Phil Hare

Mr. HARE

Mr. HARE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we must honor the sacrifice of our servicemembers by providing them with the resources needed to heal from the wounds of war and to help them live an active life after their service to our country. While the VA has taken an active role in initiating programs for our most severely injured veterans, I strongly believe that Congress should provide the VA with the needed resources to help meet this growing demand for rehabilitative services. For this reason, H.R. 4255, the United States Paralympic Programs Act of 2008, is introduced, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill. This bill would establish the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of National Veterans Sports Programs and Special Events; it would authorize the VA to provide grants to the United States Olympic Committee to implement the Paralympic Program; and, authorize a financial assistance program for veterans who participate in events leading to elite competition. Mr. Speaker, it has been a decade since Congress last revisited this program that provides opportunities for participation in paralympic supports. Our Nation's current commitment in fighting the global war on terror has brought to light the need to reevaluate existing programs to see if they meet the needs of a new generation of disabled veterans and servicemembers. As the number of disabled servicemembers has substantially increased over the years, it has become necessary to expand available rehabilitative services to ensure that these men and women are afforded the best possible care after their service to our Nation. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the efforts of the VA for entering into a memorandum of agreement with the United States Olympic Committee to help take care of seriously injured veterans and allowing them to be part of the Paralympic Program. This program helps them to accept new physical limitations and to explore those limits. I, like some of my colleagues in the House, have had the pleasure of meeting some of these servicemembers and veterans who have benefited from programs such as the one being proposed today. Earlier this year, the chairman had the pleasure of meeting Jose Ramos, a veteran of the Navy originally from El Paso, Texas. Jose testified before the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity about benefits that adaptive sports programs provide in teaching veterans that they can continue to live productive lives despite their injuries. I would like to thank the ranking member of the committee, Representative Steve Buyer, for the bipartisan effort he demonstrated in working on this important piece of legislation. By working together, we were able to incorporate language from his bill and craft H.R. 4255. I ask all my colleagues to join me in showing their strong support for H.R. 4255 as amended, the United States Paralympic Program Act of 2008. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HARE

Mr. HARE. I continue to reserve, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. HARE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1288) supporting the goals and ideals of National Campus Safety Awareness Month, as amended.

Mr. HARE. Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days in which Members may revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H. Res. 1288 into the Record.

Mr. HARE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of House Resolution 1288, which recognizes September as the National Campus Safety Awareness Month. I urge colleges and universities from across the country to do what they can to prevent violence, crime and abuse on their campuses. The campus safety movement started in the late 1980s, soon after the tragic death of a student at Lehigh University. On April 5, 1986, Jeanne Clery, a freshman at Lehigh, was beaten, raped and murdered in her dormitory room. The offender was another Lehigh student who tried to rob Jeanne as she slept in the room. The two did not know each other. Clery's case brought college campus safety to the forefront when it exposed flaws in the reporting of crime information related to violence on the campus. At that time, violent and nonviolent incidents were reported to campus authorities, but administrators did not have to disclose the information. In the aftermath of Ms. Clery's murder, her parents, Connie and Howard Clery, founded Security on Campus, Inc. to end violence on all college campuses. It is a unique, nonprofit grass roots organization dedicated to safe campuses for college and university students. Security on Campus, Inc. partners with a number of colleges to offer educational programs on sexual assault, alcohol and drugs. Programs like Security on Campus, Inc. have done a lot to educate students about campus safety. They have partnered with over 150 colleges and universities from 42 States across this Nation. More than 37 homicides and 8,112 forcible sex offenses were reported on college and university campuses from the year 2004 through 2006. Many of the violence and rape cases take place within the first few weeks of school. As we commemorate National Campus Safety Awareness Month in September, let us focus our efforts on educating our students about campus safety. Students need to be reminded every year about practical precautions to increase their safety. Anyone can become a victim of a campus crime, and it is imperative that students are taught how to avoid dangerous situations. Mr. Speaker, once again, I express my support for National Campus Safety Awareness Month, and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HARE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the author of this very important resolution that we're considering, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak).

Mr. HARE

Mr. HARE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5892, the Veterans Disability Benefits Claims Modernization Act of 2008, and I commend Chairman Hall for his tireless work on this issue. The disability backlog of more than 800,000 claims in the VA is a moral black eye for our country. We made a promise to those who served in uniform, and we have failed to keep that promise. The legislation before us today takes a critical step in restoring that promise. This bill is a comprehensive approach to fixing the flaws that exist in claims decisions and in the structure at the Veterans Benefits Administration, the VBA. The largest factors contributing to the claims backlogs are the broken culture and processes at the VA. There is a lack of accountability on raters, poor quality assurance measures, a broken work credit system, virtually no training for the VBA personnel, and an outdated information technology system. H.R. 5892 squarely addresses these problems by creating a more accountable and accurate system that rewards raters for the quality of their work, and it holds them accountable for their mistakes, ensuring that claims are processed correctly the very first time. I want to thank Chairman Hall for working with me to include specific language on mental health in the study of the readjustment schedule. Of those veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan who have accessed VA care, 40 percent have sought mental health care. It is critical that any study on the rating schedule takes a good look at mental health conditions to ensure that those veterans receive fair compensation. I am disappointed that we had to remove the original section 101 language from H.R. 5892, which provided a service connection presumption for post-traumatic stress disorder by clearly defining who was considered a ``combat veteran.'' The provision decreased the burden of proof for combat veterans, increasing their access to disability benefits. I appreciate Mr. Hall's efforts to address this issue in separate legislation, and I look forward to working with him to ensure that it becomes law. H.R. 5892 is a strong piece of legislation that will improve the way veterans' claims are processed. Again, I view this as a work in progress, and I look forward to continuing efforts until the backlog goes from 800,000 to zero.

Mr. HARE

Mr. HARE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this amendment, and I commend my friend and colleague, Representative Dave Loebsack, for offering it during today's discussion on the National Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act. Mr. Loebsack's district in Iowa and my district in Illinois both suffered major flooding in May and June with crests on the Mississippi River of over 500-year levels. As you can imagine, this caused great damage not only to our constituents' homes, farms and schools but also to bridges, roads and to other infrastructure in the flood impacted communities. This is the second 500-year flood to hit our region in the past 15 years. Something must be done to improve public safety and to ensure minimal devastation from floods in the future. Mr. Loebsack's amendment would do just that by requiring the Transportation Secretary, in consultation with the States, to study the risks proposed by a 500-year flood to bridges on Federal-aid highways, on other public roads and on Indian reservations. I believe the information we gather from this study will result in significant improvement to bridge safety and will help our river communities better prepare for flood disasters in the future. Examining more factors affecting public safety is the role of government, and it's good for our constituents. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying bill. Again, I thank my friend Mr. Loebsack for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. HARE

Mr. HARE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the Record to reflect that I was unavoidably detained due to tornado-like conditions in my district in west-central Illinois. If I had been present for rollcall votes, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 512, ``yea'' on rollcall 513, ``yea'' on rollcall 514, ``nay'' on rollcall 515, ``yea'' on rollcall 516, ``yea'' on rollcall 517, ``yea'' on rollcall 518, ``yea'' on rollcall 519, and ``yea'' on rollcall 520, and finally, Mr. Speaker, ``yea'' on rollcall 521.

Mr. HARE

Mr. HARE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3195, the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. I am very pleased that the House is considering this important legislation, and I urge our friends in the Senate to swiftly take action on it as well. As it stands now, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) leaves too many Americans at an unfair disadvantage. Many workers who suffer from debilitating diseases such as epilepsy or cancer are being discriminated against in the workplace but are denied redress by the courts. No one should be denied employment or be fired from his or her job because of a disability, but the Supreme Court has on multiple occasions interpreted the law in a way that opens the door to this possibility. In fact, plaintiffs lost 97 percent of ADA employment discrimination claims in 2004 alone, often due to the interpretation of the definition of ``disability.'' The starkest demonstration of this problem is found in Toyota Motor Manufacturing v. Williams, which the Supreme Court considered in 2002. The majority decision in this case held that the ADA's language regarding the extent of disability must be strictly interpreted so that legal protections from discrimination would apply only to those whose disabilities are long-term or permanent, and substantially limit their ability to perform routine tasks. This was not the intent of the ADA. Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990 to clearly and comprehensively eliminate discrimination against all individuals with disabilities. Since that time, the ADA has transformed our Nation, helping millions of Americans with disabilities succeed in the workplace, and making transportation, housing, buildings, and services more accessible to individuals with disabilities. The bill we are considering today restores the original intent of Congress by rejecting the Supreme Court decisions that have reduced protections for people with disabilities. Additionally, the legislation clarifies the definition of ``disability'' to include what it means to be ``substantially limited in a major life activity.'' The legislation also prohibits the consideration of mitigating measures such as medication, prosthetics, and assistive technology in determining whether an individual has a disability, and provides coverage to people who experience discrimination based on a perception of impairment regardless of whether the individual does in fact have a disability. The most important factor for a court to weigh in on a discrimination case should be the allegation itself--not the extent or nature of a worker's disability. This is not what every day Americans stand for, and this is not what Congress meant when the law was originally enacted. By more clearly defining the term ``disabled,'' we will be able to free up the courts in the future to focus on alleged acts of discrimination and better protect the American workers for whom this law was enacted. I urge my colleagues to join the broad coalition of civil rights groups, disability advocates, and employer trade organizations who support this bill and vote with me to stop discrimination against individuals with disabilities by restoring the original intent of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Mr. HARE

Mr. HARE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act. Currently, about 46 percent of private employers provide paid parental leave to their employees, but federal workers have no such guarantee. As a Member of the House Education and Labor Committee and a representative of many federal workers, this concerns me. Federal workers, like those in the private sector, should also have the option of adopting or giving birth to their own child without having to go 12 weeks without a paycheck, which few families in our country can afford to do. Study after study shows that enabling working mothers and fathers to care for and bond with newly-adopted children and newborns lays the foundation for healthy child development and a safer, brighter future for our Nation. Paid leave makes it possible for workers to take time off without having to worry about a paycheck. Additionally, paid parental leave will help the federal government recruit and retain dedicated and talented workers. As the federal workforce ages, our government will be looking for new, younger workers. In order to attract and retain the best workers, federal benefits must be competitive. This paid leave would also save the government money by reducing turnover and avoiding costs associated with replacing and training new workers, which is approximately 25 percent of one worker's salary, making turnover-related costs among the most significant employer expenses. The Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act will provide federal workers who qualify for leave under the Family Medical Leave Act, FMLA, which guarantees 12 weeks of unpaid leave, with four weeks of full pay for the adoption or birth of a new child, allowing parents to care for their newborns while continuing to make ends meet. This legislation takes a strong step toward creating a more family- friendly workplace in the United States. Hopefully, in my lifetime I will see federal paid sick and parental leave for every worker in every industry in the United States. I look forward to working with my colleagues to achieve this goal. As a father who spends every week away from his family serving here in the U.S. Congress, I understand how hard it is not to be with loved ones and to miss important events in their lives because of one's job. I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation and show American workers that we are committed to helping them balance their work and home responsibilities.

Mr. HARE

Mr. HARE. Madam Speaker, today I rise to congratulate Dr. Peter H. Kehoe, who this Saturday will become the 87th president of the American Optometric Association (AOA). For many years, Dr. Kehoe has been a leader in his profession at the State, regional and national levels. He is a past president of the Illinois Optometric Association and the West Central Illinois Optometric Society. In 2001, the State association named him Illinois' ``Optometrist of the Year.'' Dr. Kehoe is a graduate of the Illinois College of Optometry and served on its Alumni Council Board of Directors. A Fellow of the American Academy of Optometry, he is in private practice in my hometown of Galesburg, IL, and is a past president of the Galesburg Lions Club. Doctors of optometry are the Nation's largest eye care providers, serving patients in nearly 6,500 communities across the country. The American Optometric Association is the professional society for optometrists nationwide and has more than 34,000 members. Dr. Kehoe will lead the association along its mission to improve eye and vision care in the United States. Dr. Peter H. Kehoe has built a renowned record of service and leadership in his profession and in his community. I am confident that he will have a very successful term as president of the AOA. The 17th District of Illinois is proud to have Dr. Kehoe as a constituent and I join his family, friends and colleagues in congratulating him on this achievement and wishing him good luck.

Mr. HARE

Mr. HARE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a victory for the American people. On Wednesday, the Government Accountability Office ruled that the Air Force broke its own contracting rules when it awarded a multi- billion dollar tanker contract to the Northrop Grumman Airbus team and recommended that the Air Force reopen the competitive bidding process. The GAO said the Air Force made ``a number of significant errors that could have affected the outcome of what was a close competition between Boeing and Northrop Grumman.'' Let me just touch on some of the main points of the GAO ruling. The Air Force did not assess the relative merits of the tanker proposals in accordance with the criteria that the Air Force established. The Air Force awarded Northrop's bigger tanker extra credit even though no consideration was supposed to have been given for exceeding key performance objectives. The record did not indicate, as the Air Force claimed, that the Northrop tanker could refuel all current Air Force fixed-wing aircraft. The Air Force conducted ``misleading and unequal decisions'' with Boeing by informing Boeing that it fully satisfied a key performance objective but later determined that Boeing had only partially met this objective. The Air Force unreasonably favored Northrop after the company refused to agree to help set up maintenance depots within two years of the first airplane delivery, and the Air Force miscalculated the life-cycle costs of Boeing's tanker and incorrectly concluded that the Northrop tanker would have lowered costs. The Air Force improperly increased Boeing's estimated nonrecurring engineering costs in accounting for program risk. The GAO found seven major flaws in this election process, Mr. Speaker. Not one or two, but seven. Mr. Speaker, most were doubtful that the decision would be overturned. Experts said it was highly unlikely that the GAO would uphold Boeing's protest because the GAO rarely sides with the protesting company. But fortunately for the American people, the GAO saw what Boeing had been saying all along: the competition was unfair and fundamentally flawed. The GAO ruling leaves the Air Force with only one option: recompete the bid. Now, the Air Force has the opportunity to conduct a fair and open competition. And I strongly encourage them to consider an American company. Our economic and national security depends on it. Mr. Speaker, while the GAO ruling in favor of Boeing is welcome, the GAO ruling does not address the broader economic and national security concerns raised by the tanker decision. The first, jobs, jobs, jobs. Over the last 5 months, a record number of jobs had been lost, most of them from the manufacturing sector. In May, the unemployment rate made a 22-year high jump, reaching its highest level in more than 3\1/ 2\ years. But Air Force officials stated that employment effects were not considered in awarding the contract. And as a result, tens of thousands of good, high-paying jobs will be created in Europe.

Mr. HARE. I will be happy to.

Mr. HARE. I'm happy to. And let me say, Mr. Speaker, I refer my colleagues to an article titled ``Bailing Out On America'' out of the EPI Briefing Paper. It is a job analysis report on the tanker decision from the nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank, The Economic Institute. The report titled ``Bailing Out On America. Air Force tanker decision will ground at least 14,000 U.S. jobs,'' found that Boeing recreated at least twice as many U.S. jobs as the Northrop Grumman European Airbus team. According to the EPI report, Airbus Northrop exaggerates its own job claims. Equally important, the report states that U.S. job losses are likely to grow in the future if the contract is awarded to EADS because it will give the company sizable cost advantages and will lug up the future competitions to supply tankers to the Air Force. Mr. Speaker, at a time when America is facing a recession, creating jobs in Europe is not in the best interest of the American people. We owe it to the American people to take advantage of the opportunity to create jobs right here in the United States and resuscitate our failing economy. Several other issues remain outstanding not addressed in the GAO which includes a pending case before the World Trade Organization against EAD, the parent of Airbus, for accepting illegal subsidies, a violation of international trade laws. This and other issues must be addressed before the tanker program can move forward. And let me just, if I could, my friend, just conclude by saying a couple of things. We're fighting two wars here. We just got through passing billions of dollars to fund them. Not too long ago, the guidance system for bombs, I don't exactly know the exact part that was manufactured in India, was shipped off to be manufactured in China. That work is gone. National defense is a risk, in my opinion, and those jobs aren't coming back; and now we have a company who wants to build tankers outside of this Nation not knowing if tomorrow this company or this country that we seek to have this plane made by is going to remain friends with the United States. I was on a talk show program and was amazed at the number of calls that I got from people saying, What are they thinking out there? How could they outsource national defense items to be manufactured by somebody other than the United States when we're at war? I have an arsenal in my district that made the Up-Armored Humvee doors that saved hundreds of lives, and I have to tell you, it makes no sense. All we asked for was a fair shake for Boeing. The GAO report, I think, will give Boeing the opportunity to compete on what is fair. I commend the GAO for doing this, but let me be clear. We have an obligation to protect this country when we're at war, and the products that we produce to protect our men and women and to fight and sustain this war, whenever possible, ought to be made in this country and ought to be made by American workers. And I thank my friends for inviting me this evening.

Mr. HARE. Will the gentleman yield? You know, you just mentioned $13 billion. We've tried now on two occasions to insure 10 million children for $6 billion. So if you take a look at the cost overrun just on the hangers and you look at the amount of money that we're spending--I think what's really important to also note here is the GAO rarely does this. Normally, the expectation would be that they were going to go with what they had. And when you read this report, and as my friend from Oregon said--and I hope that every Member of this Chamber will read it because I think it's critical if you're going to make an informed decision on this--if you read this, you will see that, indeed, Boeing didn't have a chance to compete fairly, you had tremendous cost overruns into the billions of dollars, you have thousands of American jobs. But again, I go back to my friend and say, this is a Nation at war fighting two wars, and we cannot allow the outsourcing. My friend from Kansas mentions with great pride that she has bases, and these soldiers need and expect the best equipment, and Boeing can give that to them. But most importantly in this whole process is the whole question of fairness. We said this before. When I met with the Boeing people, they said, look, we don't want favoritism here, we just want some fairness brought into this process so we can compete. You can't complete when you change rules in the middle of the game. I liken this, and I was telling one of the Boeing people, it's like tying somebody's hands behind their back, putting a blindfold on, and fighting for the Heavyweight Championship of the world, you're at a slight disadvantage. And that's what happened in this report. So I'm pleased. And I really appreciate my friend from the State of Washington for inviting me to be here tonight to talk about this because this is critical, this is critical for our national defense, it's critical for our jobs. And as you said, when you think of the billions of dollars that we're going to be wasting on this project that we could save, that we could be spending on other things, it really just makes a whole lot of sense. So again, I yield back and thank you very much.

Mr. HARE. Well, I think the gentlelady from Kansas brings up a great point. Here's a company that's been manufacturing this for 50 years. So they're not the new kid on the block, they've been there and they've done that. And every time they've produced it, they've produced it with quality. And you don't have the WTO looking at them and all kinds of different things. The bottom line here is this is a great product. And giving the opportunity for this company to be able to compete on a level playing field, that's all they were asking for, and now they're going to get the opportunity to do so. And I think at the end of the day, when that happens, I think the taxpayers will benefit, I think the American people will benefit, I think our troops will benefit. And, you know, as my friend said, when you start talking, as the late Senator Dirksen said, a billion here and a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about a lot of money. So again, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I yield back.

Mr. HARE. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HARE. Well, I'm a new Member here, but I ran on this whole issue of trade and fair trade, as you know. And you look at this, and here is a company--and I don't mean to be picking on them this evening, but facts really are facts, so let's see if we can get this straight. Here's a company who is in violation of trade laws, who was about to receive a $40 billion contract that would have cost us thousands of jobs to build a tanker that can't land at some airports.

Mr. HARE. Half the airports, and cannot fuel the necessary planes that we might have when we go to war. Now I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer here, and I know this has been a long day, but again, I think clearly we had a company, as my friend from Kansas says, a company that's been doing this 50, 60 years, a stellar reputation, they could have produced a smaller craft that could land where it's supposed to land, fuel what it's supposed to fuel, and not reward this corporation for violating Federal trade laws. So to me, this is really a no-brainer. And I think that every Member of the House, not only should they read the report, which I think is important, but I think they should listen to what my friend said just a few minutes ago, about do we really want to get down the slope of rewarding a company with a $40 billion or $4 million or whatever the contract is when they are in violation of Federal trade laws? I don't believe that is what the people sent us here to do. We're supposed to protect this country. This is a great day. Yesterday was a great day for the GAO report. But we have to be vigilant here. We have to keep pushing on this. And I have to tell you, as long as we're here, I think we have an obligation to hold the Air Force's feet to the fire on this. People make mistakes. But let's don't make it again, and let's don't make it again, and let's don't make it to the tune of a $40 billion contract to a company that can't produce what we really need.

Mr. HARE. Sounds like my son.

Mr. HARE. I would like to thank the gentleman from Washington and my friend from Kansas for allowing me to be here tonight to talk about an issue that is incredibly important, not just in the State of Kansas, although it is important to every State and important to this world. So as you said, and I commend my friend, Mr. Inslee, when he said, if we have to, and this continues, there is an appropriations process. Hopefully we don't have to go down that road. But I have to tell you. I think we have a responsibility for companies that violate international trade laws. I don't think you reward them. I certainly don't think you reward them with a $30 billion contract, as I said, to build a plane too big to land and not adequate to fuel the aircraft that we need. So once again, let me just thank you, Congressman Inslee, for your hard work and your leadership on this. To my friend from Kansas, we will do everything we can. And you have been wonderful. And the people of your State are fortunate to have somebody who stands up not only for the service people but for the people of this country. So thank you very much.

Mr. HARE

Mr. HARE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss the Air Force tanker decision and its impact on our economy and jobs, especially during these hard economic times. Recently, an independent report predicted that 14,000 jobs would be lost if the multibillion dollar Air Force tanker contract was awarded to a foreign company. And the report states, ``These figures understate the potential losses to U.S. employment.'' Madam Speaker, it's outrageous that the Air Force officials did not take into consideration the economic impact of this decision. By outsourcing the production of the tanker, we are denying hardworking Americans good, high-paying jobs, and turning a blind eye to our deteriorating economic situation. Madam Speaker, this tanker deal further jeopardizes the economic security of our Nation. At a time when America is facing a record-high level of unemployment recession, creating jobs in Europe is not in the best interests of the American people. Madam Speaker, this Congress must address the broader economic concerns raised by the tanker decision. We owe it to the American people to take advantage of the opportunity to create jobs right here in the United States and resuscitate our failing economy.

Mr. HARE

Mr. HARE. Madam Speaker, this week the House will vote on a final budget conference agreement that charts a new way forward for our country. It is the first budget agreement reached in an election year since the Clinton administration and restores fiscal sanity to a process that has been out of control since President Bush came to Washington in 2001. Unlike past Republican budgets, our budget returns to surplus in 2012. The new budget makes investments in energy, education, and infrastructure, while also providing tax relief to middle class families. The agreement does not include any new tax increases. In fact, it does support significant tax relief for middle class families, including extension of marriage penalty tax relief, the child tax credit, and the continuation of the 10 percent tax bracket. It also includes an additional year of the alternative minimum tax relief. The budget also ensures that veterans get the quality health care they need and protects our homeland. It also rejects cuts proposed by the President to important first responder programs like the COPS program. Madam Speaker, this budget deserves strong bipartisan support.

Mr. HARE

Mr. HARE. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support today of H.R. 3021. School districts around the country are struggling to find the money to pay for the most basic school repairs, let alone funding to upgrade school facilities to meet the needs of 21st century learners. While school construction funding has traditionally been a State and local responsibility, the magnitude of the challenge warrants an increased Federal role, a role that could help schools such as Lewistown High in my district repair a leaky roof and replace World War II-era equipment that students are using for machine shop. Madam Chairman, the bill before us authorizes $6.4 billion to address unmet school construction needs. Additionally, the bill guarantees schools with the greatest need receive a minimum of $5,000 for school construction projects. As a member of the Green Schools Caucus, I'm pleased that this bill encourages schools to make energy-efficient improvements. By dedicating the majority of funds to green projects, H.R. 3021 will save schools an average of $100,000 each year in energy costs alone--enough to hire two additional full-time teachers, purchase 5,000 new textbooks, or buy 500 new computers. The deteriorating physical condition of public schools also presents an opportunity to stimulate our failing economy. A direct Federal investment in school construction will provide an immediate boost to our economy and create an estimated 100,000 jobs in the building trades hit hard in recent months. Madam Chairman, H.R. 3021 comes as a much-needed response to crumbling school infrastructure, skyrocketing energy prices, and our declining economy. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support this vital piece of legislation.