Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the proposed sale of 300,000 acres of national forest lands, which includes almost 1,000 acres of the Ocala National Forest in my congressional district.

The administration's 2007 budget proposes this sale. Their rationale for selling our national forest lands is to raise $800 million for rural roads and schools; and they say these parcels are not crown jewels of our national forests. Well, a picture is worth a thousand words, so let me show you a photograph of a specific piece of land in the Ocala National Forest which is marked for sale by the administration. This looks like a crown jewel to me. Does anyone really believe that this piece of land would look better as a shopping center, strip mall, or as a condominium development?

While our budget shortfall is temporary, ruining pristine national lands is permanent. We cannot sell national forest land every time there is a budget shortfall. This is a dangerous precedent for Congress to set. Our financial problems need to be addressed over the long terms, not through the shortsighted sale of national forest treasures to the highest bidder.

Mr. Speaker, our national forest lands are worth protecting. Millions of Americans each year use our national forests to go hiking, fishing, hunting, camping, swimming, horseback riding, and canoeing. The Ocala National Forest also provides a habitat for thousands of animal species such as rare birds and black bears.

Mr. Speaker, to sum it all up, I believe the idea of selling off our national forest lands is environmentally reckless and financially shortsighted, and I am not alone. On March 7, I submitted a Florida delegation letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It was signed by both of our U.S. Senators, Republican Senator Mel Martinez and Democrat Senator Bill Nelson. It was also signed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of our U.S. House Members. This letter specifically opposes the sale of 1,000 acres of the Ocala National Forest, and, in general, also opposes the sale of 300,000 acres of forest lands all across the country in 41 different States.

On March 13, all four of the living former Chiefs of the U.S. Forest Service sent a letter to Congress also strongly opposing the auctioning off of 300,000 acres of national forest lands. On March 28, I submitted a bipartisan letter with Congressman Ben Chandler, the Democrat from Kentucky, to the House Budget Committee, signed by 54 Congressmen opposing the sale of 300,000 acres of national forest lands.

Well, where do we go from here? The U.S. Department of Agriculture will continue to receive comments on this proposed sale until May 1. It is our hope and request that the administration withdraw this proposal.

Fortunately, the House budget which we will be voting on this week does not contain any language endorsing the administration's proposal to sell these forest lands. If the administration does not withdraw their proposal, I am confident and optimistic that this House will vote down this proposal with a very large bipartisan vote. Our children and grandchildren deserve no less.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give the American people some straight talk on higher education. The Higher Education Act before Congress today will strengthen the Pell Grant program, expand Perkins student loans, and increase access to college for millions of worthy American students.

The Democrat substitute is called, quote, reverse the raid on student aid. Don't believe the hype. Not one student in America will receive less financial aid under our bill. Not one.

The heart of our bill is the Pell Grant program. Let's look at this chart to show the history of Pell Grant funding over 20 years. The yellow represents when the Democrats were in control of Congress. The red represents when Republicans were in control of Congress. Does that look like we have raided student aid to you? The last 3 years Democrats were in control of Congress, they had a Democrat House and a Democrat President and they cut Pell Grants every single year in a row.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are sick and tired of partisan slogans and election-year double talk. This is a good bill. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 609.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The Higher Education Act that will be reauthorized today by this House is a good bill because it strengthens the Pell Grant program, it expands Perkins loans, and it increases access to college for millions of people.

Now, we have just heard from the other side that they have a substitute that is better, called Reverse the Raid on Financial Aid. Now, let's just take a look at whether this is an actual true statement, whether the Republican Party has been raiding financial aid.

I have here a chart that shows the history of Pell Grants for the past 20 years. And of course Pell Grants are the heart of this higher education reauthorization bill. Shown here in yellow are the Pell Grant funding levels when the Democrats were in control of the Congress. Shown here in red are when Republicans have been in control in Congress.

Looking at this over the past 20 years, does it really look like Republicans have raided financial aid? Are you kidding me? You can easily see from these figures that under a Republican Congress financial aid has increased dramatically.

In fact, if you look at the last 3 years when Democrats were the majority in Congress, you see something pretty interesting. You see, in 1992, they had funded Pell Grants at $2,400, and then they got a Democrat President in the White House, Bill Clinton. And with a Democrat President and a Democrat House of Representatives, what happened next? They cut Pell Grants 3 years in a row.

And then they come before us today with this partisan slogan and election-year double talk saying we have raided financial aid. Don't believe the hype. Not one student in America will receive less financial aid under this bill, not one.

They say, well, tell you what, instead of the 6.8 percent that all of the Democrats agreed to back in 2002 as part of a bipartisan compromise that fixes the interest rate, let's now for the first time in the interest of election year politics say we will give students a 3.4 percent interest rate which will cost $2.7 billion for 1 year. How do they pay for it? They don't tell us. They don't have any way to pay for it. Why not just say zero percent? That sounds even better, but it is irresponsible, and it breaks an agreement they made that was bipartisan and was in compliance with what student groups said.

Now, let me show how we have fared with the Pell Grant program since President Bush has been in office. Actually, I need another chart, if I can have it. While they are pulling that chart, I will just tell Members what it is.

In the year 2000, when I was elected and President Bush was elected, we funded Pell Grants at $7.6 billion. This past year, we funded Pell Grants at $13 billion, a 71 percent increase in Pell Grant funding. Yet what slogan do we hear from the other side? Reverse the raid on financial aid. It is crazy.

The next figure, I will show, if my chart were here, that, in 2000, the maximum award was worth $3,300 per student. This year, it is $4,050, and under this bill, we provide an additional $1,000 taking up to $5,050 for those high achieving, low-income students.

Finally, since 2000, we have seen a 36 percent increase in the number of students able to get Pell Grants. In 2000, we had 3.9 million students. This year, we have 5.3 million students. So not only have we dramatically increased the funding for Pell Grants, we have been able to do it despite the dramatic increase in the number of students.

For Members to appreciate how big a jump this is to go from $3,300 to $4,050, let me explain it. Every $100 that we increase the maximum Pell Grant award costs us $420 million. We have made the most historic and largest increases in the history of the Pell Grant program; and the other side has nothing to say except ``reverse the raid on financial aid.''

Mr. Speaker, this is a darn good bill. It increases funding for Pell Grants. It

expands the Perkins Student Loan Program, and it is going to help millions of students go to college who otherwise would not have the opportunity. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this fair rule and vote ``yes'' on this excellent bill.

Mr. Chairman, I believe the American people are entitled to some straight talk when it comes to higher education funding. This bill

strengthens Pell Grants. It expands Perkins student loans and increases access to college for millions of students.

Now Mr. Miller has a substitute that he would like us to vote for, but it has three critical flaws. The first flaw is the name itself, ``Reverse the Raid on Student Aid.'' Don't believe the hype. Not one student in America will receive less financial aid under our bill. Not one.

The heart of our bill is Pell Grants, the heart of all financial aid on the Federal level.

Now let's look at the history of Pell Grant funding over the 20 years, and see if Republicans are in fact making, quote, ``a raid on student aid.'' The yellow here shows the time period of 10 years when Democrats were in control of Congress, and the red shows when Republicans were in control of Congress. You see a dramatic increase in the maximum Pell Grant award. Does this look like a raid on student aid to you? You have got to be kidding me.

In fact, what is really instructive is, if you look at the last 3 years when the Democrats were in control, they had a Democrat House and a Democrat President, Bill Clinton, and they actually cut Pell Grant funding 3 years in a row. It went from $2,400 down to $2,300.

The second critical flaw with the Miller substitute is this amendment does not retain the $6,000 maximum Pell Grant award that our legislation has. In fact, they stay with the same old $5,800 maximum award. So this substitute legislation, Reverse the Raid on Student Aid, provides less for Pell Grants.

Instead of $6,000, $5,800--how could that possibly be that we have a Democrat substitute that actually calls for less awards of Pell Grants? Well, don't call it a comeback. We have been here for years. It happened before. Their last 3 years in power cut Pell Grants. Here we have another attempt to do the same thing.

It has a third flaw. It says that we are going to have a 3.4 percent interest rate for 1 year that is going to cost $2.7 billion, but it has no offsets whatsoever. How do they pay for it? They don't tell us. Well, if it is just a gimmick to have a lower rate without any way to pay for it, why make it 3.4 percent? Why not 2 percent? Why not 1 percent? Why not interest-free loans? It is crazy. The truth of the matter is in 2002 Republicans and Democrats and student groups all got together and decided in a bipartisan manner what would be a fair fixed interest rate. They decided on 6.8 percent. They voted in favor of this in 2002, the Democrats who offer this motion. In fact, in December of this last year when we supposedly cut all this money, it was going to be the interest rates were going to remain at 6.8 percent. That is the existing law. And, in fact, in July they would go to 6.8 percent. How much is the interest rate in our bill? 6.8 percent. No increase whatsoever. And so now they are opposing something that they all thought was a good idea.

So, Mr. Chairman, I would argue that we have a pretty darn good bill that we can be proud of, a bill that increases Pell Grants, a bill that expands Perkins loans, a bill that is going to make it possible for young people all across America to go to college. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Miller substitute and vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Higher Education Act, which will be reauthorized

today and tomorrow in Congress. As the chairman of the Higher Education Subcommittee, I am intimately familiar with this legislation.

This legislation expands college access for millions of American students by strengthening the Pell Grant program and by strengthening Perkins student loans.

We strengthen the Pell Grant program by allowing Pell Grants to be used year round for the first time in history and by increasing the maximum award to $6,000, the largest amount in history.

We strengthen Perkins student loans by reauthorizing them and providing a way for low-income students, up to 10 million of them, to get fixed, low-interest rates at 5 percent.

Perkins loans and Pell Grants are the passport out of poverty for millions of worthy young students. So do not believe the hype from the critics of this legislation. Here is some straight talk: not a single student in America will receive less financial aid under this bill, not one.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the higher education reauthorization bill today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise today in support of the rule and in support of H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity Act, which will reauthorize the Higher Education Act.

Don't believe the hype from the critics of this legislation. Here is some straight talk: not a single student in America will receive less financial aid under this bill. Not one. This legislation actually expands college access for millions of American students by strengthening the Pell Grant program and by reauthorizing the Perkins student loan program.

I will focus my comments this morning on the heart of this legislation, which is Perkins loans and Pell Grants. Both of these are worthy programs which enjoy broad bipartisan support.

As someone from humble beginnings, who would not have been able to go to college without Pell Grants and student loans, and as chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over higher education, I am a strong supporter of both Perkins loans and Pell Grants.

Let me first discuss Perkins loans. This legislation reauthorizes the Perkins student loan program, a critical program that offers financial assistance to over 10 million low-income students. The Perkins program helps our neediest students borrow extra money for college at a fixed, low 5 percent interest rate. In this bill, we increase the loan limits in the Perkins program from $4,000 up to $5,500 for undergraduates and from $6,000 to $8,000 for graduate students, thereby increasing access to college.

I will next discuss Pell Grants. This legislation strengthens the Pell Grant program by authorizing a maximum Pell Grant for $6,000, the largest amount in the history of our country, and by providing year- round Pell Grant aid for students attending school throughout the year, the first time we have done that in the history of this country.

Mr. Speaker, programs like Perkins student loans and Pell Grants are the passports out of poverty for millions of American students each year. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and vote ``yes'' on the College Access and Opportunity Act in order to help millions of college students be able to afford to go to college.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to proudly support H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity Act, which reauthorizes the Higher Education Act. Don't believe the hype from the critics of this legislation.

Here is some straight talk. Not one single student in America will receive less financial aid under this bill. Not one.

This legislation expands college access for millions of American students by strengthening the Pell Grant program and reauthorizing the Perkins student loan program. I will focus my comments on the heart of this legislation, which is the Perkins loans and Pell Grants. Both of these worthy programs enjoyed broad bipartisan support.

As one from humble beginnings who would not have been able to go to college without Pell Grants or student loans, and as chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over higher education, I am a strong supporter of both Perkins loans and Pell Grants. Now, it is true the President's budget did call for eliminating the Perkins student loan program but we said no. The leaders on the House Education Committee worked in a bipartisan manner and agreed that we would reauthorize this worthy program.

Let me first discuss the Perkins loans. This legislation reauthorized the Perkins loan program, a critical program that offers financial assistance to more than 10 million students. The Perkins program helps our neediest students borrow extra money for college at a fixed low 5 percent interest rate. In this bill we increase the loan limits to help the Perkins loans students so undergrads can get from $4,000 up to $5,500 and graduate students can get from $6,000 now up to $8,000. These Perkins loans are especially important for teachers, nurses, police officers and other public servants who are eligible for Perkins loans forgiveness.

I will next discuss Pell Grants. This legislation strengthens the Pell Grant program by increasing the authorized maximum Pell Grant to $6,000 and by providing year-round Pell Grant aid for students attending school throughout the year.

Both of these improvements enjoy broad bipartisan support. In fact, when we drafted this legislation during the full House Education Committee markup, 100 percent of Democrats and Republicans voted in favor of my amendment to increase the maximum award to $6,000, the largest level in the history of the program.

Let me show you some charts to indicate our strong support for the Pell Grant program. Pell Grants and student loans should be bipartisan. I think in large part they are but some have made comments that Republicans are not doing enough to support Pell Grants. So let me show you a chart that reflects the reality. This shows the last 20 years of the Pell Grant program. The yellow shows the years when the Democrats were in control of the Congress and you see the Pell Grants at this low amount. The red shows when Republicans took control of Congress, and you see that they spiked dramatically.

If you really want to learn what happened historically, look at the year 1992. At that year, Pell Grants were appropriated at $2,400, even though they were authorized at $3,100. So they were not fully funded by the Democrats. The next year, 1993, you had Bill Clinton in office. That is a Democrat President. You had a Democrat Congress and what happened to Pell Grants? They were slashed. They went from $2,400 to $2,300.

They were cut the next year and the next year, 3 years in a row. Finally, they got to $2,340, still less than the $2,400. So the last 3 years in power they were actually cut. Does that mean President Clinton doesn't care about Pell Grants or our House Democrat leaders don't? I don't think so. I think they care a lot about poor people. I think they wished they had more money.

My point is, don't say the Republicans haven't done enough on Pell Grants, because we have got a pretty good record.

I was elected in 2000, and I made a promise to myself and my constituents, we would do all we can to increase the Pell Grant program, and let's see what happened since 2000.

Since 2000, Pell Grant funding has increased 71 percent from $7.6 billion to $13 billion. Since 2000, the Pell Grant maximum award has gone up $3,300 to $4,050, and this year there will be an extra $1,000 for the high-achieving, low-income students; and the number of Pell Grant recipients has gone up 36 percent from 3.9 million to 5.3 million.

Mr. Chairman, Pell Grants and Perkins student loans are the passport out of poverty for so many worthy young people. They are the heart of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Two of the specialties that we are talking about, really, are neurosurgery and thoracic surgery. There certainly is a shortage of neurosurgeons in my area in central Florida, and that is a big deal for someone who is in a car crash, for example, and is taken to a trauma center and needs appropriate and immediate assistance from a neurosurgeon within the first key hour.

Now, why is it that we have fewer neurosurgeons? Is it that it is so expensive? Is it that the specialty is so difficult? Is it that the insurance premiums they pay are too high? I do not have the answers today, but I do know this is a problem worth studying, and so I strongly support Dr. Boustany's amendment and urge my colleagues to also support it.

Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not in opposition to the amendment.

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

Simplifying the financial aid process and applying for Pell Grants is such a worthy objective, something we have been working on very closely, and we have made a lot of progress in this underlying legislation to simplify the process.

This amendment makes it an even better bill, and I wholeheartedly support the amendment and urge my colleagues to do so as well.

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

Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not in opposition.

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

I was proud to offer the Pell Grant Plus section that was included in the underlying legislation which is going to reward those high- achieving, low-income students with a few extra dollars to encourage them to continue their education.

I support this amendment to also allow those folks who are getting a certificate as part of their education because that would include, for example, people studying to be skilled nurses. We have a dramatic nursing shortage throughout the country, and particularly in my home State of Florida.

Again, this is a good amendment. I would urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the benefits of having a physical or virtual fence along the 2,000-mile Mexican-U.S. border to crack down on illegal immigration.

I recently returned from a week-long trip to the Mexican-California border, and I am convinced of one thing. Good fences make good neighbors. First, we need to complete construction of the double fence for 700 miles along the border near highly populated urban areas.

For example, San Diego saw a steep reduction in crossings from 500,000, now down to 130,000, when the double fence was completed there. Second, for the remaining 1,300 miles along the border, where mountains and rugged terrain make completion of a double fence impossible, we need to have a virtual fence which consists of infrared cameras that allow our Border Patrol agents to see the entire border.

Mr. Speaker, the House recently passed a tough border security bill that authorized the appropriate border security fence, but the Senate yesterday cleared a bill out of the Judiciary Committee that did absolutely nothing to build this border security fence. It is now time for the full Senate to get serious about border security.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 680) recognizing Dr. I. King Jordan for his contributions to Gallaudet University and the deaf and hard of hearing community.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 680.

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

I rise in support of H. Res. 680, which recognizes the contributions of Dr. I. King Jordan to Gallaudet University and the deaf and hard of hearing community. Dr. Jordan retires as president of Gallaudet at the end of this year, and this resolution provides us the opportunity to acknowledge his significant achievements. I want to thank the resolution's author, Mr. Kind, for drawing our attention to Dr. Jordan's accomplishments and his status as one of America's leaders in the fields of higher education and disability policy.

When Dr. Jordan was appointed president by the Gallaudet Board of Trustees in 1988 he became the first deaf president of the university. Dr. Jordan's leadership of Gallaudet has heightened awareness of the contributions made by the university and the issues facing the deaf and hard of hearing community. During his time as president, Dr. Jordan has been a visible spokesman for the university and for deaf and hard of hearing individuals, as well as a tireless advocate for people with disabilities.

Dr. Jordan has been a leader in national efforts to address the needs of people with disabilities. In 2001 he was awarded the Presidential Citizen's Medal. This award, conferred by the President of the United States in recognition of individuals who have performed exemplary deeds or service for the country, acknowledged Dr. Jordan's efforts to promote self-determination and full integration of all people with disabilities.

I want to extend my congratulations to Dr. Jordan and wish him well in his retirement. I know that Gallaudet University will miss his leadership, and I can only hope that he will continue to be involved as an advocate for people with disabilities.

I want to, again, thank Mr. Kind for bringing this resolution forward and providing us this opportunity to acknowledge Dr. Jordan's achievement.

I ask my colleagues to support this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).

(Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly oppose the Bush administration's proposed sale of 300,000 acres of national forest lands, which include 1,000 acres of the Ocala National Forest in my congressional district.

The Bush administration's rationale for selling our national forest lands is to raise money for rural roads and schools. While our budget shortfall is temporary, ruining pristine national forest lands is permanent. That is why all four of the living former chiefs of the U.S. Forest Service sent a letter to Congress on March 13, 2006, strongly opposing the auctioning off of 300,000 acres of national forest lands.

Mr. Speaker, our national forest lands are worth protecting. Millions of Americans each year use our national forests to go hiking, fishing, hunting, camping, swimming, canoeing, and enjoying the outdoors. The Ocala National Forest also provides a habitat for thousands of animal species, including rare birds and black bears.

Now, what does the administration say about these forest lands to be sold? Well, Under Secretary of Agriculture Mark Rey, who directs national forest policy, said ``These are not the crown jewels we are talking about.'' Well, they say a picture is worth a thousand words, so let me show you a photograph of some of the actual land in the Ocala National Forest which is marked for sale by the administration.

Look at the green plush forest. Does this look ugly to you? Does anybody really believe that this would look better as a strip mall or a condo project? I think it is a crown jewel.

And let me show you who else thinks this land is pretty important. This is a photograph published in my local newspaper, the Orlando Sentinel, of a black bear that lives in the Ocala National Forest. Now, this black bear is being relocated from one location to another location. Look at this cute little black bear. Does anybody really believe that we should sacrifice this little black bear's habitat on the altar of budget deficits?

This fire sale of forest lands is literally unbearable. It is also financially shortsighted. We cannot sell national forest land every time there is a budget shortfall. This is a dangerous precedent for Congress to set. Our financial problems need to be addressed over the long term, not through the shortsighted sale of national treasures to the highest bidder.

The proposed sale of the forest land is not even an adequate budgetary solution. The money raised from this nationwide sell-off would not even be enough to cover the short-term school and road needs of the communities near Ocala National Forest, let alone other areas of the country.

Well, what can we do about it? There are three things: First, I circulated a letter to the Florida delegation asking them to oppose the sale of our Nation's forest lands, especially the nearly 1,000 acres in the Ocala National Forest. I am proud to report today that this letter was signed by both of our U.S. Senators, Republican and Democrat, and by a bipartisan majority of our House Members. On March 1, 2006, this letter was submitted to the U.S. Department of Agriculture as part of the official comment period to voice our strong opposition to the sale.

Second, Congressman Ben Chandler of Kentucky and I are currently circulating a bipartisan letter asking Members to oppose the sale of 300,000 acres of forest lands all across the country in 41 separate States. Thus far, 52 Congressmen have signed on to our letter, and we encourage others to sign on tomorrow. After tomorrow, we will send this letter to the leaders of the House Budget Committee to urge them to oppose the administration's budget request and to encourage them to find alternative funding for rural schools and roads.

Finally, if we are unable to block this sale on the front end by having the administration withdraw this proposal, the plan would still have to be approved by this Congress, and I would encourage all of my colleagues to vote not just ``no,'' but ``heck no.''

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I am very optimistic we will be successful in blocking this reckless fire sale of our national forests and that our children and grandchildren will be able to enjoy the serenity of the great outdoors for many years to come.

Madam Speaker, I am here to talk about border security solutions. I recently spent a week along the Mexican-California border to see firsthand how bad the problem of illegal immigration is, and, more importantly, what Congress can do to fix it. So how do we fix the problem?

First, we need to crack down on employers who knowingly hire illegal workers. Jobs are the magnet drawing illegal aliens across the border.

Second, we need to complete construction of the double fence for 700 miles along the border near populated urban areas. It worked in San Diego.

Third, where mountains and rugged terrain make completion of a double fence impossible, we need to have a virtual fence which consists of infrared cameras that enable agents to see the entire border.

Finally, we need more Border Patrol agents. Although Congress has already tripled the number of Border Patrol agents since the late 1980s, more are still needed. Madam Speaker, the House recently passed a tough border security bill that implements these solutions. I urge the Senate to act now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the impact illegal immigration has on taxpayers. Today, we have 11 million illegal aliens in the United States. Last year, our Border Patrol agents arrested 1.2 million illegal aliens attempting to enter the U.S. from Mexico.

Illegal aliens continue to enter the U.S. from the Mexican border at the rate of 8,000 per day, and I saw that firsthand on a recent trip to the Mexican border. The economic impact of illegal immigration on taxpayers is catastrophic.

Illegal immigration costs taxpayers $45 billion a year in health care, identification, and incarceration expenses. The cost of the estimated 630,000 illegal aliens in my home State of Florida is about $2 billion a year, meaning every family in my congressional district pays a hidden tax of $315 each year, yet they still face artificially depressed wages because of illegal immigration.

The House has recently passed a tough border security bill to address this problem, and I urge the Senate to act now to protect taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4911) to temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4911, the Higher Education Extension Act of 2006. This bill will provide a clean extension of the Higher Education Act for 3 months. This extension will allow us to finish our important work on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act and expand college access for millions of American students.

As the new chairman of the 21st Century Competitiveness Subcommittee, which is the subcommittee with jurisdiction over higher education, I am proud of the work we have done so far in reauthorizing the Higher Education Act. We have started the reauthorization process already through the passage of important higher education reforms in the Deficit Reduction Act. We strengthened student loans and cut excessive subsidies to lenders. We have increased loan limits to give students more access to the money they need, and we have reduced fees so students can keep more of what they borrow.

There is important work yet to be done. The Committee on Education and the Workforce has successfully marked up H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity Act. I look forward to working with my colleagues in passing H.R. 609 to continue building the Pell grant program, help control the rising cost of college, and increase college access for all students.

Mr. Speaker, this is a clean extension that will allow the current programs of the Higher Education Act to continue past their current March 31 expiration date. Programs like Pell grants are the passport out of poverty for millions of American students. We must not break our commitment to higher education. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4911, and I look forward to working to pass a comprehensive higher education reauthorization bill later this year.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, putting the UAE in charge of our ports is as crazy as outsourcing our Border Patrol to Saudi Arabia.

We have two Achilles heels: our Mexican border and our seaports.

The UAE says that they are our friends. Here is some straight talk: the UAE gave us two terrorists on 9/11. They provided the money for the attacks of 9/11. They recognized the Taliban on 9/11. They refused to freeze Osama bin Laden's assets after 9/11. They have voted against us at the U.N. 90 percent of the time since 9/11. And today they announced that they will threaten the United States of America if we block this transaction. If these are our friends, what the heck does an enemy look like?

Mr. Speaker, we have but one choice: block this ports deal. We should not outsource our national security to anyone.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act, because it is a commonsense way to protect our schoolchildren from pedophiles. Isn't it a matter of common sense to allow a local school district in Orlando, Florida, to do criminal background checks on coaches, janitors and teachers who work with our children to make sure they are not convicted pedophiles from Georgia or some other State?

Isn't it common sense to protect young schoolchildren in the first place by keeping these pedophiles locked up with lengthy prison sentences?

Isn't it common sense that coddling repeated sex offenders with self- esteem courses and rehabilitation doesn't work, and that locking them up works?

It is high time that we crack down on molesters by implementing these commonsense reforms. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4472 today.