form being present the committee on education labor will come to order today the committee needs to consider three items h r thirty one ninety five the eighty eight restoration act h r thirty thirty six the no child left inside act of two thousand and six and we would take the votes at the end of the consideration of those two then the committee would recess for ten minutes for a matter of business before the democratic caucus come back and do the no child left inside act if nested sorry we can roll those votes because i know this is a little bit a change in schedule but hopefully it only mean about ten minutes ten minute delay so that would be the intent if that's all right mr mckeon i'm going to sort of well start over thirty one ninety five the a d m emmett's act of two thousand and eight for nearly two decades americans with disability act has made a possible for millions of productive hardworking americans to participate in our nation's economy among other rights a law guaranteed workers with disabilities would be judged based on their merits on the job performance not on their employer's prejudice but since an act of this this landmark civil rights law that the rights it afforded have been eroded several supreme court rulings have dramatically reduced the number of workers with disabilities who are protected from the employment discrimination under a da these court rulings have effectively made the very workers congress intended to cover nearly two decades ago subject to legal employment discrimination looking for a better paying job with good benefits despite being diagnosed with muscular dystrophy at age fifteen kerry had managed to become an electrician and practice his craft for more than twenty years he was initially offered his dream job with general motors pending a physical during the physical the general motors doctor asked kerry to hold his arms above his head he could not the doctor asked how he could form his job if he was required reaching over his head kerry gave a commonsense answer he would use latter according to kerry's testimony the doctor then asked what he would do the work was still out of reach when he was atop the latter carries fine he would just get a tall ladder like so many others who live with a disability carry found ways to successfully perform a job all of this all of his life daily staff despite his muscular dystrophy but when g m learn kerry had disability they rescinded the job offer kerry challenged g m s decision because he thought that the americans with disability act would protect him he was wrong the court ruled that since kerry had adapted to his condition by modifying the way he performed the everyday tasks like washing his hair he was not able he was not just able and therefore not protected by the a d l because of the supreme court rulings carrie and many others are now caught in the in the legal catch twenty two the u s supreme court is determined that individuals with disabilities do not refuse to hire a fully qualified worker like harry mcclure or simply on the basis of his disability while contending in court that the worker was not disabled enough to qualify for protection under the law we will begin to remedy this problem today h r thirty one ninety five is legislation introduced by majority leader congressman danny hoyer and congressman jim sensenbrenner and enjoy strong bipartisan support the bill would reverse these these erroneous court decisions and restore original congressional intent of the americans with disability acts h r thirty one ninety five will clarify the definition of physical or mental impairment to substantially limits one or more major life activities that will also prevent the consideration that mitigate measures such as medication prosthetics and assisted assisted technologies in determining whether an individual has a disability the legislation will cover workers whose employers discriminate against them based upon the perception that their workers impaired regardless of whether the has a disability and most importantly the will make it absolutely clear that the americans with disabilities act provides broad coverage to protect anyone who faces discrimination on the basis of disability the court's narrow interpretation of disability is also denied many students with impairments protection under this will will ensure the students with disabilities will have access to accommodations and modifications they need over the last several months in discussions and legislation much of the disability and the business community every second census in support of this legislation will recognizing the need to address a number of concerns in the original draft the staff from both sides of the committee have done the same and i'm pleased that ranking member mccain and i have been able to work together on this bill and reach agreement to move in on a bipartisan fas and so i will shortly be offering the consideration a substitute in them and that substitute will reflect a bipartisan consensus has been recent amending h r thirty one ninety five when kerry mcclure's came before this committee five months ago he spoke on the half a million is calling on congress to ensure that civil rights for persons with disabilities after a great deal of hard work by all of the stakeholders the committees in the congressional leadership on this bill the time has come to act it is time to restore the original intent of the a d a s and  members on this committee to support this bipartisan effort and again i want to thank of all thank all of those who were involved in the negotiations on this legislation from the disability community from the business community from both sides of the of the aisle these have been exacting negotiations they've been they've been difficult they're important to go she a sions but i am delighted to today that we've we've concluded them and we have the kind of support that we now have  from all of the involved sectors around the for this for this legislation with that i'd like to yield to a congressman mccain the senior republican on the committee thank chairman miller and good morning i'm pleased to be here this morning as we take up this very important piece of legislation that has a potential to touch the lives of millions of americans at the beginning of this year this committee held a hearing to examine h r thirty one ninety five restoration act of two thousand and seven at that time i noted that the americans with disabilities act was enacted in one thousand nine hundred with broad bipartisan support and that among the bill's most important purposes was to protect individuals with disabilities from discrimination in the workplace as i also noted i personally believe that the employer community has taken to heart with businesses adopting policies specifically aimed at providing meaningful opportunities to individuals with disabilities at the january hearing we heard some pretty compelling testimony that in some respects was failing to live up to its promise as some individuals were left outside the scope of the act protections by court cases and narrow interpretations of the law we also heard in no uncertain terms that h r thirty one ninety five was introduced was a dramatic expansion and one which would result in a series of significant unintended consequences and expansive new mandates on employers and other stakeholders as we closed our hearing in january i expressed my hope that we could work together on this issue to focus really where it is needed while still maintaining the delicate balance embodied in the original  in the intervening months i am pleased to say that we were able to do so your staff and mine mr chairman from other committees and equally important with representatives of many stakeholders who will be affected by this bill were able to come together and refine a product that represents the best chance i think we have to see legislation enacted this year this compromise will be brought before us in the form of your chairman this morning i will support that substitute not because i think it is perfect but because i think it represents our best efforts to ensure that meaningful relief will be extended to those most in need careful balance is maintained as fully as possibly for example  our january hearing we heard testimonies of some individuals who i think many of us would agree were intended to be covered under the original were being excluded in a perverse fashion someone who was able to treat the effects of his for her disability through medication or technology was left without protection because they weren't disabled enough i don't think that is what any of us intended that to mean and i'm glad that the substitute today addresses this issue at the same time we have rightfully limited this expansion to ensure for example that someone is not disabled under the age simply because he or she wears eyeglasses or contact lenses that's an important limitation and necessary to maintaining the intent and integrity of the i'm very pleased that the substitute maintains an important requirement namely that to be considered a disability of physical or mental impairment must substantially limit an individual as introduced h r thirty one ninety five threaten to got any meaningful limitation on the by simply calling any impairment no matter how trivial or minor a disability that was not the intent of congress in one thousand nine hundred nor should it be today rather in the substitute for definition and guidance to courts and others as to how to construe that term recognizing that it was never the intent of congress to extend to every physical or mental infirmity to do so would upset the power the legislation but equally important would threaten to do harm to the very individuals the law was meant to protect these are but a few examples of how we were able to work together to forge meaningful compromise as i said before the chairman us today is not perfect some say that if at the end of the day no party is completely happy with what's contained in the compromise then we've done a good job i expect that this is the case today i am sure there are those in the business community who will fear that we've expanded the reach far at the same time i expect advocates in the disability community would have preferred us to go further and i expect there may be issues which are yet to be brought to our attention which may need to be addressed as we move forward on that last point i continued to have concern that despite our best efforts we are rushing this bill through committee this morning rather than allow a fuller analysis to make sure we are truly getting it right i expect we will see this bill on the floor of the house very shortly i hope that in the days that follow this markup we continue to work together to address additional issues and continue to refine and attempt to perfect this legislation in closing let me thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for honoring our shared commitment to work together on issues and as important as i will support the chairman substitute this morning in the spirit the broad scope of protection available under the da da and to reject the supreme court's decision and to reestablish the original congressional intent and mens the definition of disability and provides for rules of construction and applying to  that definition and requires a definition disability be construed broadly and prohibits the consideration of ameliorative effects measures such as medication learned behavior modifications or exhilarates or services and attorney whether or not the impairment is  i would ask are there any amendments to the legislation thank chairman for bringing this bill forward i reminded of the story legislation moving rapidly at one point and somebody in the back of the chamber  blowing a tree or a train whistle as it was apparent that the legislation was on the fast track let me open by just saying that nobody no one no one believes that employers should be able to discriminate against anyone anyone i certainly don't and i know that others on this committee and in this congress don't as well as a physician i spent over twenty years treating folks  with significant disabilities and we would work valiantly to try to make certain that they were able to return to their previous level of employment after injury or disease sometimes it was easy and sometimes it wasn't and sometime we had worked with employers to make certain that the appropriate accommodations were made but this legislation is on a remarkable fast track that i don't believe doesn't allow for appropriate reflection and opportunity to sober weight the legislation it's important to for folks to know that the language that we had before says i understand has been available for less than twenty four hours that's important because as i look over it looked over yesterday and again this morning there are major major changes and modifications to the language it's important people appreciate that this bill this legislation this congress with this piece of legislation will specifically define what a major bodily function is that would qualify for disability and on page six some paragraph be it defines those to include the immune system the normal cell growth the jest of bile bladder neurological brain respiratory circulatory and the korean and reproductive functions well m chairman and members of this committee as you know when we begin to define things we begin to exclude things and i would suggest that we begin to demonstrate that we don't have the fund of knowledge with which to make the kind of decisions that we're being asked to make doesn't include the skeletal know but i know who will decide and that's the courts i would suggest mr chairman that in our desire an effort to make certain that individuals with disability not be discriminated against that we are in fact making it so that those with remarkable and significant disabilities will have their disability lessened in the eyes of their employers and certainly lessened in the eyes of the courts but we are expanding remarkably the purview of the courts and making it so that this this legislation will result in remarkable number of increased lawsuits and i suggest to my colleagues that we are not answering all the questions that we ought answer because we can't we don't we don't have that funded knowledge there is a better way there's a better way to do this it's a better way to put together a group of individuals who do have the knowledge you do have the expertise who can represent employers and employees who do have the fund of knowledge about the level of disability that certain diagnoses  convey to individuals in the workforce and whether or not there should be appropriate accommodation made there's a better way to do it i regret that we're at this point with such rapid pace i regret that that others who desired input into this process were not included i regret that once again congress appears to be acting with such haste and frankly such  arrogance that it is ignoring the processes that will result in true ability to stand up for and fight for those individuals with appropriate need given their disability  i thank the chairman for the opportunity your back thank you mr chairman i move to strike the last word i rise in support of the matter amendment h r thirty one ninety five in the nature of a substitute a few weeks ago porson testimony at r a d a congressional hearing made a very strong case and drew our attention to the fact that the a da was failing the americans in the disabilities act of one thousand nine hundred eighty it's been eighteen years since that legislation was passed and to hear some of my friends and colleagues say that this is moving too fast i think it is indeed the opposite eighteen years i repeat is too long i think that mr mcclure made us realize that we need to improve the interpretation of the law and give it the clarification needed so that employers can do a better job in following th say that not only is there need for clarification of what is the definition of disability but many of the other points that are clarified in the miller amendment and therefore i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment and move forward with that mr chairman i yield back my time sent an e mail by some people in my district to clean the higher education community and they expressed to me that while they were generally supportive of the eighty act and bill before us there were a couple of concerns that because of  covered that they were very concerned about in their realm of the world and i just want to share the language of their concerns with the committee and then ask the chairman as to whether or not there's been any attempt  will be any attempt to deal with their concerns as i note they did have a meeting and offered up some compromise language and concern is whether or not that's included in the chairman's amendment but as they specifically said they're concerned with two provisions and i'm reading expanding the list of covered life activities and they say h r thirty one ninety five would band a list of individuals who qualify as disabled out of the a d a s to include those who are substantially limited in the major life activities of quote unquote thinking and concentrating the addition of these two elements is particularly problematic for colleges and universities because the ability to think and concentrate are exactly what students are expected to improve as a result of their education and the very activities in which institutions evaluate their students paris issues could arise of students claim a limitation on their ability to think or concentrate which could be difficult to verify soley for the purpose of gaining accommodations to which their classmates would not have access the failure to achieve a high academic level often due to difficulties in thinking or concentrating should not become the basis for a claim of disability in the higher education context second point the legislation also includes a list of the types of mitigating measures that may not be considered in determining whether an individual meets the definition of quote unquote disability in the first instance included on the list are learned behavioral or adaptive neurological modifications they go on to say if learned behavioral modifications were discounted institutions would no longer be able to consider improvement in the student's ability to concentrate through proper development of study skills and other related learn behavioral that patients have a student has achieved at a high level through high school or college without accommodations that students should not suddenly be considered disabled when facing a more demanding curriculum on the basis that he was or she was able to do well academically only by changing his study habits or spending more time understanding the material in order to overcome limitations in thinking or concentrating the ability to make such adapt ations in order to improve performance in the academic context is crucial to academic success and is essential to determining students fitness for some of the more rigorous demick programs offered by our institutions now i note in a letter that was included in our file has a letter from the american council on education and they know that this is late date is on the seventeenth that on friday they say that they were provided an opportunity to meet with the members of your chairman staff and members of disability employer coalition to present their concerns with compromised language they said at that point that they did offer recommendations limiting the ability of certain provisions in the higher education context and that they offered a quote unquote rule of construction that would reaffirm directly in statutory language the principle that institutions of higher education need not provide an accommodation the academic setting if doing so will undermine essential academic standards but my question i guess to you mr chairman is i'm sure you're aware of their concerns and how are they going to be accommodated if they haven't been already and i education are no longer required to provide accommodation to individuals who do not meet the test of substantially limited in a major life activity or having a record of such impairment the requirement for accommodation only does not apply to the third prong to those who are used as having a disability which as we understood it was one of the primary concerns of the higher education community the request on rule of construction in terms of the establishment of additional criteria related higher education is already remain have not been accepted obviously it is up to the chairman others to determine what transpires going forward as this bill moves forward but i did i did want to be clear specifically with regard to the major life activities limitations as well as we learn behavioral and adaptive neurological modifications those requests that were made there not contained in the bill before you this morning to you mr chairman is there some plot on your part that we will be continuing to deal with these two issues as this bill negotiated by the stakeholders to this system i'm sure that there will be others who will raise issues with this how they will be addressed will be done in consultation obviously bill does that and there are two reasons first mr cool cites the inclusion of thinking and learning and what not in the list of major life activities but remember before you get to that the person claiming injury has to show that he or she has a substantial physical or mental impairment that substantially limits those activities so someone can't simply say well it's really hard to pass this calculus exam i really have to think very hard and it's exhausting for me to do it that's not enough the person has to say they have a physical or mental impairment manifested by some sort of evidence that substantially limits their ability to do that so i think that the expanded definition of major life activities gives the court guidance but you never get to the point whether you know the thinking is difficult unless you can prove there's an impairment second the issue of the use of remedial measures nor logical malfunctions of by remedial measures and that really goes to the issue of what a reasonable accommodation is so let's say a student adopts a strategy of brain learning a way to read or calculate a math calculation and he or she succeeds in doing that while the university is i think well within its rights to say that alters the balance of the accommodation that there must be made perhaps they don't the student doesn't use much time or there's some other change in the accommodation so i think that the question of the remedial measures a very important but frankly it's not relevant to the determination of whether there is a disability it's relevant to the determination of how to handle that disability and the scope of the accommodation should come to my friend dr price those concerns it's interesting i think he expresses two concerns that are kind of contradictory he's worried i think i heard him say that the list of the list of substantial activities is under inclusive i think that's what he said and i would page six paragraph one see he talked about there i would point out that that says it's includes but not limited to so that's not an exhaustive list and that's in the language of the statute he then worries that it's over inclusive that there would be a lot of litigation and a lot of claims made against employers and he points out that the courts are the ultimate arbiter i don't know a statute that's been written in the history of the nation where that's not true since marbury vs madison i mean the legislature can't foresee every circumstance we cannot so we have to use more generic language and when we do the courts discern our intent they the proper construction of the statute and they move on what i think the major improvement dr in this bill is is that the previous existing law is is rather ambiguous in the way defines these terms and it's lead to mischief in the courts you know i think when someone's an epileptic they're disabled but we have a court decision says they're not so i think that the mischief that's been created by ambiguous definitions is cleared up by the in the statute now we don't cover every case we can't because we can't forsee every case but i think we've given the the bill has given judicial interpreters of the law a much clearer set of guideposts as to where we want them to go so i think the substitute's very very good and as mr mckeon said it certainly doesn't please everyone which means it must be very good and eat and i would urge adoption of the substitute and the yes well gentlemen you i would  yes and i appreciate your comments and i think that that that you point out the challenge that is in a bill such as this that it tempts to define specifically what what the diagnoses are what the organ systems are that are  going to be included in any definition of disability my point was that it will take a court to decide one and two that there's a better solution your example of an epileptic being disabled points to with all due respect the lack of knowledge that the congress people have including yours truly there isn't one epileptic patient is not the same as another is well i would suggest that they are but i would suggest that there's a better way to do it and that is with a body of individuals who have knowledge about disability about disease about what entities ought to be in what kind of accommodations employers can make it's just that  way is a way to do it short reclaiming reclaiming my time i think the proper forum for that kind of precision is in the context of litigation that would be broad i mean that's what expert witnesses do in cases and that's that's what i think would happen here but i would just and i know my time is up but again even if this platonic body of experts were to be gathered i think the experts who worked in these negotiations were very able people but if this platonic guardians of the truth were gathered to come up with the best definition they're not going to have an exhaustive definition because they can't see every case that's going to come down the road and you can't write a statute that would be enacted in one thousand two thousand and eight that's going to force the circumstances  and twelve or twenty sixteen or twenty seventeen so i think that this is an excellent compromise between the two extremes and i would  and i have seen certainly over the years unfortunately discrimination but now i will say the companies basically all know what they're supposed to do but if you have an individual who is your boss and they decide that your son does not have a disability even though you are even to ask the question what is your disability when my son is paralyzed i mean i think it's pretty obvious what his disability  self confidence if that's not discrimination i don't know what it is far as i'm concerned on every way that we can improve to help those by the way most people don't like to say that they have disability they like to people that are challenge that have jobs i think is phenomenal cover every single thing and i know that my colleagues everybody's going to go to court but most people really just want to have respect to be able to work in new york state we have a great arbitration which is what we went through certainly accommodate the fifteen twenty minutes that my son needed at the end of the to be accommodated  people have to be educated employers have to be educated and certainly taking a stance here after the one thousand nine hundred nine supreme court decision i think it's wonderful that we're actually doing this and i don't think that we're rushing into this mainly because this is been worked on for way over with probably every group that would be associated with that so again i hope my colleagues will vote for this there is no such thing as a perfect and there isn't no one in this congress has ever passed out a perfect bill no one will ever pass out a perfect bill is something that we have to challenge in accommodate as different issues come up so i do hope that everybody supports this and strong support for this legislation like my colleague i don't think it's russian into it as a matter of fact i think it's been too long come and like others i spend a great deal of time with the disability community who are challenged in many ways and express themselves in that respect i also sponsor the community attendant and that senator harkin's has sponsored in the senate and i too want to express wrong appreciation for the leadership that he and majority leader hoyer you have displayed on this issue for many many years and i also just just been reminded if anybody ever had an opportunity to seriously experience justin dart and the kind of advocacy that he displayed for the rights of individuals with disabilities throughout the year i mean he ranks right up there as one of my absolute heroes and i'll also mention the fact that the best plant makers in this country are located in my congressional district the chicago lighthouse for the blind and you don't make a better class than the chicago lighthouse and so i think that individuals need to be given the opportunity to display their skills and talents those legislation helps to do that i strongly urge its passage and you'll back the balance of my time  the roll call in the passage of the other legislation until after consideration of h r thirty thirty six the no child left inside act which is the which is the next the  next order of business before the before the committee and the chair yields for the purpose of an opening statement the committee is will now consider h r thirty thirty six the no child left inside act sponsored by congressman sarban environmental education has been with us for a long time outdoor education such as field trips to local nature reserves have provided countless children with a first exposure to the splendor and the fragility of nature and the impact people have on it now we need to make environmental education even more important part of a student's school year in addition to getting school kids outdoors we must teach them about the environment as if our society and our local communities depended on it because in fact they do depend upon it when we teach students about the critical environmental issues like climate change energy conservation air pollution the habitat conservation we're clearly preparing them for better stewards of the earth and as more businesses go green environmental education will prepare a new generations of students to be environmental innovators developing products processes that are crucial to the future health of the environment and the economy just as importantly studies in the last several years from the national environmental education foundation and other organizations offering courage unevidenced in environmental education improve teaching and learning in a number of other ways for example according to the foundation environmental education can help improve students motivation to learn reduce disciplinary problems in the classroom build students critical thinking and social skills and boost student achievement in other areas of the curriculum including math and science i'm proud to say that california has been a leader in environmental education the stays in the process of developing an environmental education initiative integrate the seventies into the classroom here thirty thirty six will help states across the country make environmental education a part of their school's curriculum the bill in the substitute that will be offered later extend the national environmental education act the bill and create opportunities for enhanced and ongoing professional development of environmental education they bring teachers into contact with working professionals in environmental fields and encouragement career environmental professionals to pursue careers in environmental education the bill in the study also added new programs to help develop the capacity for environmental education they authorize funds to expand environmental education development state environmental literacy plans and disseminate information improving environmental education programs i'd like to thank congressman sarbanes for his leadership and i urge my colleagues support the legislation and i now recognize mr mckeen senior republican for purpose of an opening statement thank you mr chairman we're turning to the no child left inside act of putting aside the play on words the purpose of this bill as i understand it is to extend and expand environmental education programs in our nation's schools the internet as well as another bill created a new environmental education program within the elementary and secondary education to be administered by the u s department of education this new program was troublesome on a number of levels from its duplicative nature to its prescriptive policy mandates however i understand that a substitute will be offered today that substantially changes the bill's framework and so i think it would be best for me to focus my remarks on that version of the legislation which avoids many of the pitfalls of the earlier bill taking a step back our purpose here today is to strengthen programs to teach our children about the environment in which th of instruction is often encompassed in science curricula from ecology to biology to life sciences but there's also an interest in focusing more directly on environmental studies and where states and communities i think that's reasonable and appropriate however when we're talking about directing limited federal resources to the mandatory study of a specific subject area i think it's important that we proceed with caution this is not the first time the rather than creating a program out of whole cloth i think this is the right approach and i want to thank mr sarbanes and mr miller for working with us to avoid the duplicate of the new program because of this and other changes a bill on today is a considerable improvement over the bill that was introduced i appreciate the chairman's efforts to work with us on all of bills being considered by the committee this week whether here today or on the floor of the house later this week the legislation is considerably stronger because of it alone improvements have been made this bill is still not perfect for example the substitute would create a new national capacity environmental education grant program under the department of education to develop elementary and secondary environmental education programs this program is the existing environmental education program already being run by the e p a which has provided more than thirty two hundred grants to states local schools and nonprofit organizations to increase environmental education by creating a new program administered by the secretary of education under the law authorizing programs operated by the substitute would create a fragmented system of promoting environmental education on the federal level i expect that we will offer a number of amendments this afternoon to strengthen the program and refocus on efforts important to schools and families including america's energy policy which has a failed which has a direct impact on our environment i'd also like to say a word about the idea that the no child left behind act is there is a myth that students can no longer study music and art or take trips or step outside during the day because the federal government won't let them i'm here to tell you that it's just not true states develop the academic standards and states administer the assessments to see how students are performing n c l b says students need to be proficient in reading and mathematics but it doesn't say that they shouldn't study other subjects as former school board member i know how important it is that our children benefit from a well rounded programme of study i do plan to support this legislation today which extends and enhances opportunities for environmental education i look forward to a robust debate about our commitment to energy policies that will shape our children's futures but i want to be perfectly clear on this point our schools are free to teach environmental education or music or history or any number of other important subjects  under the no child left behind that we don't need a bill with a clever name to make that happen thank you i think the gentleman the clerk designate the bill h r three zero the with the legislation and i want to thank the staff on both sides of the hour for their for their assistance the goals of this legislation are important and i believe that the substitute for the strength in the bill to help support teacher training and professional development  environmental education it will also help build capacity for environmental education and major change in the substitute makes including many of the national environmental education act instead of the elementary and secondary education act current environmental education training programs at the national environmental education act to help teachers in addressing the environmental education issues inside and outside the classroom establishing the grant program to authorize the secretary of education to provide grants to enhance state national capacity in environmental education requires states receiving a capacity grant either to have a place to have in place or be working towards the development of state environmental literacy plans and extending the national environmental education act through two thousand and nine i believe these changes will help improve the limitations that we're told time and again are put on classrooms as to what they can teach and not teaching where they can teach it in fact i have visited a number of schools around the country that have incorporated their time on task and reading with environmental education to to encourage students to gather their interest and get them engaged in the reading part of the program by discussing various environmental aspects of their surrounding areas whether schools on a creek or the schools and in a setting where they can do this that shows a certain capacity the teachers and others to develop the fact that you can do two things at one time here with respect to be it's not just about drilling kids you can expand their opportunities and the engagement of them in may have been the first time you did a hearing actually out of doors everything worked out fine it was a beautiful day and i want to i want to salute the n c l i coalition the no child left inside coalition which has made this legislation really a centerpiece of its efforts but it is doing much more than supporting these sorts of initiatives it is reaching out across the country through some twenty million members of its organizations to bolster up environmental  education there's almost three hundred fifty organizations now national organizations regional and local that have signed on to the coalition and are supporting us after and i want to thank them for all of their help and advocacy around the issue of environmental education the no child left inside act it is it is kind of a play on words but in bodies it captures i think exactly what we're trying to achieve with this legislation and that is to try to get our kids outdoors experiencing nature and the environment and all the benefits that can come from that i have three children who are two and high school one in elementary and i know all the seductive powers that are keeping them indoors in terms of video games electronics and so forth getting them outside and engage in environmental education is has a huge benefit what are the there's public health benefits that have been documented obviously getting kids outside engage in physical exercise particular at a time when when the incidence of childhood obesity is on the rise as we know there's economic opportunities that flow from the environmental education that you can get we got powerful testimony on that at the hearing that chairman kill the presided over awareness of the environment of course has benefits for all of us because the way we're going to clean up our environment is if millions of people who have bad habits develop good habits and that's what environmental education can do and lastly and i think most importantly the research shows that there's no better tool for engaging young people in learning than the environment it activates other parts of their brain and makes and fully engaged in the learning and instruction activity all of these benefits will flow from supporting environmental education in terms of the the bill itself very briefly let me just give an overview through the national environmental education act it does two things first bolsters up the the environmental education and training program that exists within the e p a particularly adding emphasis on field based learning experiences and other sorts of activities of that kind but then it also established at the u s department of education a robust environmental education capacity program in terms of making grant available to support of variety of environmental education initiatives at the state level at the local level with non profits and institutions of higher education i don't think it's duplicative i think that us now becomes a partner in this environmental education initiative that is so important and in that way both sides are going to be strengthened and i think will raise the bar on what kind of education is being provided the capacity grants will help develop environmental education standards new environmental policy approaches model programs national studies on the effectiveness of environmental education teacher training professional development it last state created environmental literacy which i think one hand the quality of the submission of grants applications because they'll be a structure in a framework to guide people and then  it requires a certain amount of evaluation of what's going on in your reports in terms of the use of these grants so again i want to thank thank you chairman miller for bringing this to the committee today to  k very excited about the potential to expand and reinforce this environmental education initiative that's coming together across the country and i think this is a very very important first step seventy's my children who are now in their forty's came home from school and said why aren't we recycling and we started recycling the van and have for ever more and they all recycle in their homes and what they learn when they're young and what they bring home to their families lasts forever and the other night we were having dinner and talking about global warming with one of my children and his family and his seven year old son when he was seven then we're talking about global warming and teddy just about jumped across the table and said alma because that's what they call me i'm a do you know about the polar bears i mean these kids are interested that's all there is to it and in my district of the just north of san francisco we have programs like the school garden project and the students and teachers restoring a watershed called the straw project and in california they invited me to look at their their school garden and they for lunch in these elementary school children cooked me the best lunch i have had in a long time and the kids were the entire school was lined up to share in that delicious lunch from their garden all vegetables and so very tasty so when we give children a hands on opportunity to learn about the environment we give teachers the opportunity to and integrate not only the subject of the ecology and environment but subjects like math and science and writing because students can see the real world application of what they learn and i  to this to you than most of you know i've been active in environmental movement since nine hundred sixty eight and i i also taught it for a number of years including teaching teachers how to combine science education with and i think it'll make it even better but i think by and large it's something that we have to do for our kids with all the problems are going to face and in their future we have to become active in environmental education thank you  recognized to explain this amendment thank you terry miller i welcome the opportunity opportunity to discuss my accountability memo to h r thirty thirty six in no child left inside act legislation to build upon the strong foundation of the national environmental education act law passed in one thousand nine hundred to coordinate the federal government's environmental education programs for the environmental protection agency i believe strongly in the need for environmental education our dependence on fossil fuels growing global warming pollution it's got rocketing energy costs are all major concerns of require a multi pronged approach is i believe that environmental education is a tool of choice in tackling many of these issues never before has it been more imperative that we educate not only the next generation of scientists but also the next generation of environmental stewards environmental education fosters greater appreciation among americans beginning in the classroom and extending throughout their adult lives for the role we all play collectively and as individuals in shaping a greener world through the end the federal government is playing a strong role in our mental education promoting science to meet the challenges of the twenty first century and helping to foster a green economy i am pleased with a number of steps this bill takes such as extending for one year the and the strengthening the existing environmental education training program so that focuses on creating opportunities for enhanced and ongoing professional development and developing a national capacity environmental education grant program under and to develop elementary and secondary environmental education programs i believe my memet further strengthens us bill by ensuring that the programs and activities funded under the and the are in fact quality programs and activities by requiring participants to report on and subsequently making public the progress they make on a number of quality indicators important indicators which foster the understanding and appreciation of the environment such as enhanced in the understanding of the natural and built environment fostering an appreciation of environmental issues increasing academic achievement in environmental issues and in related areas of national interest such as mathematics and science increasing the understanding of the benefits of natural environmental exposure increasing the understanding of how human and natural systems interact with one another and broadening the awareness of environmental issues for funded programs and activities as i stated earlier i believe strongly in improving educational achievement and believe environmental education is an important component resulting from the no child left behind act which i coauthored all fifty states have been cemented accountability measures in response to increasing concerns about the quality of our nation's students elementary and secondary congressman castle has has laid out here i think are actually ones that the environmental education community would welcome in part because of the research that's being done now on the impact and the benefits of environmental education is coming back showing progress in all of these areas i think that it actually reinforces  what the impetus for this this legislation has been in other words as the research has come forward as we collect more data on the benefits in environmental education can offer and you've outlined a number of those explicitly here it's made our desire and i think the desire of the coalition stronger to make sure that we have this kind of education available to people so i think there's a very beneficial reinforcement that comes from  substitute which to make some technical corrections and add some definitional language to the to the bill it would it would insert as a new section  in section three of the national environmental education act a definition of the principles of scientific research and and you can read members can read the  definition it's included here the reason this is important is because so much of what we want to try to do needs to be based on the scientific research that's out there so that it can guide us in providing the kinds of  environmental education opportunities that make sense and will hold up under scrutiny so for example as the as the applications for grant funding come forward which we certainly expect to happen in response to this capacity building opportunity they will be making the case based on the scientific research that exists and arguing that they can they state as it as it's included in the elementary and secondary education act just to make clear that state does incorporate the territory within the definition i want to thank congresswoman who came to the to the hearing that we had talks and at that time age sure that i understood the importance of including the territories in this bill and that's what we've done with this with this particular correction and it's not surprising since i'm a scientist but as i said earlier i'm also an environmentalist and the only shortcomings in the bill which i think is an excellent bill does not incorporate science to the extent it should these two amendments for that i offer put a science emphasis into the environmental education because virtually all environmental education and science related in the first one is very simple on page six of the bill where it talks about conducting studies of national significance and then goes through evaluating the effectiveness of teaching environmental education and so forth it lists the areas that have to be compared and that's mathematics reading or language simply add science to the list because science is going to be integral to the environmental studies that are being done there then in another area when as you well know we've developed a science partnership programs for the department of education and this committee the science committee we have similar programs and the  foundation we have put forth legislation which coordinates to be very natural to include the environmental education activities within that so that when teachers are undergoing professional development and either the department of education or the national science foundation to improve their performance in science it would also then include environmental studies teachers professional education congressman ehlers again i think this is an important and positive addition to the to the bill in my short time here i've come to understand that congressman allard is really the keeper of the flame when it comes to the importance of science and i congratulate him on his many years of commitment to that to that issue across the board i mean he is always finding a way to incorporate strengthen the environmental education and strengthen the science education that is available to and i commend him for introducing it about this time if there's no further discussion have been a supporter of and concerned about the environment which i know in the past has been a stumbling block on the other side i think people today have discovered that there is a thing called global warming and i guess july because it's summer time that will slow the attitude of some folks but i think we've got a little better understanding c f c s serious things are happening and i commend  the question comes on the on the amendment all those who favor will say i those opposed no the i's appear to have it in the eye as having the amendment is agreed to mr holt has an amendment purple designate i meant and meant it will be distributed an amendment offered by mr holt of new jersey and the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment we have a member at the our national forests all providing valuable resources for teaching our children about our world past present and future however these resources are underused our amendment developed in consultation with representative souder would encourage the use of these of the existing educational programs and natural resources offered by offered by the state agencies in conjunction with these national treasures our national parks environmental education i think is really best understood by those who have the opportunity to touch it and breathe it and live it and the lands protected by the national park service the fish and wildlife service the bureau of land management for service allows students to do just that imagine seeing the effects of climate change firsthand at glacier national park environments magine learning about ecosystems at great swamps national wildlife wilderness refuge in new jersey or even the fluid dynamics of title movement of sands to form sandy hook  in new jersey this amendment i think will make it easier to use the resources of these of these agencies and it will be  we have a piece of legislation we hope to have impact also on the no child left behind because i think there's general agreement whether you're republican or democrat that our national parks are unique gift to the united states the united states has given the world as a model and that in the parks we have basically multi task mission but we agree that its primary purpose is both conservation as well as recreation and in the recreation portion we try to do education and it should be a model of green buildings that should be a model of how transportation systems are run it should be a model of how we manage environmental research how we track it we should increasingly use the internet to promote this we should have groups come there i had raised some concerns about expanding this beyond the national park service because other federal agencies have diverse missions they have fish and wildlife for example  we have debates over all sorts of things but including for example ducks unlimited and and hunting and fishing groups in the b l m land you have multiple missions in the b l m land you have all missions and forest lands and i believe that the the word  mission reflects this i wish it had focused just on the national parks where we have one hundred percent agreement but the fundamental underlying point which is how to get kids out that mr starr boy manes was very concerned about of how to get kids out of the classroom as well and how to use our federal resources to educate them on the preservation to track and see what happens with with frogs what happens with the birds what happens in the trees i think all those type of things are a good goal as long as we understand that different agencies have somewhat different missions so while i would have preferred this amendment focus solely on the national park system i understand the basic goals of mr holden mr sarbanes and i'm happy to co sponsor this i'm in that because i believe it's a helpful link to coordinate federal government agencies with these fundamental underlying part of this bill to have a consistent presentation and then particularly with the advent of many of us who don't have these federal resources near us also the ability to move this to the internet and have kids be able to access from all over the country and see  this amendment which which makes clear the opportunity for strong partnerships with the various federal natural resource management agencies that are out there the i'm a very very strong supporter of our national park my fifteen year old son at the fort mchenry which is of course part of the national park service the same time the patuxent national wildlife refuge which would fall in and different category and is included in the amendment you put forward is the place where we conducted this i think very powerful hearing on the benefits of getting chills and into nature in fact that morning we had six  children learning about the environment and what that means for protecting our environment but i am having spent eight years working with the state department of education  how valuable the environment is as a learning tool in other words take away the content of the moment and just think about how powerfully children are engaged when they are outdoors it brings them to life if you could have seen the looks on the faces of these children at patuxent the morning that they were engaged in these activities it would have hit you right away the other thing is we talk to teachers and principals who say that when environmental education is integrated into their school the children not only come alive the faculty comes alive and the lowest attrition rates in terms of faculty turnover are in schools that have adopted these environmental education programs so making it billion dollars b with a billion with a b in the time that it's been in place for the for the u s mint many would have to tax for that money and we have now introduced legislation in the last week or two  to continue the fifty state type program but with national parks as the other side of the coins with the governors the various states being able to pick all of their national parks and they will be done in the order in which the national amendment and to mr sarbanes that i have i have seen children in various outdoor settings i've been to many of our national parks and i think when you have the magnificence of that in front of you be wildlife refuge or a national park or whatever it brings home to arrest the impact of what we have to do to protect our environment i think is a very important moment because of the proximity of where some of these things are and i heartily  you it has a fascinating theory about the different changes in the development of decision making processes in kids because of the changes in our in the way they are being raised right now so i  that some of the grant monies could be used for developing and implementing new policy approaches to advance the understanding the environmental benefits of american made energy and the effects of such policies on energy usage  o advance the understanding of the impact of greater energy usage on the environment and then any corresponding effects on the price of gasoline and i don't know about you mr chairman but when i have asked folks  back home over the past number of months what their greatest concern is it is indeed the price of gasoline i don't know if you've seen this but this is a i think it's four dollars and eight cents a gallon today  for the cost for a gallon of regular gasoline and there are some sees that that could be put into place and could be put into effect that would would positively which means decreasing the price of gasoline positively affect  that price and then there are policies that could be put into place that don't have anything to do with it and then there are policies or ignorance of some policies that will have the continuation of the increase of a gallon of gasoline and all of those things are important and it's important that we appreciate and as a member of the united states house it's also important that our constituents appreciate whether or not activity is moving forward in this area when i talk about the imperative for energy policy to be responsive to the american people i talk about a three prong energy policy and environmental policy and the one is the conservation obviously and then this bill gets to the importance of respect for the environment and conservation and we certainly strongly support greater incentives for conservation of energy in fact i think all americans could do more to decrease the demand side of the supply and demand equation for for gasoline secondly it's important that we put in place appropriate incentives for alternative fuel the fuel th at will that we will use for the next century or longer i suspect hasn't even been invented or discovered i do know that whatever fuel that is it will affect the environment hopefully in positive ways and not negative ways but the long term needs to be addressed in the production of finding alternative fuel in the short term though in the near term it's imperative that we look at the supply side o energy and consequently it's it's frustrating for my constituents and i know it's frustrating for all america to look at congress now and just wonder why on earth they haven't been able we haven't been able to come together look at the demand side yes but also look at at the supply side and to that end the supply side has many different factors whether it's deep sea exploration to take advantage of the remarkable resources that america has as chairman i don't know if you knew it but we are the only nation that has a coastline that doesn't allow for exploration off that coastline it's remarkable in my constituents as i suspect yours are just confounded by the use of clean co technology which we certainly have in this nation that technology has come a long long way and we can have clean coal technology that produces gas and in an environmentally sensitive and sound way and we certainly should do that and then the use of  and in the in those sixty eight million acres technology exists now to be able to determine where the oil is where i don't want a lot of them you know environmentally sensitive and sound way and responsible way to develop that so i'm hopeful that the committee will see the wisdom  of this amendment to bring greater understanding the environmental benefits of american made energy the impact of that energy use on the environment and also corresponding gas prices i urge the adoption amendment and i yield back i think the   i think i could live with in terms of developing policy approaches understanding the byron manal benefits of american made energy and the effects of that on on energy usage certainly i don't think th should replace the provision that it seeking to strike with respect to the with respect to the third element on the corresponding effects on the price of gasoline that seems a bit of a stretch i don't think this is this is the legislation where that kind of emphasis belongs i would note that this congress the democratic congress has numerous measures to try to address this issue of the price of gasoline to try to promote more conservation the exploration of alternatives to fossil fuels etc and in every instance there's been significant opposition from from the other side there are other instruments that we can use in vehicles to make the point that the gentleman is trying to make here in the third clause in this in this subsection c and if he insists on including that and certainly in striking the existing provision number three that we have here i would oppose it as being a distraction from the underlying essence of the bill chair recognizes i would oppose this amendment in the manner in which it's currently offered and that is that it is in fact subject where we have develop and implement a new policy approaches and that's an environmental education state national level it would be for this purpose and this purpose only in developing and implementing new policy approaches and i think that's far too restrictive i think there's another minute that we may be able to separate step behind this amendment  which is inclusive if it's made to be inclusive is as opposed to restrictive but on this point the gentleman is looking for a way to incorporate the discussion of energy into environmental education i fully support  discussion of environmental education they've lent a great deal of resources and personnel to that that effort in my congressional district one of the most creative programs i ever saw was funded by  e national science foundation nasa and philip it was phillips petroleum at that time with fourth grade students working in my district with fourth grade students in michigan and louisiana on the on the internet to recover rather significant wetlands on the property of both the naval weapons station and the refineries in that area but the question of energy i don't think you can have this discussion of environmental policy without the discussion of  of energy but we what we ought not to do in this legislation is battle out the partisan fights about the price of about the price of gasoline we want to incorporate the memmott that recognizes the importance of that discussion of energy and i mean a comprehensive one would i would include all the factors a gentleman's alluded to but i would not is not a substitute for for the manner in which this is is offered so i would hope that we would we would reject this amendment i would say is one who's been involved in offshore oil drilling almost my entire thirty four years in the congress any time those those those oil companies decide there's no oil under those leases they are under the law they should be giving them back to us and every year they ask for an extension of the ownership of those of those leases so it tells me that it might not be as clear cut and in fact if you look at the technological changes in offshore oil drilling many of the leases that they thought were worthless ten years ago today because of technology they're now drilling many of the leases that they had no hope for twenty five years ago they're now drilling so that's not to make that statement that sixty two million acres is not currently being drilled they don't say that they're worthless they say that they can't get the rigs to drill them rigs today are very expensive and some of these and some of the deepwater ones you're talking about a rig come close to a billion dollars and rigs are being obviously there's a huge demand rigs all over the all over the world so to suggest that somehow this is this is a matter of policy that can be battled out inside the environmental education and no to leave no child inside act i think a disservice to the act but i will be happy to work with the author of the legislation the author of the amendment to make sure that we do incorporate a full a full discussion of energy policy and its impacts on the environment in  this in this legislation before we come to the floor with others who seem to be heard on the member yes thanks tony thank you mr chairman i agree with some of the points you made to about the energy industry and as someone who represents coastal louisiana i know a little bit about the the interaction between environment and the energy industry and we've provided most of the resources of this country whether it's domestic production refining capacity and all these things but i think it's very difficult to separate  environment from energy and energy policy and environmental policy must march hand in hand in a reasonable way and i think i support this amendment because in looking at the price of gasoline clearly that's having a major impact on the human environment  is a national security issue as well as an environmental issue and i think that we can until we have a long term solution we can certainly start pressing conservation as our major most effective tools short term  i would say both are important and i think it's important to teach our children both sides of that equation to really learn conservation they need to learn the value of these energy products that are produced and so i think there's great benefit t that i hope that will be accepted but i wanted to briefly comment on this issue because i represent the number one manufacturing district in the united states number one congressional district more manufacturing jobs one percent in numbers anyone else we make the silverado and sierra pick ups fifty eight percent of the r v s in america come from elkhart county you can imagine with tire plants i think i'm third or fourth in steel second in foundries you can imagine my just tricks getting hammered right now  that at the same time mary lee has as an amazing facility associated with goshen college that's one of the first green buildings in indiana completely certified sweet water sound the believe the biggest catalog distribution music company in the united states has amazing building that is certified green i have water for some i just rick that shows in california alone you could save multiple power plants if you recycle the water and use that as a heating mechanism i've tried to work with that parker hannifin in new haven is trying to work with cooling systems on the wind turbines because if we can figure out how to cool the devices we can get twice as much out each winter been this isn't a question of either or it's a question of both but the bottom line is unless we show this to kids today they are getting the one but not enough of the other because we can't do this with just conservation and just alternative resources ethanol plants have the largest so i diesel plant in the united in the world in my district right now that dreyfus has opened up because we still are dependent on coal and oil and gas and potentially nuclear ninety four percent coal in in my district and six percent nucular in the state of indiana i should say sandia labs said we can't go to the electric cars in the hydrogen cars that you see on t v right now because you don't just plug it in and get out of the wall somebody has got to put the electricity into the  outlet that you stick it in you know part of our concern is that we are all for teaching green teaching environmental but that there's some balance in here that you don't go so far that it's portrayed as one side's negative and that we have to in the united states have a prioritization of our resources and mixes and understand that there are tradeoffs as to how far you go this way in this way that's why i support mr price but i hope we at least compromise on mine them and you'll back the gentleman from from new york is recognized for five mr explains a member thank you mr chairman let me by thanking congressman sarbanes for his leadership on this issue and for introducing this legislation my memory is very simple and very straightforward it would allow schools to use grant money authorized under this bill to teach students about recycling reusing and reducing waste it does not take away funding from any of the other important environmental activities that this program with simply characterizes recycling education as an allowable in december of two thousand and six report stated that public education is correlated with higher recycling rates and clearly there is no better place to educate about recycling than in our schools it is hope that students will take this new knowledge home to their families and into their communities and with increased interest in awareness about the three r s schools will take the designate the amendment and the staff will distribute the amendment gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his amendment and it's not officially called price lite to make sure my met is very simple says  adds as the chairman earlier said hoping it was afraid of my amendment that it is an additive not a either or that discuss the need to balance conservation the environment with the development of the nation's energy resources after the word education explain my basic both my district concerns but our national concerns that there are parts of the country that are still making things so that people can enjoy services provided another areas in my district where ever there isn't a plant or growing soybeans and corn in between the plants that and i think it's important for young people in america to understand the importance of conservation that the more we do to conserve the less we need to amendment that is your members currently written it restricts all that can be done above it and that in that paragraph line thirteen through sixteen so the chairman will accept it i'll take the word including that and then that's that's what that's what that's what i'd like to do and then i don't know if that creates a technical problem but if they will consult with you with them on that question any further sarbanes and i think that's a good modification that you've proposed chairman miller  this whole discussion about whether we have an either or proposition going on when we're trying to impart environmental education to people that somehow that's to the exclusion of discussing energy and energy policy and i think it's a false the nature of a substitute to no child left inside this would allow school to apply for grants to create an environment curriculum at the middle and high school level these would be competitive grants from the national capacity environmental education grant program grants will be given to schools serving urban communities this is necessary because low income and minority communities have the brunt of a disproportionate share of negative in what the definition of environmental justice is and if if i'm reading them it correctly and i've just seen it is that it also is giving priority for grants that relate to environmental justice to urban communities districts that if this is an issue of concern should be addressed with with the students in our district so those two issues are both the definition of what is environmental justice to be taught and then the priority that's going basically is it's an opportunity for schoolchildren to look at what has occurred in the a particular environment and advocate that can utilize the curriculum for environmental justice i would be amenable to adjusting this amendment to include those environment but this is very specific densely let me just say the gentleman that i would hope that we would accept this and then we are working off the definitional used within the on environmental justice that they have on their on their website and in the context of their office of environmental justice with respect to the priorities i share your concerns and for this reason there are a number of areas where we have serious environmental justice issues around facilities that may be good news or bad news for that facility but those issues exist but they're not just in urban areas and i would like to just work with the author of the imminent with this class on this because that's true in my home state and it's true in other  states where that where the serious issues have been raised for a considerable period of time and i just like to make sure that we don't we don't prevent that from taking place i appreciate the concerns raised work with you and   but i i don't i want to work on that on a priority issue with both the author with with you ok and if we could try to specifically include the definition when you to fine tune it  one of the highest percent minority and low income schools because they were least they were the least powerful cause quite a bit of consternation quite frankly in my own party about how we handle this type of thing my concern would be that  this is nearly drafted enough to say you need to so we don't get into because one of our concerns for example i get letters sometimes from from schools i had one school that they had all these kids they watched a video about trees dying facility the refinery debate clearly if schoolteachers use this to get into things that are kind of broader debate than unique to minorities i assume that the goal of this is to be things that are uniquely  matter of education that we're talking about here and what people do with what they are informed with is up to them if they don't even have the conversation in the understanding particularly school children of what environmental justice means and how they actually go about transforming the environment that they are in particularly if a nation that's going green so i'm concentrating on the education k tional aspect the critical thinking aspect and those sort of viewing of your environment in its most pristine way so that you can become either an advocate for how you transform that environment not to become someone i'm not sure where you are going with your your your comment if teachers choose to do something that they are amendment right but i think that making sure that children in particular are conscious of the environment that they reside in helps in terms of the ultimate health implications and their ability to cope with the environment that they live in reclaiming my time i'm not comfortable with environmental justice being defined broadly so that we have a debate we're funding a debate over and we are in th minority school districts where they're using these funds because that's not exclusive to minority that part of our concern about this bill is that it would be used as a advocacy type of thing that into the political agenda as opposed to something we can agree on which is we all need to be more green but there are margins of this where there's real debate and i thought that this and then what was more narrowly defined not that this was going to turn kids in high the amendment given the chairman's interest in trying to work with you on the priority issue not just urban schools but suburban rural schools and also some of our concerns about better i would hope you'd still work we will work to this summit is as is a legislation about education and my concern is that if we treat this in the most narrow sense with communities that may live downwind of a facility they take it very intensely and it's about educating a greater community about that that that particular problem or other other environmental justice issues but  priority makes some sense for that to be discussion i think we have plenty of guidance available to us given that there is a definition of environmental justice that's contained and used by the e p a so i think we can every state in school districts that are rural suburban and urban that would benefit from this education and i'm i'm quite sure that we can come up with a workable approach  to defining environmental justice i would however join with the others who have spoken in urging the author to at this stage remove the priorit statement because i think every one of us on this committee and every other person in the house of representatives represents children in school districts who could benefit from this  articulated on this that is the definition of environmental justice and have have significant concerns about whether or not that definition is consistent with with the desire of those bringing this forth i also have a real concern about segmenting our population and deciding here in washington that we ought to include a curriculum in one area of the nation and not others i agree with mr whole this is a useful amendment and it's useful because i think it truly lays bare the motive for not just this amendment but but for the bill we have real differences in philosophy  to how much involvement the federal government ought to have in the curriculum in middle and high schools across this nation schools across this nation the author of this mentioned in her comments about presenting the amendment that she wanted the students after there with this exposure to be quote advocates for change unquote and i do as well but there's right change and there's wrong change and it's i don't think that washington has the ability to the capability to determine what the curriculum in a middle school or a high school ought to be as it relates to the  environment and dictate it to the local communities that would necessarily incorporate the right change i suspect that many of us when it all meant talking to our constituents have have said when asked questions about education and the role of the federal government education well we ought to hold people accountable to a certain level but goodness knows we don't want washington to be making decisions about curriculum  had tapes of folks going around and talking to their constituents i suspect that most of us have had have said something like that i know i have and i believe that firmly believe that i've seen as many of us have the damage that washington can do when it dictates specific curriculum in middle and high schools around this nation in our public schools but that's exactly what this amendment would do it would dictate to middle and high school school boards to teachers to parents to communities a specific curriculum inclusion in classes so i as a friend of mine said he didn't know he got elected to the school board when believe strongly that that congress is not a place where we ought to be deciding specific curriculum inclusion in middle or high schools and especially in an area that has the potential and i think is being laid bare by this by this amendment and then frankl by the bill for the desire for advocacy as opposed to education and and i'm happy to to the author thank you so in my statement i also stated that it's a competitive grant so it's not a something that if it's desired by a particular school jurisdiction that they have to apply for this is something that is done by choice and there are many communities around this nation that may choose this is part of the curriculum that that is be a will it's not something that's being imposed i just wanted you to be comforted in knowing that it's not an imposition it's  those who may be looking for an opportunity to provide this educational corridor or for certain for certain young students in our scholars who may be concerned about the a particular environment in which they've grown and   and colleague there isn't anything that precludes that from happening right now not a single thing that precludes ever happening right now so i would i have great concern with the family amendment forward because i believe that that again that this lays bar the different philosophies between our two sides one is a philosophy that says that washington ought to be setting curriculum from the federal level on the other our side believes by and large that we ought not be setting specific curriculum from washington is what i would urge my job  to adopt this amendment and maybe we can work make work together as we move forward and come up with something that can be supported and i would hope that we'd be able to do that at times expire gemma's time expired it's my understanding that the author of the man that would be it on the amendment as as a manager chairman most right let's work so my understanding then is that the amendment will be then lines one through eight that are on page one that are before us that's correct then i would and i appreciate you dropping the the divisive language of separating certain individuals from from others but  i would continue to voice my concerns about the specific language on line six seven and eight the development of environmental justice curriculum at the middle and high school level and again point out that the the  ability of washington to dictate specific curriculum in middle and high schools across this nation i believe is is an ability or capability that this congress certainly doesn't have and it ought not have  moms and dads and teachers and administrators and school boards across this nation are fully capable of determining what is appropriate and this stretch this further stretch into washington's intervention into what ought to be price i know you're tired of this but  amendment offered mr price of georgia the gentleman from georgia is recognized for the purposes thank you mr chairman this amendment will add significant safeguards under the national byron medal education act that would relate to curriculum seriously that we've just been talking about many provisions as folks look through this and as we've shared with with staff will look familiar the first three portions are taken from the no child left behind act and this amendment ensures that the federal government is not encroaching on truly local decisions as we protect the interest of taxpayers the first safeguard is a general probation which forbids federal officials from dictating or controlling the school's curriculum specific decisions on instructional content and standards  assessments should appropriately remain the exclusive purview of the states and localities that are making these decisions the second safeguard is a prohibition on the endorsement of any particular curriculum for signs under the national environmental education act  not be used to endorse or approve a specific curriculum as i would have mentioned before certainly washington doesn't have a monopoly on what good ideas and the imposition of those good ideas third safeguard is a prohibition of the federal seal of approval states ought not have to receive certification from the federal government in order to receive assistance the provide the final provision is a new provision and it's aim is to ensure that the national environmental education act remains free of partisan or political influence on either side and that science science not a political or any illogical agenda is what students take away from their learning experiences many on this committee already know and byron mental education increases awareness and knowledge about environmental issues proper abiding needed skills to make informed decisions and hansis critical thinking and problem solving in the context of weighing various sides of an issue and it does this while not advocating a particular viewpoint or course of action in fact education is part of education is the ability to think critically evaluate information and determine what one position is and what a course of action ought to be in the past many critics have argued that certain textbooks and excuse me curricula misinformed students by advocating specific measures to address environmental  problems sometimes even worse environmental problems were presented with an unbalanced or a scientifically inaccurate inclusion of data in response to the p a the environmental protection agency issued guidelines to correct this problem and my men might take codified these guidelines while installing the highest standards necessary to ensure environmental education programs free from partisan or political influence this amendment then is a kind of a collection of commonsense ideas that would keep i believe the federal government at bay out of the around the payout not be while maintaining science and education as priorities in the classroom so i would dare to my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment and you know back the balance of my time here this committee being a good ole common sense guy we're prepared to accept your amendment all those air maneuver i'm heartened by your measure of common first vote will come on the on the price amendment dealing with substitute energy policy and the clerk will call the rol mr holt votes no mrs davis mrs davis votes no mr davis of illinois mr davis of illinois votes no mr votes no mr bishop of new york mr bishop of new york votes no miss sanchez ms sanchez votes no mr miss clark miss clark votes no mr courtney mr courtney votes no miss shape order miss shape order votes no mr platts mr platts boats i mr keller mr wilson mr wilson votes i mr klein mr klein votes i mrs mcmorris rodgers mr marchant fox mrs fox votes i mr cool mr cool votes by mr bishop of utah mr bishop of utah votes no mr davis of tennessee mr marchant anders mr andrews votes i mr scott mr scott of its i mr platts votes no mr keller fox votes no mr cool mr cool votes no mr bishop of utah mr bishop of utah votes no mr davis of tennessee mr davis of tennessee votes no mr walberg mr walberg  mr chairman twenty seven members vote and eighteen members vote no gentleman from maryland recognize for motion mr chairman with tremendous thanks to your staff congressman kildee staff and congresswoman mccarthy staff i moved it to committee on education and labor report the bill h r three zero three six to the house of representatives of the within and then in the nature of a substitute a recommendation the general just suspend i need to to get the vote on the votes no mrs mcmorris rodgers mr marchant mr price mr price votes no mr fortune you know of utah votes no mr davis of tennessee mr davis of tennessee votes no mr walberg mr walberg votes no it's mr bishop of utah mr bishop of utah votes i mr davis of tennessee mr davis of tennessee votes mr walberg mr walberg votes i mr chairman forty three members vote i and one member votes no mr mccain mr chairman ms morris rogers was unable to be here for the vote but she would like to put in the record that if she had been able to beat her she would have committee will now recess hopefully will it be a few minutes just until one o'clock we will we plan to to re committee will will reconvene and a quorum being present the committee will now proceed to the consideration of h r twenty three forty three the education begins at home act and the chair yields to sell for the purposes of an opening statement more and more we're learning that investing in children during their earliest years is essential to their success in school and in life research tells us that the parent child relationships that form during the first three years of a child's life when eighty five percent of their brain growth occurs are especially influential on children's cognitive and behavioral development children with active and involved parents are more likely to get good grades graduate from high school and attend college early child hood home visitation programs focus on the needs of parents and children from birth to age five these programs provide parents with vital support systems to help them cope with the day to day stress of parenting and help them better understand their children's development parents also receive medical advice and access to health care for children these programs can help boost school readiness improve their health and behavior and help them build closer by on with their parents as we learned at our hearing last week numerous studies show that early childhood home visitation programs are effective in helping parents identify and address developmental delays and disabilities in their children early on reducing the rates of child abuse and improving national and improving student achievement the nurse family partnership home visitation program for example which provides nurse visits at risk mothers has cut rates of abuse and neglect of at risk children in half this program bear significant fiscal benefits for our country yielding an average of five dollars in savings for every dollar invested according to analysts by the federal reserve bank of minneapolis we also heard  stories of families whose lives have been changed by these programs julie family a mother who's who of two whose husband serves in the military she told us how the parent educator she worked with the parents as teachers program in zero four were genya help help her find medical and financial resources when her husband was away in training and provided invaluable emotional support while she was raising her young children laura did get a deputy district attorney in allegheny county pennsylvania share the story of jane recovering heroin addict who became involved with her local nurse family partnership program the home nurse for provided through the program help jane overcome the challenging pass the physical and sexual abuse raise a healthy toddler and compete her ged and jane is now close to graduating from community college the education begins at home act would help countless other families benefit from these programs and the opportunities that they can provide the bill would create for the first time a federal funding stream to help states and communities expand access to high quality programs this legislation is about strengthen this nation's families about giving them the support they need to pursue their dreams i'd like to thank congressman danny davis and congressman todd platts for their leadership on this legislation and i'm calm we will continue this committee's bipartisanship on early childhood education issues by passing this legislation with strong support today and with that i'd like to yield to congressman plaids for the purpose of an opening statement chairman i first want to thank you and your staff are working with my staff and our republican committee staff and very importantly along with representative danny davis and his staff to strengthen and improve this important piece of legislation quality voluntary home visitation programs for parents with young children i became especially aware of the importance ineffectiveness of such programs from law enforcement officials in my just trick to stress the importance of early childhood intervention these officers saw firsthand the stress placed on disadvantaged in first time families who struggle to provide a safe and healthy upbringing for their children many simply unaware of how to appropriately care for their children home programs help us to break the cycle of poverty and abuse by teaching parents about healthy childhood development and positive parenting skills research shows that quality home visitation programs are associated with positive outcomes for children and families including improved school readiness enhanced parenting practices decreased child abuse and reduction in criminality for both the parent and the children in the future one model that is used in my home state of pennsylvania the nurse family partnership has proven to reduce abuse in the neglect by fifty percent and later arrests by sixty percent the education begins at home act also provides a special emphasis on military families and families here english language learners both of these groups have special needs which home visitation programs can help to address military families often consist of a single parent family struggling to raise young children while their partner the other parent is on deployment home visitors and sure that military families and english language learners are connected to community resources that are available and address their specific needs the manager's amendment to be operated a further ensures that are felt federal dollars will be spent most appropriately by including quality benchmarks for programs who can receive the money and they targeting resources to communities that are most in need i also think the chairman for including a regional state matching requirement to allow states to use federal dollars to leverage even more funds again i appreciate both the chairman and ranking members leadership on this bill and on the issues of early childhood education and again at the size what a privilege has been a pleasure to work with represent dan it's danny davis on this legislation but that you'll back for the in the bill in produce an even better outcome for children and families the major changes in the bill include requiring states to identify and prioritize serving communities high need of home visitation services and changing the state formula to reflect the proportion of children under age five from low income families ensuring the programs funded under this under this bill use program models that are proven and effective that have been evaluated and those results published in peer reviewed journal and incorporate comprehensive research based programs standers with standardized training and ongoing professional development including a state match so that this bill can create an incentive for states to build their own commitment to the capacity of these these programs eliminated a section of the bill that would change the early early head start programs that were incorporated into the headstart bill passed this last year and eliminating the requirement that hospitals offer parenting classes to new new parents and it changes the authorisation from three to five years and change the authorization levels accordingly i believe that these changes will help ensure better services to the children and families and i would urge the adoption of the memmott and mr davis if you want to bring this legislation to this point i am firmly convinced that early childhood development early childhood education early childhood understanding set the stage in many instances for the rest of one's life and this legislation this program this idea of education begin at home there are many families many parents who have difficulty with the concept of parent and simply knowing what to do how to do it when to do it what's most effective i mean their parents who if a baby is crying just don't know what to do whether or not they ought to stop them from cry and of whether that's  healthy indication that they've got good long we hear so many instances of child abuse of neglect and especially do we hear it in situations where oftentimes a mother will leave the care of a child to someone else and by the time she returns something drastic has happened i know that there are going to be efforts and that there are efforts to restrict and try and restrict the implementation of this program to certain categories of individuals certain communities  neighborhoods i've always been what i consider to be a champion of low income people the underdog people at the bottom of the scale at the bottom of the ladder but the problems and issues facing young parents face in children being born really cut beyond any single category of individuals that our  country it is simply a problem that people face the problem that people share i've been convinced also that you demonstrate the real positive sensitivities of a country but how well it treats its young how well it treats its old and how well they treat those who can at that time take care of their own needs and determine for themselves and when we help a child or a family know how to best better take care of an infant child who has been recently ball and i think that we are doing the best possible thing that government can really do and so for those reasons i am strongly in support of the substitute urges give every child an opportunity for the best possible start in life it is one of my top priorities also in addition to preparing children for school home visitation programs  also reduce child abuse improve parent and child bonding increased literacy and reduce crime and in thinking of reducing crime we have to realize that is  in the best of our ability that children assimilate into their community and our nation as a whole we are able to prevent gang involvement and everything we do in that direction is  positive and we success of these existing programs has been proven it's evident parents are on long waiting lists in hopes that they can be part of these programs and can be active and effectively involved in their children's development i mean they do it anyway it's not like any parent doesn't want to help their child but i mean here we are we all remember our first children not an easy experience  learning learning and now the world is going so fast and parents are under so much stress that these home visitation services are even more important than they were forty five years ago when i was doing all of their child's education additionally early education home visitation programs sort of selective methods for preventing child abuse and age twenty three forty three the education begins at home act more parents learn skills to promote healthy child development and become better parents and miller's amendment in the nature of a substitute requires states to target resources communities will give the flexibility for programs to determine how best to serve families in their recognizes that this is probably one of the greatest innovations that we've done for families in out the civil society in quite some time all of the science indicates that the sooner they interact provide support for infants and children the stronger our society will be the up front investment will ultimately save us the money that it would cost for those who are less productive in our civil society we know that through this effort children will have the experience of learning and health and behavior that is the foundation for the rest of their lives and so this substitute is critical for the development of our civil society i support it and i hope that all of us will support the infrastructure of and the children that come into our society so that we will be stronger and we promoted by then governor kit bond and then immediately he has been elected the senate this was a big crusade item for former governor john ashcroft was a big producer of this and back when i was the republican staff director on the house select committee on children families under at least the nominal control of the current chairman of this full committee george miller who at least signed my checks through his office we visited the original parents as teachers  and my boss then more directly the republican ranking member dan coats had a bill called american family act that had a section on this to do roughly what this bill is doing today which is to expand the parents as teachers program because we felt that empowering parents to get involved in their families was something that we should look at doing now i say all that because it's interesting how history comes around and we're finally to the point of doing this bill i have an amendment that  modified because apparently there was some then that i was trying to say only families with low income could get this be eligible for these grants which is not what i believe my original mehmet said i thought we were going to be able to move to a compromise in the  amendment that's before us is this compromise that says to the extent feasible give priority to families with income at or below poverty line and are eligible for public assistance as well as and then listing the other things it's clear that  families have challenges in parenting it's clear that low income families most low income families don't have problems of drug abuse child abuse pregnancy this isn't a question of stigma problems are everywhere but it is undeniable and absurd to argue that they are more concentrated in low income families secondly it is also absurd to argue that low income families have the same resources that families in the middle income and upper income families have all sorts of access groups they have all types of places to go they can a higher percentage of them can spend the money and lastly the reason i believe it shouldn't be binding but targeted my daughter for example is at a in a rural white county and my my area in the school she's in is almost one hundred percent free and assisted school lunch she has the kids who need a full day of preschool and i see them some of them didn't want to go home this summer because they didn't have electricity she had parents who had had their driver's license suspended who would try to come to parent night on bicycles their challenges are different than middle class families and when we don't at least say to the extent feasible to go to lower income families what we have set up and we've seen this in government program after government program is kind of a beltway ban philosophy here it becomes who your best grant writer and we see the grants an area may have a county may have a temper say a serious problem the other county a fifty percent serious problem but in the bidding for the granted who can do the best writing a grant who has the money to hire it and often our federal resources don't get to those who are where they need it the most and where they have the least capacity to fund parent programs nobody is arguing that everybody couldn't use some parenting skills nobody's arguing that the problems are universally there or even that most low income families have these necessarily crisis level problems but if we're going to have a federal intervention as opposed to the state do this program or the county do this program or the local i believe our fund should be going to the highest risk areas with the least resources and i just can't believe that this amendment is an acceptable to the majority and i yield back the balance of my time and i think that there is a tremendous amount of close thinking on this particular legislation but there is a recognition that there are individuals in our society who as a result of circumstance have greater need than others for certain kinds of activity but the other reality is that we don't always know what kind of need that an individual may have because he or she may be part of a certain economic group may be part of a group that is not in the community that experiences  number portion of difficulty and while i don't think that we want to limit program activity to any individuals in need we do recognize that there are certain type individuals who will come to the attention of program developers perhaps more than others but i don't want to see a person who never comes to anybody's attention who is suffering in silence or has need that could be fulfilled because they don't fit the the  type that we have prioritized and so while priorities are important i think that a program of this nature should be available to all segments of the population and that all individuals who come into contact with the circumstances of their being can access and make use of an issue or that they get the kind of services that are going to be helpful and while i'm not in a long distance agreement i'm not wail on the other side of what my colleague from indiana is is  saying i don't want to see his wrists tricked the program to only categories of individuals and wow he didn't say restricted but there are individuals who get the idea that when you prioritize in one direction it can also mean that you are denying in another direction and so for that reason i am not in favor of the amendment and why would  and i say this with all due respect because we're good friends when i was chair of the government former oversight committee we did two hearings in your district and one of the things we heard in faith based and a narcotic that if we don't target many minority groups quite frankly get run out of the grab process by slick or suburban groups and more establishment groups and one of our challenges in government is how to get the dollars down to many of these groups in the higher need areas and i know that the associations other than the low skill the nursing group that deals with low income family support my member but i know most of the major associations don't like my amendment but they represent a broad diversity and they're going to be coming in for all these kind of grants with more resources defending communities with more resources than many of our other committees do and i don't understand i mean i know that there's a tremendous lobbying pressure on this but it just seems to me that we're not excluding anybody clearly problems occur everywhere new show you've got to just takes it doesn't have you can override the priority but why wouldn't we prioritize those who have the least resources claim in that time limit let me just say mark but we also believe that there ought to be flexibility and local control local involvement local participation and that's specially since we are requiring machin resources from states that they need to up to be able to make determinations about where to prioritize in their states where the greatest need  exists and we don't want to again prohibit or restrict in any kind of way that kind of flexibility but i think states ought to have to be an intimate partner in this me in striking this what i believe is a compromise and i just emphasized a couple of points in support of this amendment one is that memet deals with the funds that are going to be provided under this act federal funds so it will ask states to prioritize how it uses the federal funds but does not restrict states from serving other individuals or communities with state and somewhat prioritized by the way we're going to distribute the dollars now in saying that the formula for each state will be based on the number of low income children in that state as opposed to just the population at large being used and then i think it's important understand that in the distribution of these funds it will be a formula to the states but as mr schauder reference it will then be an application for grants at the state level and the concern of maybe lower income areas not having the same resources to have full time grant writers or other type of to go after these grants could could disadvantage them and seeking the funds from the state that we are providing at the federal level so i think the approach and i'd emphasize that this is not saying that you have to be low income and in one of these categories it's to prioritize  income families as well as prioritizing individuals in these other groups whether it be teen pregnancy child abuse drug abuse low student achievement i think it's a balanced approach and i would urge yes vote in favor of trying to figure out how we we target this money and all the evidence suggests that the ongoing programs which were which were funding and seeking to to replicate in fact that targeting as  proportion of low income families you're probably going to find that a much greater propensity in low income communities but we also did not want to make a hard dollar amount economic amount criteria of whether or not people in need of those services could get them those programs again today suggest that they are serving those communities but there are individuals within those communities who may be above that dollar amount who desperately in need of those services that we're not talking about people who are either poor or middle class we're talking about people who fall in the gray areas around those those areas that are there you have communities that can be bordering on these communities where people have been employed and then one day they close the they close the automobile plant and all of a sudden this stress enters into the families and we have an opportunity to deal with it on a priority basis and be able to include those families without regard to income we know that deployments in the military aren't based on income they're based upon your function and what you do and those multiple deployments we now see are causing significant problems within those within those families we certainly want to be able to have the right to offer those those families these services and i points to a serving of these communities which again are most likely to be families that are under stress and much of that stress by income and likely to be in low income families but not exclusively so and and i would be much surprised if a program made grad level and decided they were going to serve middle class families if they would be able to compete  given this situation if they are and they do have these attendant problems i suspect the economy and a lot of other things are much more trouble and we'd be back here with a different piece of legislation but so i would hope that we would reject this amendment i think i think the bill and the current experience of these programs strikes the right the right balance and it's not that these programs are going to be so rich that they're good they're going to be able to wander off willy nilly and serve people who may be able to assemble those services given their resources to to do so so i would ask  and you know from working for this for years that part of the challenge is how you write the grants and who writes the grants if people get laid off obviously then that area moves but what we're really talking about is what percent of a given area fall in these criteria and if we make it so everybody is more or less on a level playing field you change it then when you say you've got to look at what are obviously areas that have lower resources first it's not exclusive and i've presented a fairly nuanced argument here and i don't quite understand your position well i think i guess i read the amendment to suggest that you're going to end up with with being below the poverty line or who are eligible for public assistance is really going to be the driver in this language when you're done with it maybe the way i read it as opposed to the way you read it i know you say as well as families living in communities but as well as families living in community suggest to me a bit of a different  category these needs and that's just that's my reading of the language i ask another question sure but i believe in your statement against mine then you said you believe that that was going to be the bulk of the people to i do believe that and that's why but  at a couple dollars over the poverty line than somebody below the poverty line but they would but they would still be covered by land then that you just have to make your case that in fact your need is greater than that of a low income area i don't know the area i'd have to imagine my family problem with the directory let's say here is a grant coming from the low income area with few resources with this many cases and you'd have to make your case but the priority would say look the low income area doesn't have as many resources they should get the chairman first i would like to thank my colleagues mr denny davis and mr dog flat for introducing this legislation i agree with him that education does begin at home and we should do all we can to help parents be the best educators they can be the purpose of my amendment is to ensure that there is collaboration and coordination between targeted grants and state grants especially for english language learners there's some in my will add english language learners to the examples of high need communities that states should identify first services in their applications for funding it would require that states include targeted grants for english language learners and military families in their collaboration and coordination efforts it will also require targeted grants to share their reports with the state agency so that information about successes and best practices can be disseminated broadly throughout the state these small changes will help ensure that we build lasting capacity to serve all need communities with high quality home visit programs according to the national center for education statistics our preschool population is over twenty five percent hispanic that figure rises to nearly thirty percent when you head asian and the native america and the pacific islander children eighteen percent of hispanic schoolchildren and seventeen percent of asian schoolchildren spoke a language other than english at home and spoke english with great difficulty there's a tremendous need in these communities for home visit programs it is critical that we coordinate our efforts and lasting capacity to offer high quality programs to english language learners i urge my colleagues to support this amendment thank you have a tremendous population and so to put some focus and attention on this population group i think is not only in order but also i think it speaks to one of the gre distribute the amendment an amendment offered by mr cool of new york the gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his amendment thank you mr chairman this amendment offers or adds i should say fifteen words after on page three after line twenty three that would ensure that only individuals who are citizens or legal permanent residents of the united states are allowed to participate in home visitation programs as a father of three sons i believe that a positive support of home environment is one of the most important factors in the development of a young child and i think all of us here agree with that and i agree that the education begins at home and this act is a step in the right direction of promoting positive outcomes for children and their families this bill which i support offers parents the valuable opportunity and information on their children's early development which includes such things as positive parenting skills and school readiness child health and wellness although i support this  legislation and am also a co sponsor concerns me that the legislation fails to include every choir i'm at that program participants be citizens or legal permanent residents of the united states under this bill and eligible family is defined as a who is pregnant and the father of the child or a parent or a primary caregiver of a child prior to entry into kindergarten however there is no and i underline that no mention of citizenship status my amendment ensures that only individuals who are citizens or legal permanent residents of the united states are allowed to participate in home visitation programs as you may know in one nine hundred ninety six congress passed the personal responsibility and work opportunity reconciliation act which barred illegal immigrants from receiving any federal public benefit except for a narrow set of specified emergency services and programs the definition of federal public benefit includes any retirement welfare health disability public or assisted housing post secondary education food assistance unemployment benefit or any other similar benefit for which payments or assistance are provided to an individual or a household or a family eligibility unit by an agency of the united states well having in home visitation programs are important these services are not i underline that are not classified as emergency services under such urgent medical care therefore the underlying bill needs to be amended to make it perfectly clear  make it consistent with other acts administered by the u s department of health and human services and the federal government the resources provided by this bill are not unlimited and we cannot afford to allow those who broke the law by entering this country illegally to be put to head in the line of receiving necessary support systems of our own legal residence and with that i  back mr davis thank you very much mr chairman i've been strong opposition to this amendment for a number of reasons and as the gentleman from new york  his comments i was trying to think how an unborn child could have committed an illegal i was trying to figure out how it could be that even a child one year old or two or three could have committed any illegal act in made any determination about where they were this limitation would impose high administrative costs and absurdum some process states with virtually nothing to gain more than ninety percent of children of immigrants on the age of six u s born citizens so we would spend tons of time and money attempting to verify status a small percentage of children we know that states have invested millions of dollars to establish a process and her new staff to verify citizenship health care programs such as medica often with minimal returns from exempt in non citizens citizenship verification would tremendously limit the effectiveness of this program for its recipients the research and indeed all of our witnesses of stress that home visits and works because there's a strong relationship of trust between the home visitor and the family requiring a home visit to police document would undermine this trust and make the home visits a government agent watch in the family for wrong doing rather than a part in facilitate in their children's learning and health the development citizenship verification would dramatically reduce participation among illegal immigrant families due to fear and confusion undermined in the immigrant family member of our parents and therefore many of these families would not be services because not the child missing the service but somebody else may have a legal problem and as a result a child is denied the opportunity of a vital service i think that this amendment think how do i look at this is is we're saying to the american people are you willing to commit one hundred and ninety million dollars of your money to provide assistance to others  and the question then is are you willing to provide that to anybody or to those who have legally entered this country or been born here and have that legal status and i think the overwhelming response american public is that if they understand what this program is about are going to say you know we want to help families we want to help parents be better parents and therefore benefit those children of those parents but if we said  do you want to also help fund this type of program for those who have violated our laws and have a benefit from violating our laws i think the overwhelming response would be know that we're a generous caring nation but we don't want to have a system in place that sends a bigger picture that you can reap the benefits of america even in violating america's laws and i think that's what mr co seeking to say that you know we want to be a caring generous nation citizenry and help others but we need to do so in a way that respects and ensures the integrity of our laws and i think the american public would overwhelmingly share mr cool's position and yes vote in support of the amendment and hope members on both sides of the i will give thought to what their citizens back home an excellent piece of legislation very badly needed h r twenty three forty three is about early childhood education the positive in a rage in the for families and the issues of infant care reducing child abuse work learning and the promotion learning and all that and children that were entrusted to care for and trusted to support and to create for children and the coming generations opportunity success guided by i think with regards to children by a very basic tenet which is to do no harm and this amendment just does just that it does harm  nine service children based on the status or lack of status of their parents stigmatizing them for their very existence we're doing harm and we do this in this amendment regardless of the fact mr davis outlined ninety percent of the children of immigrants are citizens expense and burden socit with this amendment and the need to address the issue limited english a supreme court decision that up held the right of education for all public edge of free public education for all regardless of status so why not enhance the probability of success of children in our public schools through the inclusion of all children in h r twenty three forty three while mr chairman i understand that wedge issue of immigration and on documented persons in this country and the associated saber rattling that comes with this issue i understand the reality of this issue i don't appreciate it will respect it but i do understand the use of this issue for the purple little purposes that it's been used this whole session here in congress but i would hope that in this committee that we have the ability because a lot of responsibilities and the values represented in this committee for children that we have we can draw a line of decency in this debate and do no harm to children i thank the chairman and i do hear one level of consistency and that was it everybody's eligible i tried to at least put some guidelines on on income but it apparently by everybody eligible includes non citizens and i know this is an incredible difficult issue in my district clearly refugees would be eligible because they have status clearly migrant workers would be eligible because they have status clearly  any american citizens of any background would be the question is an additional program targeted at parents not the kids and one of our huge challenges is not only that our small percentage probably here born in the u s and have  citizenship but you have many kids who are brought in anywhere from age three to ten who spent most of their life in the united states and who really don't know much about being mexican they're there are americans and i understand this dilemma but that's a debate that we're trying to work through in the immigration debate the question here is is this is a program for training parents and the question is if we have limited funds and we already have in effect not put any guidelines in that say this should go to low income groups that can go everywhere and now if we say it can go even to non citizens once again the american taxpayers are asking why are you targeting funds in federal funds they can do whatever they want to state local level in federal funds why are you targeting it to areas of need and to citizens it's a pretty simple question that we we have to resolve these other challenges in our economy and i agree with this and understand that the bottom line is this is a supplemental program intended to train parents to get more involved with their kids and how to do appropriate programs with their kids how to do that but it is a program paid for by american taxpayers who expected to be used by people who are legally in our system and i think while it's uncomfortable issue and understand all the dilemmas of it the fact is by the way verification is not difficult the states are using the verification system on driver's licenses which forty seven now do in indiana what we've seen is that the challenges come from those who really overstayed their visas because they're not eligible to get status that's where the confusion is if you have status there is not confusion anybody who has status knows they have says they can get their loans with that they get the driver's license without the confusion comes from those who have overstayed their status which means they aren't here legally and they shouldn't be eligible in my opinion for a supplemental program the courts of already rule the basic programs if you don't let somebody star you don't deprive them of health care they're allowed to go to school it's a question of when we get into supplemental programs should those supplemental programs funded by the taxpayers go to people who are citizens or who have status  colleague said as a wedge issue we use it to defeat or enhance people's candidacy and therefore every single one of us is complicit in the problem that exists i would hope that at some point reason can prevail rationality tempers ale and we will come together as reasonable well meaning people and try to hash out the best way to resolve the larger issue of what do we do about immigration and appropriate policy in till we do that i would hope that we in this committee could agree that we will not use immigration status as a means of punishing kids yes this is a program targeted for parents what it is targeted for parents for the benefit of their kids and i would hope that as members responsible members of the education committee our focus would be on what is the in the best interest of the kids that we are hoping to serve we are hoping to shepherd through to a responsible adolescence and responsible adulthood and this amendment takes us in the exact opposite direction and so i want to associate myself with the comments of mister and i want to urge the defeat of this amendment i thank you and  when we are up the rule of law the thing that has made this country great is the fact that we are a country that up holes the rule of law why is it that other countries  and countries with great resources like ours are not as great as this country i say three things the fact that we have the rule of law the fact that we have a judeo christian  underpinning and the fact that we have capitalism you are punishing kids when you tell them we're going to uphold the rule of law that has kept us a free country and a great country that last statement just is really troublesome to me and we are not all complicit in the problem of illegal immigration your leadership could wearing up bills on illegal immigration any day i want to do and have votes on the floor and i think we should be doing that but mostly the problem is that you all know you don't have the votes to pass those bills so you don't bring them up but i want to talk about my family my father's parents came here from italy he was born in this country they spoke nothing but italian brought nothing but attacking his home he didn't speak english but the challenge really went to school not one person visited them they didn't get any english is a second language instruction in school they learn english on their own they were very fine parents not perfect parents but great parents and they are part of the greatest generation we say all the time those are the people who were brought in world war two what in the world has happened in this country since then that we have people who can't manage to teach their children or to deal effectively independently i mean those people came here and they managed to make this the greatest country in the world without any government help ill to grave government control if i've ever seen we need to verify are these people legal are they not legal that's a start in continuing the legacy that those people brought to this country in the early one thousand nine hundred and early eighteen hundreds what's happened to this country since the twenty's thirty's forty's that has made us such a bunch of well that people can't do anything on their own our scores go down the more government control the more government involvement the lower the worse our schools are the poor are for now people didn't have all these benefits when they were coming up but they did very well heard a line of decency we should have a line of decency and do no harm i agree with that the more you involve the government i think the more harm you do and we said we get only minimum returns for checking on legal status maybe we ought to just stop in for any of our walls if that's the way you feel about it we need to verify whether people are here legally and whether they're getting government benefits legally that's what the american people want us to do that's what they sent us here to do we're voting on not transporting monkeys across state lines when we ought to be dealing with the things people really care about in this country and this is one of them we're not trying to hurt children we're trying to benefit children by enforcing the rule of law in this country that's what we are here for support m thank you mr chairman i just want to start by saying that i have really grave concerns with this amendment which i'll go into at length and for all the reasons that mr davis and mr holder mr bishop articulated i think this amendment is a very very bad idea i want to direct everybody's attention to supreme court case which appellate free public education for all children not just some children not certain children but all children because it's in our national best to children who enter our public school system and i believe that this amendment applies directly in the spirit in the face of the spirit of the fact remains and facts are stubborn things that many communities of families that move in and out because of job opportunities that come and go they're not going to have the standard paperwork that we all take for granted that is easy to citizenship my understanding is that in states prepare for the future of this country we should be making investments in our future workforce today otherwise those u s citizen children not be successful they will perhaps drop out of we are talking about communities that sometimes as high or higher than a fifty percent dropout rate and then the become susceptible gauging in the kind of activity that we as citizens don't want to see crime or drugs or danks and at some point if we allow that to happen we're going to have to expend resources on those problems not to mention we're going to have to continue to import well educated doctors scientists engineers and computer program other countries fill the void that we are creating by not educating our own so i want everybody to keep their eye on the ball because right now they're sort of the area over how many people are going to receive these services that aren't entitle to them because because of their status migrant in california is that they have tremendous benefit for the sake of ninety percent of the children ninety percent of the kids who could really benefit from these programs because there might be a few a very small percentage that because of their status you guys don't happen to think are worth investing in we're going to cut off our nose to spite our face because that's exactly what you're doing and i would take great exception in closing mr souders remarks because he specifically mention mexican why is it always the brown kids that we're worried about but we're not concerned about undocumented immigrant children or african children or caribbean children it seems to me that this amendment is really just fig leaf to cover real misplaced discrimination with respect to one particular community and one particular community only and if somebody who comes from immigrant parents gone through the public prove their citizenship specially for children i think it would be very difficult who would be asking if you had that couldn't readily produce the documentation what would happen to their education  and their access to services during that time when they're trying to get the little documentation together my understanding is that if a member were to pass and be included in legislation they wouldn't be entitled to any service everyone to vote no on this amendment one of our responsibilities here is to think about what these laws that we write literally mean here's what this amendment would mean let's say that you're running one of these visitation programs in a neighborhood where there untimely high number of children who come to school malnourished your clothes and unprepared for school so you start a program to send caseworkers door to door to start visiting parents to teach them how to get their kids ready ask these questions about how they can prove their documented legal status now even if you believe that denying those services is the right thing to do and i don't i don't you have to recognize the reality that every minute spent  every dollar spent playing immigration police is a minute and a dollar spending going to the next door where someone would have the exalted status of citizen or legal resident and it's a minute and a dollar you're not spending teaching that mother and that father better nutritional techniques or better skills would help get their kid ready for school so there is a cost here not simply to the group targeted by this amendment but to the group that is allegedly going to be helped by this amendment after it would pass that's the first thing wrong with this the second thing wrong with this is this what an achievement when we say to the four year old and the parents of the four year old we can't help you because it's wrong for america to help you here's what i think you're guaranteeing there's a very high probability when that child does go to school that they'll wind up in special education so if you'd like to spend three times as much educating that child as you otherwise would that's a great way to achieve that there's a very high probability that child lined up in all justice system when they're twelve or thirteen years old that's really worth doing that's a great result there's a good chance t wind up as a teenage parent will wind up in a gang or wind up in a morgue this is a great achievement because we said to the parents of this four year old you don't fit our definition who pays for all that we might say we know they shouldn't be here in the first place those people heard that phrase a couple times shouldn't be here in the first place well if your objective is reducing the for all of undocumented people coming into this country can anybody on the other side explain to me how this accomplishes that house saying to the parents of a four year old you can't get a home visitation that teaches you about nutrition or the proper way to dress or how to learn how to read and as a result of that people are going to stop coming into the country illegally that is the most ridiculous non sequitur i've heard in my eighteen years here and i've heard a lot of them if you want to stop people from coming to country unlawfully why don't you multiply the fines on employers who are knowingly bringing undocumented people in this country why did you have the majority for twelve years and not increase the funding for border guards and other protections at the border why didn't you invest in  biometric identification would help track people who come here legally on a student visa then disappear into the country and can no longer be tracked the proposition that denying services the parents these four year olds is going to stop the flow of unlawful people coming in the country there is not a shred of n p r call evidence of sports at all so here's what you're accomplishing what your accomplishment by supporting this amendment is to take some very old and ugly biases and drive them deeper into the d n a of this country there's a lot of frustrated people that you and i represent who are sick to death of the fact they can't afford college tuition or health care or their mortgage payment and the easiest thing in american politics is scapegoating the reason you can afford this is because because some family from mexico or rumania or india came to the country unlawfully and it's their fault that is ridiculous it is ridiculous and it sets up the manifestation and continuation of a prejudice that does the congress no did and does the country no good or all of those reasons are only responsible vote in my view here is no and i would paperwork or because the people adjudicating the paperwork run out of time and resources and can't do it yet don't don't mr scott is correct don't be fooled by the delusion that this will simply exclude children who are undocumented it will exclude lots of children who are supposed to be lawfully covered by this as well should be defeated another question of illegal immigration listening to the discussion and i guess they qualify for all services and that we will not enforce those laws that we will not differentiate between people in this in america who are here illegally and those who are not and i was appalled at what negative comments about the people that are purporting to help i have a high opinion of immigrants who way you describe them and it was really was appalling every negative you made about twenty negative comments about them that's the opinion that you all have of these folks and that's why you think the government needs to help them i don't think the government for us to again draw the distinction between helping illegals and the illegals but i wouldn't put these people down in the same way that you did i was i was really surprised now i w scapegoats to me that's not what this is about this is about the rule of law being enforced and about saying to the american taxpayers because this isn't a constitutionally entitled program or guarantee a right this is about do american taxpayers harder hard working americans including lower income hardworking americans do you want some of your money to be taken from you through taxes and they used to fund programs for individuals parents  violated the law that's what this is about it's now that scapegoat it's about enforcing the law and how we use the hard earned dollars of american citizens and you know to suggest that we're just looking for scapegoats on this issue you know  i represent a district that has a huge volume of legal temporary workers in my fruit growers fruit farms my nurseries i have great regard for their work ethic their family commitment but that's not what this is about this is wrong and it's my understanding that what the gentleman from new york is seeking to do is to do what president clinton signed into law in one nine hundred ninety six to make it clear that when he signed into law the personal responsibility and work opportunity reconciliation act that says well legal immigrants cannot receive federally funded public program assistance through except in some merchants the circumstances that he's making it clear that this is a new program that it's also going to be compliant with that law that bill clinton signed into law in one thousand nine hundred six so this isn't something new this is something that a democratic president said i agree with if you're here legally with the exception of health emergencies or related type of emergencies housing regencies and things that are laid out in law that you should not get the public benefit from the american taxpayer so we're not doing anything different oppose the cool of new york amendment this amendment will be disastrous for the education begins at home known as the given that more than ninety burdensome process for providers that directly work with families by making it difficult to build trust and establish a family which is an essential first step in facilitating their children's proposed an attempt to provide an early intervention that helps children overcome the effects of poverty low levels of maternal education and linguistic salut isolation and meet the demanding requirement of no child enhanced school readiness to children who will be entering our public school system and could greatly benefit from early intervention port i urge members of this committee to oppose the cool amendment  about my time to congresswoman woolsey thank you for healing to me i just have a question to ask the other side of the aisle who in forces the preschool teacher the elementary school teacher the nurse that goes to the house the social worker who's gone to help or the ice agent that sits in a van out right along the bus stop where the children go to school in my district so that these kids don't go to school so that they have nightmares night after night because they watched in the dot picked up in that van while they were supposed to go to school and most of the time the adult was picked up wrongly so who do you expect to enforce you know back i keep hearing that this bill targets parents and that's not the case because the only reason that the adults are involved in this bill is because they have children so this bill actually targets children and it's part of what i hope  s a comprehensive system of quality research based programs that will help our infants and our children succeed in school and and in life that i hope the federal government will begin to support and this is one of the ways that we can do so so i hope that the the proposition that we are here to help our infants and our children succeed in life and in school through this kind of a program that focuses on children is something that we can have bipartisan support for thank you americans somehow young child got some help and we were taking it out on their parents whether it was some type of health care or some type of preschool or whatever my goodness that would be are and i am tired and i'm very tired of playing this and with all due respect to the gentleman from indiana i could not agree more with my colleague when the term mexican was used as if those are the only people w integrated into this country illegally and i think singling out groups of people like that does nothing to advance so let me just say that from my perspective i am going to vote against this and if this goes to a motion to recommit on the floor you can bet i'm going to do everything i he balance of my time to my to my thing mr andrews i think my friend for yielding and i wish that our friend a gentle lady from north carolina were still here and she addressed her comments directly to me would not yield but i will say what i would have said if she were here so i don't want any mischaracterization the record to stand i have course i do not think that all or most persons who are immigrants or undocumented immigrants share a propensity to have negative results that's obviously not the case but here's what is the case don't listen to me listen to the american academy of pediatrics the american psychological association the children's defense fund here's what they say about these visitation programs quality home visitation programs are associated with positive outcomes for children and families including greater school readiness enhanced child health and development improved parenting practices and we duction is in child maltreatment and later criminality so what we're doing by this amendment is creating two classes of children in this country those that can have services in this area should their families need it and those who cannot and this classification is based upon what documents your parents do or do not have in their hands or perhaps mr scott said whether those documents are correctly understood by the enforcing authorities or not this is a tremendously emotional debate what should never be lost in the the motion is the reality of this amendment is that a four year old who would be more likely to succeed in school and in life will not get a home visitation because of the accident of where they were born and the purpose of doing this us dance ability is to shut the borders down so we don't have such a flow of undocumented people in the country if there's anyone on the other side that can produce a shred of evidence that will say that the fall of one document it's either has been reduced or would be reduced by this i would invite them to do so if there's any evidence whatsoever that denying benefits in a case like this would keep one on roff a person from crossing the border or disappearing into the country after they're you know legally i'd like to see it because i haven't seen a piece of empirical evidence that even suggests that so yes we talk about motive some of us are asking the question what's what's the real motivation of this a and i think it's very clear to to continue the fissures and political divisions that are unhealthy for this country and unwelcome in this congress but no thank you very much mr chairman i could not let this opportunity go by without registering my dismay with this with this amendment as well i'm urging all of my colleagues to vot  no and you know as the daughter of caribbean immigrants i can't believe in the twenty first century where even having this conversation that we would deny whole visitation rights to children to children it is the expectation that we would evolve as human beings to address the genius that is within each and every one of us we have the science we have the knowledge we understand that when we provide for children an opportunity for for support we're creating a landscape of humanity that will ultimately be our guides our protectors indeed those who will carry on once we're gone but there is a close discrimination that is coming through in this particular amendment because if only if ninety percent of the children who receive these services are indeed citizens we're talking about such a limb amount who may be undocumented what is this amendment really about it's cost prohibitive first world the paperwork alone will be exhausted in trying to meet the mandate for status let's talk about the public health implications of a child whose parents are driven underground because they deserve a home visit but are afraid that they don't have the appropriate documentation and that child as a communicable disease what is it we are saying about the society really reside in when we target children without hatred and bigotry we need to make a statement today in this congress that we do have an ounce of humanity left in our soul and if this is the moment that we choose to do that i encourage my colleagues to do so because this is indeed a slippery slope into the us and them that tears country the party that creates the who choose in the tutsi of world the chairman i am encouraging my colleagues today to vote now and i stand with every member of this house that would that would fight for the rights of children regardless the where they born that they would have the right to have support and the type of of environment that nurtures their growth and their development thank you very much mr chairman i yield back the balance of my time mrs davis thank you mr chairman and i think that you know people are really spoken to all of these issues well and i just would ask i think a number of us are sponsors of this bill and  i know the authors are three leagues committed to it and i really respect their advocacy for these programs because they have been around for a while but this is now an opportunity to focus in a different way and i guess i would just ask what's the greater goal here is a greater goal serving our children providing them the the best optimum educational opportunities in the future or is the greater goal to try and insert into this program something that can be a kind of camel's under the tent i mean is it the beginning of what we're going to try and do where we ensure that every child who's attending school and having the opportunities of our society perhaps has a family that has full documentation i think the greater goal is trying to reach these kids is trying to reach the families at a very very early age and if that's the greater goal than sometimes we have to move that along and not be concerned that we insert a poison pill into legislation that in fact is going to mean that it's never enacted what do you cigarette or bowl here i would suggest that is exactly the a lot of us have signed on to the bill because we believe that this is the best thing to do the programs have a good track record and we know that we can really and truly myself with those who spoken on this side on the issue and i intend to vote against the amendment but in addition to my sharing the perspectives that have been conveyed i have a very simple one and that is that  believe that the practical effect of an amendment of this is going to be to terminate existing programs that are good programs as well as prevent the citizens and it would be a huge mistake for us to discourage these programs or for their elimination so from that practical perspective i feel very strongly that we ought to  can be there are people who slip across the borders or come in by ships that come in by various means that aren't legal but i honestly after listening to everything think that times that there is a greater good here  count ability for this investment although investments on the tension aren't here legally but i think the honest greater good is to the bottom line live up to that ideal that that woman sitting in new york harbor stands for that we tell people come on in and be all you can be and i honestly do believe that this argument here on this side is the one that i default to strongly because it is a greater good and i was still cherishing the rule of law and accountability at times makes more towards our ideals and that's why i will be much strongly very much opposed the amendment thank you we see the band of things in this business and in the chair with the but again i would like to bring this back to the to the focus of this legislation that is on the on the child parent guardian of the child is the vehicle by which we can reach the future of that child by getting services to that individual or to both to the child to the parent to the guardian we can develop a different future for that child than the current behavior that has alarmed us predicts that child will have if we don't deal with it and we've said here and eyes of accepted that about for children under six about nine ninety percent of them are our citizens  since many of these protests we can cut that down a little because we're perhaps because these programs deal with children different age but once you go to kindergarten i think for the most part you're you're out of this particular programs that are that are structured that this this legislation and deals to and if we don't get to that child of course many of you have addressed the idea that these problems start to cascade not only do they cascade in terms of the taxpayers when we see very very serious studies by the federal reserve telling us that we receive about five dollars in benefit for every dollar we expend for this particular population but all those problems then cascade for that child because of the treatment wasn't provided the services weren't provided either the abusive situation continued the mound the mound attrition continued whatever it was the drew the attention of these programs so that child now is becoming victimized by the failure to have those those services and i think we have to understand that but if in fact nine out of ten of these kids are eligible for that population i wish we had such efficiency in everything else we do in the government where we would hit the target nine out of ten times i wish we had that efficiency for our contracts in iraq for contracts on on on katrina for services that we provide across the board nine out of ten sounds pretty good to me that doesn't mean you condone the illegal status of those of those of those individuals but you have to understand again that if you can get that number nine out of ten of these children and you can deal with these services that's a risk worth running we one of the categories we identify here is the high rates of teen pregnancy one of the more prominent programs here nurse visitation nurse or nurse family partnership i get it deals with with with teen pregnancies because we know the high risk of low birth weight babies we know all of this that that dramatically cascades down if we don't deal with it i don't think an illegal that's pregnant young woman whom we're here without status is going to come forward to seek those services but we may very well if she doesn't come forward to seek those services we may still inherit that child at low birth weight in the emergency room with that with that with that with medical costs that far exceed that because you're not going to get turned away those are the things i think you have to weigh here it isn't cut or dried about how you perceive people the rights they should have or the benefits they should receive when they're here without status when they're here illegally we all have our opinions on that we all understand the opinions of our constituents upon that but you have to ask yourself what is the general benefit to this society to the taxpayer to that child and to the to the to the institutions they're going have to deal with that child in the future is that child going to be school ready is that child going to be ready to participate in take advantage of head start that child going to be a citizen that child is a citizen and i think that's that's that's the question i don't pretend that i can answer for all of you i think that we should answer in favor of of this law in favor of these services in favor of these children's futures these children didn't get to make that decision they didn't participate in that decision and we can we  can we can dramatically given all of the evidence and that's why this this legislation and such for such incredible bipartisan support ologies because we now see the impact we can have on these children's lives we can change those lives the benefits of this i think we have to make a decision in favor of those because for every person that we drive away for every pregnant young young woman that we drive away for every parent that doesn't seek these services because maybe their spouse isn't here legally or the or somebody else living in that household isn't here legally we not only for the victimize that child but we cascade the negative outcomes we cascade the expenses to the to the taxpayer because of that because of that decision i know that we like to think of the laws black or white absolute where i came from you've got ninety percent you've got an a and i'd like to see more programs that would have a possibility of getting an a and thank you again to my colleagues who participated in this debate this is a difficult debate on both sides that on the on the minute by the gentleman from new york all those in favor will say aye all those opposed will say no now oh and then pin the chair than those have it and those have it missed the gentleman from new york asked for record a vote and we'll have a recorded my understanding is there are no further members to the bill and under a previous arrangement we will we'll go forward with the with the roll call votes the first one will be on the on the on the souter amendment on the priorities  mr percentage mrs davis mrs davis votes now mr davis of illinois mr davis of illinois votes no mr  mrs fox mrs fox votes i mr cool mr cool boats i mr bishop of utah mr davis of tennessee mr davis of tennessee votes mr walberg those who fail to respond mr pain mr bishop of utah mr walberg mr davis of tennessee mr davis of tennessee votes mr walberg for motion thank you very much mr chairman and with the precision fall of the tremendous staff work that took place on both sides of the aisle in the seriousness with which the committee approached the issue i move that the committee on education and labor support the bill h r twenty three forty three to the house of representatives within a minute in the nature of a substitute with the recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and not the chair request unanimous consent the staff be authorized to make all necessary technical and conforming changes to all three bills reported by the committee today in addition i asked pursuant to rule eleven cla