2008-09-10T21:27:23Z opencongress.org tag:opencongress.org,2007:/bill/comments/45172 2008-09-10T21:27:23Z tag:opencongress.org,2008-09-10:/comment/38805 zjfelling I cannot support this bill. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reports that this bill would cost $20.26 billion over 4 years; wouldn't this money be better served as scholarships for children in poverty. The scholarships would allow parents to choose if they would like to send their child to a private school. This would ease the strain put on public schools by decreasing the student population. We all know that students learn better in smaller classes, and this would also mean that schools would not have to spend as much money. Also, the measure in this bill that states that American Steel must be used is in effect a subsidy and will increase the already cash-deficient public school system. Instead of pumping more money into public education, we should be creating conditions for competition to exist amongst schools. 2008-06-10T23:09:37Z tag:opencongress.org,2008-06-10:/comment/22390 newactivst This bill would be GREAT for our economy and environment. You can't go wrong with this one, we would be improving the educational environment for our children, providing jobs, and saving energy. Anyone who votes against this bill should be voted out of office. 2008-06-03T17:20:23Z tag:opencongress.org,2008-06-03:/comment/19045 rbenech Support for this bill is complicated, I would prefer to have individual communities or states pay for the educational system they have, but the environmental obligations for creating a sustainable education system are shared by all. We MUST NOT ALLOW THESE FUNDS TO BE TIED TO EDUCATION CONTENT. As ALWAYS, federal programs are BAD where a local or state program could do better. However, if this will act as an incentive to include "green" thinking in any proposed local or state program, I'm all for it!