Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4154, a bill to increase the limit placed on the Historically Black Colleges and Universities Capital Financing Program. This worthy program provides Federal insurance for bonds issued to support capital financing projects at HBCUs. Generally, the funds are used for repair and renovation.

This program includes important safeguards to protect taxpayers while making funds available to HBCUs. Under current law, the total outstanding principal and interest payments on loans made under this program cannot exceed $375 million. During fiscal year 2006, the Department of Education made 24 loans from this program. Since the last Congress, at least four institutions have submitted applications to the Department of Education to obtain funds from this program. Another seven schools have expressed an interest in the program, according to the Department. Without expanding this cap, none of these schools would have access to these critical funds.

Historically black colleges and universities are integral to the fabric of our Nation's higher education system. HBCUs serve many low- income and first-generation college students that would not otherwise have the opportunity to attend college. Students attending these institutions should have access to safe, up-to-date facilities.

With so many institutions in need of assistance, this bill will increase the overall limit on this program from $375 million to $1.1 billion. With this new cap, the Department of Education will be able to make over $400 million in loans to deserving public and private institutions. Through the HBCU Capital Financing Program, we can help these institutions to help themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4154.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4154. This is going to help many worthy historically black colleges to rebuild and renovate after the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina, and it is worthy of support of colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I urge them to vote ``yes'' on this legislation.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in opposition to this rule and this bill. Mr. Speaker, I believe that SCHIP should ensure that poor kids are covered first before providing massive tax increases and coverage for adults and illegal immigrants.

The Democrats' SCHIP bill before us today has a 5,900 percent tax increase. It provides coverage to 500,000 adults. And it costs Federal taxpayers $3.7 billion because of illegal immigration.

Let me be specific. With respect to the 5,900 percent tax increase, it takes the tax on cigars from a nickel to $3. With respect to the adults, 500,000 adults whose children are in SCHIP will still be covered.

With respect to illegal immigration, $3.7 billion was provided by

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3927, a measure to extend programs under the Higher Education Act, which are set to expire at the end of this month, for an additional 6 months. This is a clean extension. This will simply change the date required to reauthorize this law from October 31, 2007, until April 30, 2008. I thank my committee colleagues, Chairman Miller, Chairman Hinojosa, and Ranking Member McKeon, for their work on this bill, as well as their consistent efforts on behalf of our Nation's college students and their families.

Mr. Speaker, while I support the extension of the Higher Education Act, I also believe that we need to get on with it at this point and reauthorize this important law. The last time this law was authorized was when President Bill Clinton was in office back in 1998, and it expired in 2004.

We need to work in a bipartisan way to finally reauthorize the Higher Education Act. Republicans on the House Education Committee recently took a positive step in this direction by introducing H.R. 3746, The College Access and Opportunity Act of 2007. This bill is an updated version of H.R. 609, the Higher Education reauthorization bill that passed the House last Congress but was not taken up by the Senate. H.R. 3746 would strengthen the Pell Grant program by providing for year- round Pell Grants, and it would address college affordability by providing transparency in college costs, among other things.

I hope that we will move forward with the Higher Education Act reauthorization in a bipartisan and thoughtful manner. I look forward to working with Ranking Member McKeon and Chairmen Miller and Hinojosa and all of my colleagues on the Education and Labor Committee in completing our work in the coming months. In the meantime, however, I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this extension.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers and I am prepared to close at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 3927. We believe that a college education opportunity is the passport out of poverty for so many worthy young people. I urge my colleagues to support this extension and then later to work together in a bipartisan manner to reauthorize the Higher Education Act.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Free Flow of Information Act.

This media shield legislation is important because ``off the record'' confidential sources are needed to help journalists get to the truth, and I don't want reporters thrown in jail for doing their jobs.

Our history is full of examples of confidential sources exposing corruption, fraud, and misconduct. For example, the Watergate scandal was blown wide open by Deep Throat, a confidential source we now know to be Mark Felt, the number two person at the FBI. Confidential sources also exposed the cooked books at Enron and the unacceptable treatment of soldiers recovering at Walter Reed.

Whistleblowers, with inside knowledge of corruption, might be discouraged from talking to reporters if they fear their identities might be disclosed and their jobs placed at risk. That's why protecting the public's right to know is needed for a healthy democracy. That is also why a majority of the States already have media shield laws on the books and why we need this law on the Federal level.

The media shield privilege under this bill is not absolute. Exceptions are carved out where it is necessary to reveal a source in order to prevent imminent death or bodily harm, terrorist attacks, or other specific threats to national security. The bill also includes the language I drafted, which provides an exception for civil defamation claims. This language, found in section 2(C) of the bill, is modeled after language found in various State media shield laws such as those in Tennessee and Oklahoma dealing with this issue.

Finally, I want to thank my colleagues, especially Mr. Pence and Mr. Boucher, for their impressive bipartisan leadership and hard work on this important bill. It was my honor to work closely with them on the drafting of this legislation during the Judiciary Committee process.

Madam Speaker, the bottom line is that a free and independent press is critical to ensure government accountability. I urge my colleagues to protect the public's right to know and vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2102.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Free Flow of Information Act. This media shield legislation is important because off-the-record, confidential sources are needed to help journalists get to the truth, and I don't want reporters thrown in jail for doing their jobs.

Our history is full of examples of confidential sources exposing corruption, fraud and misconduct. For example, the Watergate scandal was blown wide open by Deep Throat, a confidential source we now know to be Mark Felt, the number two person at the FBI. Confidential sources also exposed the cooked books at Enron, and the unacceptable treatment of soldiers recovering at Walter Reed.

A free and independent press which protects the public's right to know is needed for a healthy democracy and government accountability. That's why a majority of States already have media shield laws on the books, and why we need this law on the Federal level.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Free Flow of Information Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 400, the War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007. If a contractor in Iraq decides to engage in the corrupt business practice of overbilling the U.S. military to maximize his profits, he will now face 20 years in a Federal prison cell and a fine of $1 million.

Those bad apples who defraud the American taxpayer must be held accountable, regardless of whether the sleazy, fraudulent practice occurred in the United States, Afghanistan, or Iraq. This is especially true when the

fraud relates to our military and reconstruction activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, because such schemes could directly harm our country's global war against terrorism.

Moreover, corruption by a handful of individuals who are ostensibly engaged in supporting our military and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan unfairly tarnishes the reputation of the many honorable military and civilian contractors, the overwhelming majority of whom risk their lives daily and professionally perform their duties.

Fortunately, according to the testimony of Stuart Bowen, Jr., the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, most contractors are good apples, and the incidence of corruption within the U.S. reconstruction program constitutes a small component of the overall American financial contribution to Iraq's reconstruction.

These cases often require extensive investigative resources and documentation. Having to gather such evidence in a dangerous setting like Iraq or Afghanistan makes it difficult to build a successful criminal case.

Nevertheless, the U.S. Government has brought many successful prosecutions, and it will likely bring more. For example, Philip Bloom was sentenced earlier this year to 46 months in prison as a result of his scheme to defraud the Coalition Provisional Authority by rigging contract bids in excess of $8.6 million.

In addition, Robert Stein, the former Coalition Provisional Authority comptroller and funding officer, was sentenced to 9 years in prison earlier this year. He was prosecuted and convicted of funneling numerous contracts to Bloom in exchange for kickbacks and bribes. Overall, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction has opened over 300 criminal and civil investigations, leading to 10 arrests, five persons indicted, five convicted, and two imprisoned. The Inspector General continues to work on 79 live investigations, and these investigations may involve one or more targets. Twenty-eight of these investigations are currently being prosecuted by the Department of Justice, 23 of these are criminal cases, and five are civil.

In short, this legislation creates a new crime with a maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years, which is double the existing crime of fraud against the government, and deservedly so.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 400.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume, and then I will turn and yield 30 seconds to Mr. Davis of Virginia. I will go ahead and respond as Mr. Davis is gathering his thoughts.

One of the concerns Mr. Davis raised was what if there was some inadvertent overpricing by a contractor based on a mistake and later went back and corrected it. My reading of the bill is that person wouldn't be prosecuted because there's a three-prong standard. First, you have to knowingly, materially overvalue goods or service with the intent to defraud. And the intent-to-defraud prong would not be met under the analogy or the example Mr. Davis gave because ``intent to defraud'' is a term of art which requires that the actor possesses the specific intent to cheat the government. And you would not have that element of the crime proven if you had inadvertent overpricing based on a mistake.

Now, it doesn't mean you may not have what he's concerned about, an overzealous prosecutor try to prosecute someone without having the prongs or the factual basis for it. We can ask the prosecutor from the Duke case what happens when you're overzealous in your prosecutions. But I believe under that particular example that person wouldn't be prosecuted.

However, before I yield to Mr. Davis, let me just say, he does have a great deal of experience dealing with Government reform issues as the ranking member and represents a lot of government employees. And so I certainly am empathetic to his concerns that perhaps his committee might have had some insight into this bill that was worth looking at.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume and am prepared to yield back as we have no further speakers.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill. We agree on a bipartisan basis that when a corrupt contractor overbills our U.S. military, it rips off the taxpayers, it hurts our national security, and it unfairly stains the reputation of the many honorable military and civilian contractors who risk their lives every day and do a professional and honest job.

This bill appropriately says that if you plan on overbilling or ripping off the U.S. military in terms of these contracts to do reconstruction work or military-related work in Iraq or Afghanistan, you are going to be sitting in a prison cell for 20 years and you are going to pay a fine of $1 million. We think that is an appropriate message to accept in light of this problem. And I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 400.

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

Madam Speaker, what are the most important issues facing today's high school and college students? Being able to afford college? Access to health care? The Iraq war? Who are their favorite Democratic candidates? Obama? Clinton? Edwards?

Who are their favorite Republican candidates? Giuliani? McCain? Romney?

Well, thanks to the first ever National Youth Presidential Forum on November 14, 2007, up to 10 million young people will have the opportunity to hear from the Presidential candidates from both parties and then cast their votes.

As the Congressman from central Florida, I'm very proud that the Lou Frey Institute of Politics and Government at the University of Central Florida is playing a key role in putting together this unprecedented event.

They've joined together with the EWN Foundation, The Presidential Classroom, and the United States Association of Former Members of Congress to sponsor a 3-hour forum online, which brings together Presidential candidates and America's young people for the first time in a unique Webcast.

This is how it will work. Presidential classroom scholars will create questions which will then be sent to the Presidential candidates who can respond via videotape prior to the event or live the day of the event. Then, thanks to the event sponsors, the Webcast will be provided free to each of the participating high schools and colleges across the United States.

All of the students will then be able to vote for up to 36 hours after hearing from each of the candidates on the issues most important to them.

I urge my colleagues to go to www.rocktheweb.org for more information on this great project. It provides a valuable civics lesson for our students and important feedback to our Presidential candidates on the key issues facing America's young people.

I would encourage all of the Presidential candidates, high schools and colleges to participate in this worthwhile educational opportunity.

Madam Speaker, I'm going to limit my comments to the Pell Grant portion of this legislation.

I'm honored to serve as the ranking member on the Higher Education Subcommittee. I used to be the chairman of this committee before the change in Congress, but I still have the honor of serving as the chairman and founder of the Pell Grant Caucus.

Pell Grants are money we give to children from low- and moderate- income families to help them go to college. I, myself, would not have been able to go to college if it wasn't for Pell Grants. Pell Grants are truly the passport out of poverty for many worthy young people.

We believe, in a bipartisan manner, that all children, rich or poor, deserve the opportunity to go to college through Pell Grants. When this College Cost Reduction Act was initially presented in the House, I felt that it spent too much money on new entitlement programs and too little on Pell Grants. For example, it had an increase of $5.8 billion. I was honored to serve on the conference committee. I made those comments during our conference committee. And the conference committee decided to increase the Pell Grant funding from $5.8 billion to $11.4 billion, doubling what was in the original House bill.

What does that mean for young people going to college? That means the maximum award is now going to go from $4,310 to $5,400, phased in over time.

Whatever one may think of the rest of the provisions, pro or con, I have to tell you that is an outstanding provision in terms of a Pell Grant increase.

Now, some of my Republican colleagues may say that we're investing several billion dollars in Pell Grants and is that a wise use of money. I can tell you that these Pell Grant increases pay for themselves. The nonpartisan Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance said that by investing $13 billion in Pell Grants, it helps yield up to $85 billion in additional tax revenue. The reason is the average college graduate makes 75 percent more than the average high school graduate. So it's good for the treasury. It's good for our young people, and it's good for employment rates in this country.

I want to congratulate and thank Congressman Miller, Congressman Hinojosa and Congressman McKeon for all their work in substantially increasing Pell Grants. Those provisions make it much easier for young people to be able to go to college.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I will begin by yielding to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and, Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this closed rule and the underlying legislation.

When the Democrats went through their 6 for '06 agenda and gave us closed rule after closed rule, they told us it would be temporary; we would then have a fair process to amend bills and clarify them. It hasn't happened.

Today is the 28th time the Democrats have given us a closed rule, literally twice as many as Republicans during the same time period. We had two amendments that we wanted to offer that would improve and clarify the bill. We had no chance to do so.

Next, let me talk about the substance of the bill. This legislation has the practical effect of doing away with statutes of limitations in employment cases. On May 29, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Ms. Ledbetter's claim was barred by the statute of limitations. This legislation attempts to specifically reverse that decision and, in fact, makes it retroactive to the day before the decision on May 28, 2007.

Make no mistake, there is a strong public policy reason for having a statute of limitations in the employment context. Witness memories fade, documents are lost and employees die. We want these disputes to be resolved when witness memories are fresh, documents are available and employees are alive.

The Ledbetter case is a perfect example. Ms. Ledbetter alleged sexual harassment misconduct by a single Goodyear supervisor. Yet she waited 19 years after the supervisor passed away from cancer to file suit. She said at the

hearing, ``I didn't say anything at first because I wanted to try to work it out and fit in without making waves.''

Now, she seemed like a nice lady to me. I had the chance to meet her, but I wonder what her supervisor would have said had she brought this suit when it was fresh so we could hear both sides.

The Supreme Court wondered the same thing. The Supreme Court wrote in its Ledbetter opinion: ``The passage of time may seriously diminish the ability of the parties and the fact-finder to reconstruct what actually happened. This case illustrates the problems created by tardy lawsuits.''

We hear about equal pay for equal work. We're all for that, Mr. Speaker. The fact is those folks haven't read this opinion because she had an Equal Pay Act that was thrown out on the merits.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the practical effect of this legislation is to do away with the statute of limitations in employment disputes. On May 29, 2007, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Ms. Ledbetter's claim was barred by the statute of limitations.

There is a strong public policy reason for having a statute of limitations in the employment context. Witness' memories fade, documents are lost, and employees die. We want these disputes to be resolved while witness' memories are fresh, documents are available, and the employees are alive.

The Ledbetter case is a perfect example. Ms. Ledbetter alleged sexual harassment misconduct by a single Goodyear supervisor, yet she waited 19 years after the former supervisor passed away from cancer to file a lawsuit.

On June 12, 2007, Ms. Ledbetter testified before our Education and Labor Committee. She stated, ``My story began in 1979 when Goodyear hired me to work as a supervisor in their tire production plant in Gadsden, Alabama. I worked there for 19 years. One of my supervisors asked me to go down to a local hotel with him and promised if I did, I would get good evaluations. He said if I didn't, I would get put at the bottom of the list. I didn't say anything at first because I wanted to try to work it out and fit in without making waves.''

At our hearing, I spoke with Ms. Ledbetter at length. She seemed like a nice lady to me. The conversation she described about the motel made you angry about it and sympathetic to her. I wondered what that supervisor would have said 19 years ago. Would he admit it? Would he deny it but not be very credible? Or would he have said that it couldn't have happened because he was in Canada at the time and here is my proof of that?

Well, it turns out that the U.S. Supreme Court was thinking the same type of thoughts I was about this matter. Their opinion makes their concerns crystal clear.

On page 12 of its opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court wrote: ``The passage of time may seriously diminish the ability of the parties and the factfinder to reconstruct what actually happened. This case illustrates the problems created by tardy lawsuits. Ledbetter's claims of sex discrimination turned principally on the misconduct of a single Goodyear supervisor, who, Ledbetter testified, retaliated against her when she rejected his sexual advancements during the early 1980s. Yet, by the time of trial, this supervisor had died and therefore could not testify. A timely charge might have permitted his evidence to be weighed contemporaneously.''

Supporters of the legislation say that the time period of 300 days in most jurisdictions, 180 days in some, is not enough because an employer might hide the fact that the female employee's salary was less than the amount paid to men for the same work.

There are two responses to that. First, the judicial doctrine of equitable tolling would be available to those type of plaintiffs.

Second, the plaintiffs could file a claim under the Equal Pay Act. This Federal law forbids paying women less than men for the same work. It has a longer statute of limitations and an easier burden of proof. Ms. Ledbetter filed a Equal Pay Act claim, but it was thrown out on the merits by the trial judge who found that Goodyear paid

Ledbetter less because of her performance, not sex. Significantly, Ledbetter abandoned this Equal Pay Act claim.

Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying, hard cases make bad law. That applies here. Do we throw out the statute of limitations in employment cases because a nice lady waited 19 years to file a lawsuit? Common sense tells you the answer is no.

The same public policy reasons for a statute of limitations are still there. We want witness' memories that are fresh, documents that are available and employees who are still alive to tell what actually happened.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the appropriation bill before us today. This legislation addresses the violent crime problem head on by investing $100 million into the COPS program to put more cops on the street.

We need additional cops now more than ever. For example, in my hometown of Orlando, Florida, we experienced a 123 percent increase in the murder rate last year. Yesterday I received a letter from a 7-year- old boy in Orlando. He writes, ``My name is Santiago Valera. I am a 7- year-old boy. I live with my grandma. We live in Orlando, Florida. Every day bad people rob and kill good people. They even shot my Auntie Connie in her neck. I'm afraid to go outside and play. I don't want someone to kill my little brother or me or my grandma. Please help us.''

To Santiago and all the other little boys and girls of central Florida, please know that we hear your concerns, and help is on the way.

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

I rise today in strong support of this legislation. I'm proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 980, the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007.

Firefighters and police officers put their lives on the line to protect us, and they deserve the right to collectively bargain for safe working conditions and fair wages.

Recent events remind us of their heroism. It was a week ago today that a plane crashed into two homes in Sanford, Florida, just outside my hometown of Orlando, Florida. An off-duty firefighter named Ryan Cooper was nearby when he heard the plane roaring toward the houses. As the airplane smashed the two homes and exploded

them into flames, Ryan Cooper went into action. He rushed into the smoldering homes and brought out a 10-year year-old boy and his father.

Firefighter Ryan Cooper is a true hero. From his hospital bed, where he was being treated for smoke inhalation, Mr. Cooper humbly said that any firefighter would have done the same thing.

Sometimes firefighters pay the ultimate sacrifice. Just last month, nine firefighters in Charleston, South Carolina lost their lives fighting a blaze at a furniture store. These acts of heroism highlight the dangerous nature of public safety officers' jobs.

This legislation gets the ball in the strike zone. On the one hand, it allows firefighters and police officers to collectively bargain for better working conditions and fair wages. On the other hand, it expressly outlaws strikes, and it does not overturn State right-to-work laws. In short, this bill is fair and reasonable and deserves our bipartisan support.

Finally, let me address the main concern raised by some folks about this legislation. They say that this legislation would mandate compulsory unionism in right-to-work States. That simply isn't the case. Section 8, subsections 2 and 3, specifically state that this legislation would not preempt State right-to-work laws. In other words, this legislation allows States to enforce laws that prevent employers and unions from requiring union fees as a condition of employment.

Many people confuse collective bargaining with right to work. The two can coexist. For example, firefighters currently enjoy collective bargaining rights in my home State of Florida, yet Florida is a right- to-work State.

In closing, I would like to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for all his hard work on this bill. Mr. Kildee has been a tireless advocate for this legislation.

I would also like to thank the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, Mr. Miller, and the majority staff for working with the minority to make some changes and improvements in this bill, particularly those that address issues which were raised during consideration of this bill in committee. I would also like to thank the lead Republican cosponsor of this legislation, Mr. Jimmy Duncan from Tennessee, for his work.

I will be voting for H.R. 980 today, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my fellow east Tennessean, Jimmy Duncan, who is the lead Republican and original cosponsor of this legislation and has been a true champion of this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my next speaker, what is the time remaining on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. I don't believe we have any other speakers.

Let me just begin by saying what this bill does not do to provide some reassurance to some of my Republican colleagues who may be concerned.

This bill expressly does not allow public safety officers to go on strike. This bill does not preempt State right-to-work laws. This bill does not require compulsory unionism. This bill does not require binding arbitration.

I think we all agree that firefighters and police officers risk their lives every single day and they are entitled to make fair wages and have working conditions that are as safe as possible. This legislation is fair and balanced, and that is why it has received such broad bipartisan support.

On the one hand it does allow firefighters and police officers to collectively bargain for better working conditions and fair wages. On the other hand, it expressly outlaws strikes and does not overturn State right-to-work laws. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to do what I am about to do and vote ``yes'' on this important bipartisan legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I want to begin by thanking the chairman and also the ranking member for their hard work on this bill. Chairman Miller has accommodated us when he can and opposed us when he must, and I know we have worked together as much as possible.

I think we owe the public an explanation, before we talk about our differences, of what we have in common. So let me begin with what both sides throughout this debate have in common, essentially three things.

First, we believe that all children, rich or poor, should have the opportunity to go to college. Second, we believe that there should be consequences and sunlight on those colleges who excessively increase tuition. And, third, we believe that Pell Grants are the passport out of poverty for so many worthy young children from low- and moderate- income families, and they deserve to be increased.

Now, there are four major differences in this bill, and these differences result in many of us Republicans not being able, regrettably, to vote for this bill. The first difference is on entitlements. How do you feel about new mandatory entitlements? The Democratic bill has nine new entitlement programs with mandatory spending. The Republican substitute has zero new entitlement programs.

How do you feel about Pell Grants, which is money we give to low- and moderate-income families to help their kids go to college? Today the Appropriations Committee is going to be increasing Pell Grants to $4,700. Under the Democrat bill, next year, they will have an additional $100, for a total of $4,800. Under the Republican substitute, students would have an additional $350 for a total of $5,050. So if you care about Pell Grants, you would do substantially better under the Republican bill if you were a student than you would under the Democrat bill.

How do you feel about paying down the deficit? The Democrats use only $1.5 billion to pay down the deficit. We more than triple that in the Republican bill.

How do you feel about private sector versus government-run programs? We have a basic, honest philosophical difference in this belief. Republicans believe that competition among the private sector is good for lower prices and lower taxes. Democrats believe, at least some do, that big government-run programs are better, and if that means eventually raising taxes, especially on the wealthy, then so be it. And we see that in the context of the student loan debate here. Republicans aren't afraid to take money out of the private student lenders. We did so as part of the Deficit Reduction Act. We took $16 billion away from their subsidies. But the Democrat bill, on top of the $16 billion, takes an additional $18.5 billion. It cuts the lender subsidies down to the bone to the point that the private student loan providers really won't be able to make a living if they are the small folks, and it will run many of them out of business. The big folks will stay in business. And that is okay to some on the other side. They prefer the direct student lending program. Under our system, 80 percent of the loans on the Federal level are provided with private sector money, called the FFEL program; 20 percent are the direct student loans. And this bill stacks it heavily in favor of the direct loan program. For example, if you are a low-income public sector employee, such as a police officer or social worker or a firefighter, and you have worked for at least 10 years, you get absolute forgiveness of your loan only in the direct program. They don't forgive it in the private FFEL program. They want to encourage people in the direct program.

If you are a parent and you want to take out a loan for your child to go to college, under the FFEL program, which is the private program, you have to pay 8.5 percent; under the direct lending program from the government, only 7.9 percent. Again, trying to encourage people to go with the big government program. And that was a drafting error that the Republican Congress made when we were passing the Deficit Reduction Act. And we tried to correct it in this bill. The Democrats knew about it, and they didn't let us correct it. And I suspect, and this is my feeling, it is because they expressly favor the direct loan program.

So we have a philosophical difference. I think the motives on both sides are pure. We have an honest difference of opinion with regard to entitlements, Pell grant funding, paying down the debt and private sector involvement.

And for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I will urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' in favor of the McKeon substitute and ``no'' on the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, spyware is a serious and growing problem. This software allows criminals to hack into a computer to alter the user's security setting, collect personal information to steal a user's identity or commit other crimes.

H.R. 1525, the Internet Spyware Prevention Act of 2007, is bipartisan legislation that imposes criminal penalties on computer hacking intrusions and the use of spyware. A maximum term of 5 years imprisonment can be imposed for a hacking violation in which an unauthorized user accesses a computer.

In addition, a maximum of 2 years imprisonment can be imposed for anyone who uses spyware to break into a computer and alter the security settings or obtain the user's personal information.

This bill also authorizes $10 million for fiscal years 2008 through 2011 for the Department of Justice to increase Federal prosecutions of these new offenses.

I congratulate Congresswoman Lofgren and Congressman Goodlatte for their leadership and dedication on this issue. I also thank Chairman Conyers and Crime Subcommittee Chairman Scott for their support of this legislation.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who is the lead Republican cosponsor of this important legislation.

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

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

Aiming a laser beam into the cockpit of an airplane is a clear and present danger to the safety of all those on board the aircraft.

This legislation is simple and straightforward. It makes it illegal to knowingly aim a laser pointer at an aircraft. Those who intentionally engage in such misconduct shall be fined or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, in the discretion of the judge.

This legislation was unanimously approved by all Republicans and Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee in this Congress and in the last Congress. It was also approved by the full House by a voice vote, and the Senate also approved this legislation by unanimous consent after slightly amending the legislation to provide for limited exceptions for testing and training by the Department of Defense and FAA, as well as using the laser to send an emergency distress signal. This bill represents the negotiated compromise between the House and Senate on these limited exceptions.

The problems caused by laser beam pranksters are more widespread than one might think. According to the FAA and the Congressional Research Service, there have been over 500 incidents reported since 1990 where pilots have been disoriented or temporarily blinded by laser exposure. The problem is on the rise, and there were over 90 incidents in 2005 alone.

These easily available laser pin pointers, like the one I purchased here at the Staples Office Supply Store for $12, have enough power to cause vision problems in pilots from a distance of 2 miles. It is only a matter of time before one of these laser beam pranksters ends up killing over 200 people in a commercial airline crash.

Surprisingly, there is currently no Federal statute on the books making it illegal to shine a laser beam into an aircraft cockpit, unless one attempts to use the PATRIOT Act to claim that the action was a ``terrorist attack or other attack of violence against a mass transportation system.''

So far none of the more than 500 incidents involving flight crew exposure to lasers have been linked to terrorism. Rather, it is often a case of pranksters making stupid choices to put pilots and their passengers at risk of dying. It is imperative that we send a message to the public that flight security is a serious issue. These acts of mischief will not be tolerated.

I wanted to learn what it was like to be in an aircraft cockpit hit by a laser beam; so I spoke with Lieutenant Barry Smith from my hometown of Orlando, Florida, who was actually in the cockpit of a helicopter that was hit by a laser beam.

Lieutenant Smith is with the Seminole County Sheriff's Office. He and his partner were in a police helicopter searching for burglary suspects at

night in a suburb of Orlando when a red laser beam hit the aircraft twice. Lieutenant Smith said the Plexiglas windshield of the helicopter spread out the light to the size of a basketball. It shocked them. They were flying near a large tower with a red light, and they mistakenly thought they may have flown too close to the tower. They were disoriented, and they immediately jerked the helicopter back. When they realized that they weren't near the tower after all, Lieutenant Smith began to worry that the light could have come from a laser sight on a rifle. He wondered if they were about to be shot out of the sky. He told me, ``It scared the heck out of us.''

In reality, it was just a 31-year-old man with a small, pen-sized laser light, standing in his yard.

In conclusion, I authored this bipartisan legislation because it is needed to ensure the safety of pilots and passengers. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1615.

I want to especially thank Chairman Conyers and Chairman Scott for their bipartisanship in moving this bill forward after having hearings and markups.

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

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