of Congress to conduct its 
oversight to ensure that they remain effective and accountable.
  As it now stands, funds appropriated for these programs are not 
earmarked to benefit any one institution, but rather funds are 
distributed through regional programs or NOAA's education office 
through merit-based competitive processes. While this amendment will 
prohibit the earmarking of funds appropriated to implement both 
programs, it should have little direct effect on how B-WET or ELG 
grants are awarded in the future because, as the history of the 
programs demonstrates, funds have always been awarded competitively.
  Consequently, we can accept this amendment even though it is 
unnecessary, and thank the gentleman from Arizona for his interest in 
maintaining merit-based and competitive grant making for both programs.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Can I inquire as to the time remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Chair, and I thank the gentlelady for agreeing 
to support the amendment. It is important that we ensure if we are 
going to establish these programs--I don't think we ought to establish 
them, frankly. I think we are overspent, we are overtaxed. We shouldn't 
put this additional burden. But if we are going to do it, certainly we 
ought to ensure that it goes to its intended purpose. That is what this 
amendment is for. I thank all for supporting the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, could I inquire what time there is 
remaining on this side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. CAPPS. At this point I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to my colleague from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Let me thank the gentlelady from 
California. And I want to thank her for her thoughtfulness in being a 
leader on H.R. 3644, which focuses on the opportunity to promote ocean, 
atmospheric and environmental education awareness opportunities for 
young people. And to acknowledge that these are competitive grants 
again emphasizes that this caucus, that Democrats are concerned about 
the budget, but also concerned about important issues dealing with 
coastal growth and coastal learning.
  I am from the coastal area, and it brings me to some of the comments 
that have been made on this health care bill. It is interesting that 
when we look at our friends on the other side of the aisle, who spent 
billions of wasteful dollars on giving tax cuts to the richest of 
Americans, that they can give a short shrift, if you will, to the fact 
that this health care bill will not only insure millions of Americans, 
almost 95 percent of Americans, including those who are employer-based 
insured, which we say to them, as in my own congressional district, 
where 41 percent are employer-based, yes, you can keep your insurance.
  But at the same time, we are prepared to reduce the deficit $130 
billion over the next 10 years and $1.2 trillion more over the 
following decade, reining in waste, fraud, and abuse, but at the same 
time providing millions of uninsured Americans, women, children, 
families with the opportunity for insurance.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield the balance of my 
time to the gentleman from Tennessee, the chairman of the Science 
Committee, Mr. Gordon.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. I thank my friend from California.
  I recognize that the health care discussion is personal and felt by a 
lot of folks that we're getting into an emotional point here and that 
there is a lot of passion. But we also need to stick with the facts.
  I was a little shocked earlier to hear that there was an insinuation 
by a colleague of mine from Utah that I have worked together with on 
legislation to keep radioactive waste from other countries out of Utah. 
I just want to set the record straight. There was an insinuation that I 
had, he used the word, traded my vote for the directorship of NASA.

                              {time}  1230

  Let me make it very clear. We have an outstanding director of NASA 
right now in Charlie Bolden. If he were to leave, though, if it was 
offered to me, I would not accept. So please understand that. My wife 
has said 26 years of public service is enough.
  I yield to my friend from Utah.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I have nothing to say.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Then I would ask my friend from Utah, where 
would he get that type of misinformation?
  I would yield back to my friend from Utah to explain why he said what 
he did and where he got that misinformation.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I think it's important that we pay attention to those 
types of things. This is no doubt an emotional, deep debate.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Once again, I yield to my friend to explain 
where he got that misinformation.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. As I said, it's something that we should be aware of. 
It's something that we should pay attention to. I think that's fair. 
We'll pay attention to it.
  I appreciate your comments and the direction that you're going. 
You've had a great and distinguished career. We applaud you for that. I 
appreciate your service in this Congress, the work that we've done 
together. But I think it's fair that we pay attention to what might or 
might not be happening.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Let me say this to my friend from Utah. If I 
say to you person to person right here on this floor that that offer 
was never made and that I would not accept it, would you accept that as 
true?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. I ask unanimous consent to allow the 
gentleman from Utah to have whatever time as he might to respond to 
that very fair question.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I have no reason to doubt your word.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Thank you.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members will please suspend.
  All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.

[[Page 3941]]

Flake) to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote after the 
first vote in this series.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 376, 
nays 37, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 139]

                               YEAS--376

     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Childers
     Chu
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Driehaus
     Duncan
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fallin
     Fattah
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon (TN)
     Granger
     Graves
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kilroy
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olson
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Quigley
     Radanovich
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shea-Porter
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--37

     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Clarke
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     Edwards (MD)
     Farr
     Filner
     Fudge
     Grijalva
     Hinchey
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kucinich
     Lee (CA)
     McDermott
     Moore (WI)
     Nadler (NY)
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Rahall
     Roybal-Allard
     Sherman
     Thompson (MS)
     Towns
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Woolsey

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Thompson (PA)
       

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Ackerman
     Blunt
     Buyer
     Connolly (VA)
     Costa
     Crowley
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     Fortenberry
     Gutierrez
     Hoekstra
     Honda
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Nunes
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Stark

                              {time}  1302

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Ms. WOOLSEY, Messrs. FARR of 
California, JACKSON of Illinois, CLYBURN, THOMPSON of Mississippi, 
PASCRELL, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. NADLER of New York, Ms. MOORE of 
Wisconsin, Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland, Messrs. WATT, PAYNE, BUTTERFIELD, 
Ms. WATSON, and Mr. BISHOP of Georgia changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  Mr. CRENSHAW changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute was 
agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), 
as amended.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 233, 
noes 178, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 140]

                               AYES--233

     Adler (NJ)
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Cao
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter

[[Page 3942]]


     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     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
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--178

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     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
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Owens
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Ackerman
     Blunt
     Buyer
     Connolly (VA)
     Crowley
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Fortenberry
     Gutierrez
     Hoekstra
     Honda
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Marshall
     Obey
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Stark
     Wamp


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Serrano) (during the vote). One minute 
is remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1310

  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was 
agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 140, I inadvertently voted 
``no.'' I wanted to be a ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1192, the 
previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
  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

  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Yes, in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Chaffetz moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3644 to the 
     Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendments:
       In section 4(a)(4), strike ``and'' after the semicolon.
       In section 4(a)(5), strike the period at the end and insert 
     ``; and''.
       At the end of section 4(a), add the following new 
     paragraph:
       (6) examine the impacts of natural gas and oil seeps on 
     oceans, beaches, air quality, and the coastal environment and 
     the possibility of mitigation of those impacts through 
     resource and energy development.
       In section 7, in paragraph (1), strike ``under section 6)--
     '' and all that follows through the end of the paragraph and 
     insert ``under section 6) $12,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2011 through 2015; and''.
       In section 7, in paragraph (2), strike ``under section 6)--
     '' and all that follows through the end of the paragraph and 
     insert ``under section 6) $9,700,000 for each of fiscal years 
     2011 through 2015.''.
       Add at the end the following new section:

     SEC. 8. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS.

       An eligible entity that is a party to a pending lawsuit 
     against the Administrator shall not be eligible to receive 
     funds authorized or otherwise made available under this Act.

  Mr. CHAFFETZ (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the motion be considered as read.
  Mrs. CAPPS. I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk continued to read.

                              {time}  1315

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his 
motion.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this Congress has 
to get control of spending. We're $12 trillion in debt. We're spending 
more than $600 million a day just in interest on our debt. At some 
point, some way, we're going to have to curb spending in this body. 
This bill authorizes a 10 percent increase every year for the 5 years 
covered in this bill. This is just too much. This motion to recommit 
does three very simple things.
  First, it freezes funding in the bill to fiscal year 2010 
appropriated amounts for the next 5 years--a very reasonable approach. 
This means that what these programs are getting this year is what they 
will get next year. No 10 percent increases. Just flat funding. In 
fact, I would remind this body that it was President Obama that asked 
for a spending freeze. I concur with the President on this issue in 
this matter. This Federal Government has to learn to live within its 
means.
  Second, this motion to recommit would prohibit any entity from 
receiving a grant under this bill if it is currently suing the Federal 
Government. This bill allows both nonprofit and for-profit 
organizations to qualify for grants. The amendment simply disqualifies 
any of those that have a lawsuit against NOAA. Groups can't expect the 
American taxpayer to allow them to accept free money with one hand 
while taking the government to court on the other hand. The grant 
program in this bill shouldn't be allowed to become an avenue for 
subsidizing or enabling lawsuits that tie up the courts and waste the 
taxpayers' money.
  Third, it expands the list of areas for which environmental literacy 
grants may be given. This legislation authorizes two educational 
programs aimed at teaching young people about the coastal and marine 
environment, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute adds 
language that will include lessons about jobs that are created by using 
the natural resources and the benefits of our coastal economies. 
However, the legislation does not include one more issue that affects 
some areas of our coastal environment--natural seepage.
  In many areas of our Nation's coastline, natural seeps of oil and 
natural gas occur. This is common in the Gulf of Mexico, but probably 
nowhere more prevalent than in the areas off the coast of Santa 
Barbara, California. The educational programs authorized in this 
legislation are perfect vehicles to teach our young people about these 
naturally-occurring petroleum seeps--that they do exist, and they can 
have an effect on our beaches and our coastal air quality. The program 
proposed

[[Page 3943]]

here will offer an opportunity to educate our communities and children 
about the cause of these seeps and the ability of resources and energy 
development to lessen the volume and impact of these natural seeps into 
our environment.
  Again, this motion to recommit simply will freeze funding at the 
current year appropriated levels; block groups that have a lawsuit 
against NOAA from receiving grant money; and expand the range of grants 
to include the impacts of oil seeps on our beaches and marine 
environment. I would urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of this 
motion to recommit.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition to this 
motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, may I go back to the 
underlying legislation, which is H.R. 3644, the Ocean, Coastal, and 
Watershed Educational Act. This is an educational program for children. 
They are not qualified to do natural resource surveys or to assess the 
impacts of oil seep. NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, does not have jurisdiction over air quality and the 
mitigation of impacts. That would fall under jurisdiction of the 
Environmental Protection Agency.
  The proposal to level fund the program was rejected in the Natural 
Resources Committee and by the Rules Committee. The modest increases in 
this bill were negotiated with my colleague, Mr. Cassidy, in the 
Natural Resources Committee, in a very bipartisan discussion with 
negotiations that we made between the two sides, and I urge Members to 
oppose this motion and support the underlying bill.
  I remind my colleagues that these programs have a track record of 
being grant-making programs under NOAA for several years, and in all 
the places where they are currently being enacted, they are very 
popular. At a time when our public schools are being inundated with 
funding decreases and cuts and at a time when we're so concerned about 
the availability of our young people to learn the basics in science and 
math, this is a hands-on experience that they can have. It is an 
educational program that helps them appreciate their environment and 
take good care of it. We have 10 more applicants for every grant that's 
been available. So we made this modest agreement in a bipartisan way to 
increase over time by a very small amount the amount of money that can 
be available under this program through NOAA. I would hope that we 
would all get back to the basics of the legislation, oppose the motion 
to recommit, and support this underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  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. CHAFFETZ. 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. 3644, if ordered; and the motion to 
suspend the rules and pass H.R. 4003.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 200, 
noes 215, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 141]

                               AYES--200

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

                               NOES--215

     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     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
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Ackerman
     Blunt
     Buyer
     Connolly (VA)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     Fortenberry
     Gutierrez
     Hoekstra
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Nunes
     Pence
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Stark
     Wamp


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining on this vote.

[[Page 3944]]



                              {time}  1339

  Messrs. PAYNE and WEINER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. CARDOZA and SCHAUER changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  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.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 244, 
noes 170, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 142]

                               AYES--244

     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Cao
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     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
     Kirk
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--170

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

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Ackerman
     Blunt
     Buchanan
     Buyer
     Connolly (VA)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     Fortenberry
     Gutierrez
     Hoekstra
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Nunes
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Schrader
     Stark
     Wamp

                              {time}  1348

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________