Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2638--The Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009:

Requesting Member: The Honorable Ric Keller.

Bill Number: H.R. 2638--The Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009.

Account: Army National Guard Operations and Maintenance, Operating Forces, Budget Activity #1 to acquire and field the Weapon Skills Trainer (WST).

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Cubic Defense Applications.

Address of Requesting Entity: 2001 W. Oak Ridge Road, Orlando, FL 32809.

Description of Request: Provide $3,000,000 to the Florida National Guard to purchase new WSTs in order to train and prepare Florida National Guard service men and women to be combat ready upon deployment.

Bill Number: H.R. 2638--The Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009.

Account: Army/Army National Guard, Other Procurement, Line #169, Training Devices, Nonsystem, for the Mobile Virtual Training Capability (MVTC) for the Army National Guard.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Coalescent Technologies.

Address of Requesting Entity: 731 North Garland Avenue, Orlando, FL 32801.

Description of Request: Provide $2,500,000 to the Florida National Guard to purchase new MVTC programs, which provide required training and a highly realistic training environment, with photo-realistic models, real-world maps, and accurately simulated weapons systems.

Bill Number: H.R. 2638--The Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009.

Account: Air Force, Other Procurement (Air Force), Budget Line #308F, Procurement Line #9, PE #41214F, for the Halvorsen 25K Loader.

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: FMC Technologies.

Address of Requesting Entity: 7300 Presidents Drive, MD11, Orlando,

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise today as a proud supporter and cosponsor of H.R. 3232, the Travel Promotion Act. I would like to tell you why I support it, how it works and what the benefits are.

Why I support it, I represent the world's number one vacation destination, Orlando, Florida. We have 49 million tourists a year, mainly because my fine city is home to Disney World, Universal Studios, Sea World and many other exciting theme parks.

Forty-nine million tourists a year represents 46 million tourists domestically, but only 3 million internationally. You would think that Orlando and the other tourist destinations throughout the United States would be a good value now for European travelers, particularly with the weak American dollar. But we are not seeing that. In fact, our international tourism numbers are down to levels lower than they were before 9/11. Even though domestic travel is up 13 percent, international travel is down 6 percent.

Other countries spend millions of dollars to promote international tourism. We don't. Unfortunately, a lot of travelers in Europe and other continents mistakenly think that the process of entry and visas and security is a lot more complicated than it really is.

So, how would this legislation work? This legislation provides $200 million

to promote international tourism through marketing overseas and communicating U.S. security and entry policies. It spends this $200 million without one penny being charged to taxpayers. Half of the money comes from the private sector, the other half is paid for by foreign travelers.

Now, what is the benefit of this legislation? It will create thousands of jobs. One of my employers alone provides 60,000 jobs. One out of four people in my area is employed in the tourism industry.

Expert studies show that this legislation will generate up to $1 billion a year in an additional tax revenues. This is legislation that is key to stimulating the economy, at a time when we need the economy stimulated the most.

I want to close by pointing out the broad bipartisan support that this legislation has. We have 243 cosponsors. I want to especially congratulate the lead sponsors of this legislation, Mr. Delahunt of Massachusetts and the minority whip, Mr. Blunt of Missouri. They have worked on this legislation for many years and pushed very hard to finally get us a floor vote. I am proud to join them today as a cosponsor and proud of their hard work.

I want to urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote yes on H.R. 3232. Let's be in favor of the Travel Promotion Act, and let's create some jobs at a time when we need them the most.

Mr. Speaker, when a single mom in Orlando, Florida, is paying $80 to fill up her minivan, that's a crisis. It's a crisis that this Democratic energy bill does not address.

Now, why doesn't it address it? Democratic colleagues at the Sierra Club, the head of the Sierra Club said, ``We're better off without cheap gas.'' Well, let's look at the specifics. There is no ANWR in this bill whatsoever, even though it's the single largest untapped source of oil in the United States of America.

With 10.4 billion barrels of oil available, that's enough to provide all of Florida's energy needs for 29 years. It's enough to give us 1 million barrels of oil a day every single day for the next 30 years, but it's nowhere in the bill.

Why? Because we're better off without cheap gas, according to the Democrats and their colleagues. Well, we are not better off without cheap gas, we are better off without cheap political stunts, and that's what this Democratic energy bill is.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on it and give us an up-or-down vote on the American Energy Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the problem of skyrocketing gas prices. When a single mom in Orlando, Florida, is paying $80 to fill up her minivan, that's a crisis. The American people deserve some straight talk, and here it is: The main component of a price of gasoline at the pump is crude oil. Crude oil is a commodity governed by the law of supply and demand. Therefore, we must increase our supply and reduce our demand. To increase our supply, where is the single largest source of untapped crude oil in the United States? It's in Alaska in an area called ANWR, specifically in a section called 1002.

I recently went to Alaska and toured the entire northern slope, including the 1002 section of ANWR. I will tell you why I did. The critics of Alaska oil drilling say three things about ANWR:

They say, first, don't drill there because there's only a trivial amount of oil. Then they tell us that it would ruin the pristine wilderness. And, finally, they say don't do it because it will hurt the wildlife there, particularly the caribou and the polar bear. Let me address all three issues head-on as someone who has personally been there.

First, is there a trivial amount of oil there? There's 10.4 billion barrels of oil there, according to the United States Department of Interior. And 10.4 billion barrels of oil is enough to provide all of my home State of Florida's energy needs for 29 years; 10.4 billion barrels of oil is enough to pump 1 million barrels of oil a day every single day for the next 30 years. Does that sound like a trivial amount of oil to you?

The next thing we heard is that it's a pristine wilderness. You can't possibly drill there. Well, I went there. I went to the town of Kaktovik, the only village of ANWR, and I looked out and was a little surprised by what I saw, and I'll tell you what I saw. It was a flat, barren tundra. It looked like the surface of the moon, not some rain forest-style wilderness. There was not a tree within 100 miles. And as I stood there with the leader of Kaktovik, Mr. Felton Rexford, the leader of the local Eskimo tribe, I said, ``Where are all the trees? Where's the wilderness?

He said, ``Congressman, there is no wilderness here. There are no trees. The closest tree is over 100 miles away.''

When you look at the size of ANWR, 19 million acres, the size of South Carolina, you have to realize that the drilling that we're proposing is in a limited 2,000-acre section of 1002. That means literally 99.99 percent of ANWR is off-limits and the tiny area that we would drill is a flat, frozen, barren tundra. To put that in perspective, it would be the size of a stamp on a football field.

The next issue: This would hurt the wildlife, particularly caribou and polar bear. Well, there are 800,000 caribou in Alaska, 5,000 polar bear. I saw them both on my trip. I can tell you the numbers for both are up over the last 30 years, each and every year, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In fact, next door to ANWR is Prudhoe Bay, which is an existing oil field that's owned by the State, and we had caribou there in the mid 1970s to the tune of 3,000. They have increased since then tenfold up to 30,000.

So if those reasons aren't valid, what are the real reasons we are not drilling in ANWR? Well, here is a quote from the head of the Sierra Club, Mr. Carl Pope, and he says, ``We are better off without cheap gas.'' Better off without cheap gas. Tell the single mom paying $80 to fill up her minivan that she's better off without cheap gas. Tell the airline employees who all just lost their jobs that they're better off without cheap gas. Tell the small business employees who were just laid off that their families are better off without cheap gas. Tell the public school superintendent that had to switch to a 4-day week because he can't afford the money for the buses that our children are better off without cheap gas.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are hurting. We want you to put the ordinary Americans above the radical fringe environmental groups. We want you to give us an up-or-down vote on the American Energy Act. We want you to do it this September before taking another vacation and take care of business.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the problem of skyrocketing gas prices. When single moms in Orlando, Florida are paying $80 to fill up their minivans, this is a crisis.

I spent my time in August touring the northern slope of Alaska to learn more about the oil drilling situation as well as touring the Florida Solar Energy Center in Central Florida where they have the cutting-edge solar energy technology of tomorrow.

The straight talk is we need a comprehensive approach to address this energy crisis. We need more drilling here in America, in both Alaska and offshore. We need more renewable energy like wind and solar. We need more conservation like hybrids and higher fuel efficiency standards for our cars. We need all of the above. That is why I am proud to be the cosponsor of the American Energy Act. It's also why the American people deserve an up-or-down vote in this Congress on the American Energy Act.

Now, those who say ``no'' to drilling completely ignore the facts. The main component of a price of gasoline is crude oil. Crude oil is a commodity governed by the law of supply and demand. Therefore, we must increase our supply of crude oil and reduce our demand. Well, where is the largest untapped source of crude oil in America? It's in Alaska, in a place called ANWR.

The critics say three things: Don't let us drill in ANWR because it's only a trivial amount of oil. It will ruin the pristine wilderness, and it will hurt the wildlife in that area, particularly the caribou and the polar bears. I went there on a factfinding mission to find out the answers to those questions myself. Let's address each one.

Is it a trivial amount of oil? I learned from our independent experts and employees of the U.S. Department of the Interior that there are 10.4 billion barrels of crude oil under the lands in ANWR. 10.4 billion barrels of oil are enough to provide all of my home State of Florida with its energy needs for 29 years. 10.4 billion barrels of oil are enough to pump 1 million barrels of oil a day every single day for the next 30 years. Does that sound like a trivial amount of oil to you?

The next thing I heard is it will ruin the pristine wilderness area. Well, I stood right here in the only village in ANWR called Kaktovik, and I looked south from the Arctic Ocean, and I didn't see any trees. It's a flat, frozen, barren tundra. It's 30 degrees in the middle of August, and it's 30 below in the winter. I sat there with the head leader from the Eskimo tribe, Mr. Fenton Rexford, and I said, ``Where are the trees?'' He says, ``Well, Congressman, there's not a tree within 100 miles of where the drilling would take place.'' So much for the pristine wilderness we hear about.

The next thing we hear is that we'll hurt wildlife. I learned from our fish and wildlife experts that, in reality, there are over 5,000 polar bears in Alaska and 800,000 caribou, and their numbers have increased every year for the past 30 years. In fact, in the current largest oil field in America, Prudhoe Bay, they started drilling in the mid-1970s. At the time, there were 3,000 caribou there. Now caribou have increased tenfold in Prudhoe Bay, and there are

over 30,000 caribou there. I saw them peacefully coexisting.

So, when you take away their real arguments and you see it firsthand that you can drill for oil and that you can do it in an environmentally friendly manner, what is the bottom line for why some of these environmental extremists don't want us to drill? Well, we don't have to guess. This is what the president of the Sierra Club says. His name is Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club: ``We are better off without cheap gas.'' They don't want gas prices to go down.

Tell the single mom in Orlando who just paid 80 bucks to fill up her minivan that she is better off without cheap gas. Tell the thousands of airline employees who just lost their jobs because of skyrocketing fuel that they're better off without cheap gas. Tell the people in Orlando, Florida who are losing their jobs in the tourism industry because tourism is down that they're better off without cheap gas. Tell the small businessman who has just had to lay off his employees because he can't make the payroll anymore because of gasoline prices that he's better off without cheap gas. Tell the school districts that are having to go to 4-day-a-week school because they can't afford the gas for their buses that they're better off without cheap gas.

Let's bring some sanity back into this program. Let's have a vote, up or down, on the American Energy Act. Let's have it right now, this month, before we adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about one of the central issues of our time, and that is whether or not we should drill for oil in Alaska in an area known as ANWR.

I have just returned from a 4-day trip to ANWR to do a fact-finding mission to see this area firsthand. Those in our country who are for drilling in the ANWR section of Alaska say that there's a large amount of oil there, that it can be drilled in an environmentally friendly manner, and that the Alaskan people want it. Those who are against drilling in ANWR say there's only a trivial amount of oil there, it will hurt the pristine wilderness, and it will hurt the wildlife in that area, particularly polar bears and caribou.

Well, to answer those questions for myself, I went there. I just want to walk through a couple of them. First, let's talk about the amount of oil in the ANWR area. Having been there and talked with the experts, I can tell you that there is 10.4 billion barrels of oil in ANWR, according to the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Department of Interior. That 10.4 billion barrels of oil is enough oil to provide my home State of Florida with all of its petroleum needs for 29 years. It's enough to provide 1 million barrels of oil a day, every day, for the next 30 years.

The next issue comes up, Well, this will hurt the pristine wilderness area. Well, I traveled to ANWR, and you can see this map. This is the entire ANWR area. The only village in ANWR is called Kaktovik. I stood right there in the Arctic Ocean looking down at ANWR with the head elected leader, Mr. Fenton Rexford. As I looked out, all I saw was a flat, barren tundra.

I asked Mr. Rexford, Where are the trees? He said, there are no trees within 100 miles of this area that would be drilled. The area is not a pristine wilderness. It looks more like the moon than it does the rain forest.

The next issue becomes, Well, this will hurt wildlife. We hear from those who have concerns particularly about caribou and polar bears. I saw both on my trip in visiting various parts of Alaska. There are 5,000 polar bears approximately in Alaska, and 800,000 caribou. Caribou are by far the most numerous of the large mammals in Alaska.

Are we concerned about diminishing numbers? No. Both the numbers of polar bears and caribou have increased every year since the last three decades. In fact, we know that they can coexist because right next to ANWR is an area called Prudhoe Bay, the single largest oil field in the United States.

When oil started to be taken out of Prudhoe Bay in the mid seventies, there were 3,000 caribou in that area. Today, there are over 30,000 caribou. The numbers have increased tenfold.

So the bottom line from my fact-finding mission to Alaska is this. There is a significant amount of oil there. Over 10 billion barrels. The Alaskans do want it, over 70 percent Statewide, and 90 percent of those who live along the ANWR coastal plain. This can be done without harm to the wilderness. There's not a tree within 100 miles. And 99.9 percent of ANWR would be off-limits to the drilling. It can be done without harm to wildlife, either polar bears or caribou. And we can have it all. We can have responsible, environmentally friendly drilling that reduces our dependence on foreign oil.

I made a promise to the Eskimo tribal leaders when I was there in Kaktovik, a small town with 300 folks, that I would come back and tell their story as objectively as I could. They said so few Members of Congress have ever visited there and they would like to just get the truth out for both sides. I hope today, by laying out as best I can my factual findings, I have honored their request. I urge folks to look at this issue objectively, as I have, and try to reach a fair conclusion.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from a 4-day trip to Alaska. I went there on a fact-finding trip to learn more about what is becoming one of the central issues of our time, and that is, whether or not we should drill in the portion of Alaska known as ANWR, particularly the section called 10-02.

Before venturing off on this trip, I listened to folks on both sides. Those who were for the drilling said that there's a large amount of oil there, that exploration can take place in an environmentally friendly way, and that the Alaskan people themselves want it.

Those who were against drilling there said there's only a trivial amount of oil there, this will hurt the pristine wilderness, and it will endanger wildlife, particularly caribou and polar bears.

Well, after spending 4 days on a fact-finding mission, I'm prepared to relay to you what I saw in response to these three key issues. First, what is the amount of oil there? Second, will it hurt the pristine wilderness? And third, will it hurt the wildlife?

I can tell you from my trip to ANWR and the Northern Slope and talking with experts in and out of the government that there is approximately 10.4 billion barrels of oil in ANWR, according to the U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Geological Survey. How much is 10.4 billion barrels of oil? It is enough oil to provide all of my home State of Florida's needs for 29 years. 10.4 billion barrels of oil is enough to provide 1 million barrels a day every day for the next 30 years. It is the single largest source of untapped oil of any location in the entire United States.

If I can show you a chart, Mr. Speaker, to give you an analogy of why we have some comfort that that's true, you see this is the State of Alaska, ANWR in the upper left. It's about the size of South Carolina, about 19 million acres. Drilling would be limited to a real tiny area up here--this is called the 10-02 ANWR coastal plain area--to a section of only 2,000 acres, just about the size of the red dot here. So literally 99.99 percent of ANWR would not have drilling, and I told you there's roughly 10.4 billion barrels in this 2,000-acre area.

Next door to it you will see a sign says Prudhoe Bay Oil Field. This is the single largest oil field in the United States. It has 15 billion barrels of oil. They have already extracted 12 billion, and there are 3 billion remaining. Now, when you go up there like I did and you compare the two areas, they look roughly the same.

Why is there drilling at Prudhoe Bay and not in ANWR? It's simple. This area is owned by the State of Alaska. They want the drilling and they allow it. This area is owned by the Federal Government. It has not yet been allowed.

What's significant also is you see a line here, it says TAPS. That's the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. What's so key about extracting this large quantity of oil is you have an 800-mile pipeline that takes the oil all the way down to the southern tip of Alaska to a city called Valdez. There it is picked up by tankers and taken to refineries in the lower 48 States and from the refineries turned into gasoline and shipped to your local retail gasoline dealer where you purchase the gasoline.

So we have a huge amount of oil. We have a pipeline infrastructure ready to move it. The only question is whether we will.

That brings us to the next issue. Will it hurt the wilderness? As I already said, 99.99 percent of the wilderness will be off limits, if you call it wilderness. But I happened to go to all of these areas, but this little town right here, Kaktovik, is the only village in ANWR, and I stood there at the edge of Kaktovik looking through this 10-02 coastal plain area with the leader from that small Eskimo tribe, a man named Felton Rexford.

I looked out and I'll show you what I saw. I saw a flat, frozen, barren tundra. As the camera looks at that picture, folks may look at it and say, well, what am I looking at? I don't see any trees. I can't see any wilderness. That's exactly what I saw as I stood there, and I said to the elected leader from the Eskimo tribe: Where are the trees in the area that we're talking about drilling? And he said, Congressman, there's not a tree within 100 miles. Not a tree within 100 miles.

So much for the beautiful wilderness that we hear about in so many of the photos that are seen. I can tell you those photos aren't the area that we're talking about drilling.

Well, the next issue becomes: What about the wildlife? We don't want to hurt the caribou and the polar bears that live in Alaska. I saw both on my trip to Alaska. Alaska has 800,000 caribou, the most numerous large animals anywhere in Alaska, and 5,000 polar bears. I can tell you, in the last three decades, every single year the population of polar bears has increased. Every single year the population of caribou has increased.

In fact, I mentioned to you that the biggest oil field is called Prudhoe Bay next to the ANWR area, and I toured Prudhoe Bay. And as I toured there--here we are--I saw some caribou right there among the oil fields. And I talked to the wildlife experts who were with us. I said, Is that unusual? They said, Not at all. Back in the 1970s when oil was discovered here in Prudhoe Bay and they started drilling, there were 3,000 caribou in that area. Today, there are over 30,000. The caribou population has increased tenfold.

And so to wrap up, Mr. Speaker, what I learned in summary is that there is a significant amount of oil there, 10.4 billion barrels. I learned that the Alaskans want it: 70 percent of the Alaskans statewide, 90 percent of those who live in the ANWR area. I learned that we can do this without having any harm to the wilderness or to the wildlife and that we can have it all done with responsible, environmentally friendly drilling that reduces our dependence on foreign oil.

I have great respect for all four of the individuals running for President on the national tickets, Republicans and Democrats, but having been to Alaska and spent 4 days with the world leading experts on this issue, I can tell you that in my humble opinion Governor Sarah Palin knows more about this issue than all three men combined. I'm excited with the energy she brings to this debate and the knowledge she has about drilling because she knows these issues cold. And I hope in this Presidential election, whether you're a Republican or Democrat, listen to what this lady says because she's been saying what I learned over the past 4 days. There's very few of us that get to see it in person.

So, with that, let me thank the gentleman from Georgia so much for yielding his time to me.

I thank my friend for yielding. I would just take a couple minutes.

Mr. Speaker, you may be surprised to learn, as I was when I went there, that there is not a tree within 100 miles of where we are drilling and that the animals peacefully co-exist and, in fact, have done well. You may wonder why am I hearing this for the first time? Let me explain something to you.

This is the only village in all of ANWR, called Kaktovik. And when I sat there with the leader of the village, Mr. Felton Rexford, who lived there his whole life, and I would say he's in his mid- to late 60s, he was so kind to me. And as I sit there in 30 degree weather in the hottest month, in the middle of August, he told me I was one of the few people that ever bothered to visit there, that they were surprised. Hardly anyone has ever been there. It's 30 degrees in the hottest month. It's 30 below in the winter. They just got running water there in the year 2000. Only 300 Eskimos live there. They have a doctor that visits their town one time a year. There are no roads in and out of the village. They have to travel by snowmobile, and they live off of whales. So when you hear about this being a pristine wilderness area that's going to hurt the wildlife, you're hearing it from people that have never been there and have a vested interest in telling you that because they are probably trying to raise money for some fringe group.

And I made a promise to Mr. Felton Rexford that when I would get back to Congress, I don't know if I would sway anybody but I would come to the floor of Congress and tell the truth. And the truth is these are the most environmentally conscious people in the country that I have ever met, and they think it can be done in an environmentally friendly way and they support it. And the area there looks like the surface of the moon and not a rainforest, and we can have it all.

So I wanted to honor that, Mr. Gingrey, and I appreciate your giving me the chance to speak tonight on this very key issue.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida, Mr. Diaz-Balart, for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member on the House Higher Education Subcommittee, and a member of the conference committee, I rise today in strong support of this bipartisan Higher Education Opportunity Act, which is the first reauthorization of the Higher Education Act in 10 years.

I also appreciate the regular order we have followed with respect to the rule on this bill.

I support this important legislation for three key reasons. First, it allows year-round Pell Grants for students who wish to complete their education more quickly.

Second, it reduces burdensome red tape on students and families by providing a much shorter, simpler application for Federal student financial aid.

And third, it includes my legislation to curb wasteful spending by closing a loophole that had allowed convicted child predators to receive Federal financial aid to take college courses.

I am going to limit my remarks this morning to the wasteful spending issue. It is a national embarrassment that we are wasting taxpayer dollars for child molesters and rapists to take college courses, while hardworking young people from lower and middle income families are flipping hamburgers to pay for college.

I have been working to close this loophole for years. And today, the most insane, wasteful spending program in America comes to an end. This legislation ensures that taxpayer money for Pell Grants will go to low and middle income students, not dangerous sexual predators.

Let me give you a real life example. James Sturtz is one of the most violent sexual predators in America, and he is currently locked up in a Wisconsin facility. He was convicted and sent to prison for raping a 4- year-old girl. After being released from prison, he raped a woman at knife-point, and was sent to prison a second time. After being released, he met a college student waiting for a bus, persuaded her to get in his car and then raped her at knife-point. He was then sent back to prison for a third time, and after his sentence ended in 2006, he was locked up in a civil confinement center to be held there indefinitely.

Sturtz and several other locked up sexual predators decided to exploit the civil confinement loophole and obtain thousands of dollars in Federal Pell Grants to take college courses, like algebra, through the mail. Then, Sturtz and two-thirds of the other inmates dropped their classes and used our taxpayer money to buy blue jeans, music CDs, movie DVDs, radios, television sets and DVD players.

Of course, even if they hadn't dropped their classes, there is zero evidence that violent sexual predators who take algebra and calculus classes have lower recidivism rates.

Well, how could this loophole happen in the first place?

Prison inmates have been ineligible for Pell Grants since 1994. In 20 States, including Florida and Wisconsin, they wisely hold the most violent repeated sexual predators indefinitely in civil confinement centers after they serve their regular prison sentence because they are likely to repeat their crimes if released back into society.

For example, in my home State of Florida, 54 violent sexual predators obtained over $200,000 in Pell Grants at taxpayer expense in 1 year alone. Similar expenditures in the other 20 States with civil confinement means millions of dollars being wasted, until now.

This was a team effort. I would like to especially thank ranking member Buck McKeon, Chairman George Miller, as well as the other members of the conference committee and our hardworking professional staff members for working in a bipartisan spirit to include this provision and so many other worthy provisions in this legislation.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reauthorize the Higher Education Act and vote yes on H.R. 4137.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise today in support of this veterans funding bill. This is a great victory for 400,000 central Florida veterans because it provides $220 million for a new VA hospital in Orlando. What does this mean for our central Florida vets? As a result of this hospital, our Orlando area vets will no longer have to travel 2 hours to Tampa. They will no longer be living in the largest metropolitan area in the United States without a VA hospital. Instead, they will have a brand new state-of-the-art 134- bed hospital and access to world class physicians and researchers working in partnership with the new UCF Medical School. Our vets deserve it.

We didn't get here by accident. The critical turning point began on September 10, 2003. That is when the VA CARES Commission held their hearing in central Florida to determine what cities if any in America would get a new VA hospital, since one hadn't been built in 30 years. I testified at that committee and pleaded that a new one be built in Orlando because of the large number of veterans we had and their lack of access to care. The VA CARES Commission agreed. This decision was ratified by the VA Secretary and then ratified by Congress.

Today, Congress takes the biggest step forward in funding this project. Although we have already provided $75 million toward this project, this new funding of $220 million is quite significant because it's $100 million more than the President asked for and is the largest single investment so far in this new project.

Where do we go from here? We ask our Senate colleagues to act, and we finish the job. We will work together on a bipartisan basis, Republicans and Democrats, to complete this worthwhile project.

I'd like to close just by saying that this has been very much a team effort. I would like to thank my Democratic and Republican colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member on the House Higher Education Subcommittee and a member of the conference committee, I rise today in strong support of the bipartisan Higher Education Opportunity Act, which is the first reauthorization of the Higher Education Act in 10 years.

I support this legislation for three reasons.

First, it allows year-round Pell Grants for students who wish to complete their education more quickly.

Second, it reduces the burdensome red tape on students and families by providing a much shorter, simpler application for Federal student financial aid.

And, third, it includes my legislation to curb wasteful spending by closing a loophole that had allowed convicted child predators to receive Federal financial aid to take college courses. I am going to limit my remarks today to the wasteful spending issue.

It is a national embarrassment that we are wasting taxpayer dollars for child molesters and rapists to take college courses, while hard- working young people from lower and middle income families are flipping hamburgers to pay for college.

I have been working to close this loophole for years, and today, the most insane, wasteful spending program in America comes to an end. This legislation ensures that taxpayer money for Pell Grants will go to low and middle income students, not dangerous sexual predators. Let me give you a real-life example.

James Sturtz is one of the most violent sexual predators in America and he is currently locked up in a Wisconsin facility. He was convicted and sent to prison for raping a 4-year-old girl. After being released from prison, he raped a woman at knife-point and was sent to prison a second time. After being released, he met a college student waiting for a bus, persuaded her to get in his car, and then raped her at knife- point. He was then sent back to prison for a third time; and after his sentence ended in 2006 he was locked up in a civil confinement center, to be held there indefinitely.

Sturtz and several other locked-up sexual predators decided to exploit this civil confinement loophole and obtained thousands of dollars in Federal Pell Grants to take college courses like

algebra through the mail. Then, Sturtz and two-thirds of the other inmates dropped their classes and used our taxpayer money to buy blue jeans, music CDs, movie DVDs, radios, television sets, and DVD players. Of course, even if they hadn't dropped their classes, there is zero evidence that violent sexual predators who take algebra and calculus classes have lower recidivism rates.

How did this loophole happen in the first place? Prison inmates have been ineligible for Pell Grants since 1994. In 20 States, including Florida and Wisconsin, they wisely hold the most violent repeated sexual predators indefinitely in civil confinement centers, after they have served their regular prison sentence, because they are likely to repeat their crimes if released back into society.

For example, in my home State of Florida, 54 violent sexual predators obtained over $200,000 in Pell Grants at taxpayer expense in 1 year alone. Similar expenditures in the other 20 States with civil confinement means millions of dollars being wasted. Until now.

This was a team effort. I would like to especially thank Ranking Member Buck McKeon, Chairman George Miller, as well as the other members of the conference committee and our entire hard-working professional staff members for working in a bipartisan spirit to include this provision and so many other worthy provisions in this legislation.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reauthorize the Higher Education Act and vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4137.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1288, a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of National Campus Safety Month.

I would like to thank my colleague, Congressman Sestak, for introducing this important resolution, recognizing the importance of safety on college campuses, and the efforts of outside organizations to dedicate September to promoting greater awareness of campus safety issues.

Over the past few years, we have seen how important it is to pay attention to our students' safety on campus. It is unfortunate that sometimes it takes tragic events like those occurring at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois for us to remember that crimes take place on college campuses all over the country. It is important that Congress continue to encourage institutions to update their campus security plans and ensure that they have plans in place to deal with all types of emergencies.

I'm pleased to support this resolution, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for this resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield as much time as he may consume to the Congressman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), who is the Congressman from the hometown of Tim Tebow, the author of this resolution, and a successful college athlete himself, I might add.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today as a proud Floridian in support of House Resolution 901, congratulating Tim Tebow for winning the 2007 Heisman Memorial Trophy Award.

Something miraculous happened when he got this award. He was the first sophomore in NCAA history to win the Heisman Trophy, and he joins a very elite group of three people from the University of Florida, all quarterbacks, to win the Heisman Trophy: Tim Tebow, Danny Wuerffel, and Steve Spurrier from my hometown of Johnson City, Tennessee.

We are so proud of all that Mr. Tebow has accomplished, a class person as well as an athlete, and he had a lot of help from his Gator football team, which also won the National Championship in 2006 against Ohio State, as well as a great head coach, Urban Meyer; and a supportive university president, Dr. Bernie Machen.

So we are very honored to be able to have this resolution before us today. I am happy to see my good friend and colleague Representative Crenshaw honoring this exceptional player and all his accomplishments. And we wish him continued success.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Madam Speaker, against my better judgment here, I am going to yield 1 minute to a Michigan Wolverine, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution honoring the historic accomplishment of Tim Tebow winning the Heisman Trophy as a sophomore.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss the serious problem of childhood obesity. Two out of three adults in the United States are overweight. One out of three children are overweight. Childhood obesity rates have tripled since 1980. We're now seeing children diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and depression.

I approach this subject with a great deal of optimism and hope as someone who has lost 100 pounds over the past year. I have seen firsthand the power of healthy habits. As parents, experts tell us that there are three healthy habits our children should follow every day. First, never skip breakfast; second, play outside 1 hour a day; third, eat five servings of fruits and vegetables every day.

The good news is that no matter what has happened in the past, all of our kids can enjoy healthy and happy lives in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the problem of skyrocketing gas prices. We must reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Our constituents deserve straight talk on this issue and here it is: The main component of the price of gasoline at the pump is crude oil. Crude oil is a commodity governed by the law of supply and demand. Therefore, we must reduce our demand and increase our supply.

We should reduce our demand by having tax incentives for hybrids, raising fuel efficiency standards, and investing in alternative renewable energy sources like wind, solar, biomass, and nuclear. We must also increase our domestic supply of oil. We can do that by drilling in Alaska, drilling in the gulf of Mexico, and building more refineries.

The straight talk is we need a comprehensive approach of more drilling and more conservation to achieve long-term energy independence.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of S. 3035, a 1-month extension of the Higher Education Act. I would like to begin by extending my thoughts and prayers to Senator Kennedy and his family in this difficult time. We are all saddened to learn of the diagnosis of his malignant brain tumor and we are hoping and praying for a speedy and full recovery.

I was just with Senator Kennedy a few days ago in the Oval Office with President Bush, as the President signed into law the Ensuring Continuing Access to Student Loans Act on May 7. Senator Kennedy was in a jovial mood and was in good spirits. We look forward to seeing him in the same condition in the future.

Senator Kennedy obviously has played a very integral role in the development of this higher education legislation, and I want to recognize him for his passion for education and his longstanding efforts to ensure that all young people receive a quality education and have the opportunity to obtain a college degree. As we extend the Higher Education Act and allow additional time to negotiate the renewal of this landmark law, I think all of us know that this legislation will bear the indelible imprint of Senator Kennedy's hard work and commitment.

Just last month, we were on the floor passing what we thought and hoped would be the last extension of the Higher Education Act. Unfortunately, while we have made a tremendous amount of progress on the bill, the size of the bill and our concern about producing a thoughtful product prevented us from completing our work.

The Education and Labor Committee, I am happy to report, has worked in a bipartisan fashion to produce a bill that received strong bipartisan support here on the House floor. Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon have been leading our efforts to negotiate a final compromise with the Senate colleagues. We have a handful of issues, however, that remain outstanding, and we believe that we will be able to reach resolution on these issues over the next few weeks. Of course, there may be some complications outside of our control, not the least of which is possibly Senator Kennedy's situation and recovery.

As we move toward finalizing this broad overhaul of Federal higher education programs, our top priority must remain college access and affordability. Bolstering our higher education and student aid programs has long been a priority of Congress. I know, for me personally, making college more affordable is a top priority. All children, rich or poor, should have the opportunity to get a first class college education.

This extension of the Higher Education Act is particularly important because it extends the significant and popular programs such as the Pell Grant program and Perkins student loan programs. This reauthorization is a long time coming. I am pleased to be here supporting what we hope and expect to be the final extension before this law is finally renewed. I urge my colleagues to also support this extension.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time. I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes'' on S. 3035, to extend the Higher Education Act, and thereby extend the Pell Grant program and the Perkins student loan program. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

I yield back the balance of my time.