Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois for scheduling this special order on the Second Chance Act and for his long and diligent labors to move the bill forward as part of his lifetime of dedication to protecting and serving the public's interest.

He has been a dedicated public servant on this issue, ensuring that those who are in prison have a chance to turn their lives around and become productive citizens. That is why he is the chief sponsor of the Second Chance Act.

Congressman Davis' efforts not only benefit the offenders, because for everyone who comes out and establishes a law-abiding and productive life, one or more potential victims of crime never become victims, and the taxpayers have to pay less in prison expenses because one less person is not going back to prison.

This is the third Congress in a row that we have been working on this bill on a bipartisan basis. I believe this year we will be successful in passing the bill.

Madam Speaker, over the last decade we have seen an unprecedented explosion in our prison and jail populations. Now there are more than 2.2 million people incarcerated in Federal and State prisons and local jails, a tenfold increase since just 1980. Moreover, the annual expenses for corrections have increased from $9 billion in 1982 to more than $65 billion today. The figures continue to grow. These figures do not include the cost of arrest and prosecution, nor do they take into account the cost to victims of crime.

As a result of this focus in incarceration, the United States leads the world in per capita incarceration rates. The United States locks up 726 inmates for every 100,000 in population, according to 2004 data.

The international average is about 100 per 100,000. 142 in England and Wales, 117 in Australia, 116 in Canada, 91 in Germany, 85 in France. So the United States average is more than seven times the international average of about 100 per 100,000. The closest competitor is 532 inmates per 100,000 in Russia. That is 726 in the United States, Russia, second place, 532 per 100,000.

This year, more than 650,000 people will be released from State and Federal prisons to communities nationwide, along with more than 9 million people leaving our local jails. According to the Department of Justice, 67 percent of offenders leaving State and Federal prison will be rearrested within the next 3 years.

There is a pressing need to provide ex-offenders with education and training, drug treatment and medical and mental health services necessary to afford them the ability to obtain and hold steady jobs.

The statistics underlying the needs of our prison population are staggering. For example, 57 percent of Federal and 70 percent of State inmates used drugs regularly before prison, with some estimates going as high as 84 percent of alcohol or drug use at the time the offense occurred.

Furthermore, one-third of all jail inmates will have some physical or mental disability. Twenty-five percent of jail inmates in fact have been treated at some time for mental or emotional problems. And as has been detailed by many researchers, other deficiencies include limited education and few job skills or job experience.

Evidence from the Department of Justice indicates that the needs for prison population are not being met under the current system. If we allow them to return to their communities with few economic opportunities where they were actually involved in crime and where their friends and associates may still be involved in crime and substance abuse, if we allow them to return to those communities without support, we can only expect to see the extension of the cycle of recidivism.

With bipartisan support in this legislation, we are set to build a broad web of programs which will help break the cycle of recidivism laying at the heart of our prison population explosion. The Second Chance Act provides a host of evidence-based approaches designed to reduce the high rate of recidivism that we are now experiencing.

If we are going to continue to send more and more people to prison with longer and longer sentences, we should do as much as we reasonably can to assure that when they do return to their communities, they don't turn around and commit new offenses and have to go back to prison.

Madam Speaker, let's be clear: The primary reason for supporting the Second Chance Act is not to benefit the offenders, although it does benefit the offenders. The primary reason for doing so is it better assures us that we and other Members of the community will not be victims of crime in the future and because the taxpayer will have to pay less in services under the Second Chance Act than we now have to pay because of the high recidivism rate and having people go back to prison.

So I want to thank again the gentleman from Illinois for holding this special order to bring attention to this important issue and the legislation that has been carefully drawn up to address it. I thank Mr. Davis for being the chief sponsor of the Second Chance Act. We are going to work as hard as we can to make sure it passes the House and the Senate.

If the gentleman will yield further, I would also like to point out it is bipartisan. Representative Chabot from Ohio and many Republicans on the committee

have been strong supporters of the Second Chance Act. That is how it received such an overwhelming vote in the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for introducing the legislation. It not only helps individuals, but saves taxpayer money and reduces crime in a cost-effective manner. Everybody wins with passage of this legislation. I thank you for your leadership.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

This amendment would restrict funds in the bill from being used to fund the Random Student Drug Testing program run by the U.S. Department of Education. The amendment would allow, however, the evaluation of the program being conducted by the Department to continue, and if the evaluation shows that the program is cost effective, the funding would be restored.

For the past several years, the Department has been using money designated for the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program to conduct random school-based student drug testing programs.

The problem is, Madam Chair, that this program has been studied and found ineffective. In 2003, the National Institute on Drug Abuse conducted a study that found that there was no difference between drug use in schools that tested for drugs and those that did not. The study found that the drug testing at schools did not affect either the prevalence or frequency of drug use.

Furthermore, such testing is very expensive. The cost of these tests can range between $10 and $75 each. Indeed, one school conducting random drug testing found that only a small fraction of its students actually tested positive, resulting in a cost of over $3,000 for every positive result.

My amendment would prohibit money from being spent on the drug testing program until the program has been shown to be cost effective, because we should not be spending taxpayer dollars on programs that are not cost effective. At this point, the drug testing program has not been proven to meet that standard. This amendment would prohibit the Department from wasting the taxpayers' money on student drug testing until the Department shows that the program is cost effective.

Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin, who I believe will insist on his point of order.

Madam Chairman, it is my understanding from the Parliamentarian that the point of order would be well taken, so I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to commend the efforts of Operation Smile during their 25 years of service to the United States and to the world. I would like to thank my distinguished colleague, Congresswoman Drake, for sponsoring this resolution and bringing it to the floor. As we both represent the city of Norfolk, VA, the home of Operation Smile, I would just like to say a few words about Operation Smile and its efforts to help children around the world.

What Operation Smile has accomplished since its inception is truly remarkable. Since its first mission in the Philippines in 1982, Operation Smile volunteers have treated more than 100,000 children and young adults and have trained thousands of health professionals around the world. In addition, through pure determination, Operation Smile has built bridges and built trust. As a result, it has created a presence, earned the respect of governments and ministries of health, and united cultures in over 25 developing countries.

Operation Smile consists of a diverse group of volunteers from various countries and cultures, who come together with the common goal of repairing childhood facial deformities. Through these missions, the strongest bonds of friendships are forged as people who have very little in common work together to change a life. Operation Smile has demonstrated an ability to find working partnerships amid unstable and controversial conditions. Through diplomacy and leadership, coupled with medical aid and technology, it is able to heal and inspire cross- cultural cooperation.

While promoting medical diplomacy, Operation Smile continues to cross borders, bridge cultural and ethnic divides, and encourage collaboration and commitment. Its success has been astounding and as a result, Operation Smile has become the largest volunteer charity of its kind. Its efforts go beyond children and their families--Operation Smile changes communities, students, medical professionals, and healthcare systems.

Just this past year, Operation Smile traveled to Jordan on two separate occasions in order to provide life-changing surgeries to 138 Iraqi children who were transported to Amman from Baghdad, and it worked with the Mercy ships to treat 54 children in Bangladesh. These missions consisted of volunteers from over a dozen countries who worked together side by side to help these children. In this time of war, the volunteers of Operation Smile managed to bring a bright light to the lives of these children that will last a lifetime.

In the war against terrorism, hatred of Americans by other populations is a significant problem. The work of Operation Smile is immeasurable in developing good will to counteract that hatred. The doctors and other volunteers who work with Operation Smile and the children who have been helped by Operation Smile will serve as perpetual evidence of our good will and the best America has to offer. I cannot think of better ambassadors for the United States than the founders of Operation Smile, Dr. Bill and Kathleen Magee.

In 1982, Bill and Kathleen saw a need both abroad and here at home to help children with deformities live a better and happier life. Because of their diligence, and that of the many volunteers and donors that have worked with Operation Smile over the past 25 years, Operation Smile has not only created smiles, but has changed the lives of hundreds of thousands of children across the globe.

I would like to once again commend Operation Smile on the occasion of their 25th anniversary, and I wish them continued success bringing smiles to the faces of children and families worldwide.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 487, which recognizes modeling and simulation as a national critical technology. I would like to thank my friend from Virginia's Fourth Congressional District and the chair of the Congressional Modeling and Simulation Caucus, Congressman Randy Forbes, for introducing this important resolution.

Modeling and simulation has become an essential component in ensuring that we meet both the defense and domestic challenges of the 21st century. Modeling and simulation allows us to easily and effectively sharpen the tools, procedures, and decisions needed to address difficult and complex problems. This critical technology allows us to build and develop models of complex systems--whether a car, an airplane, an entire battlefield, or even a major city's evacuation plan--to see how certain actions will affect the end result. These simulations help us develop better and practical analogies of real world situations. With the growing international challenges of the 21st century, this technology is vital to the defense of our great Nation. Simulating battlefield conditions will sharpen the skills of the brave men and women serving in our armed forces.

Madam Speaker, the practical uses of modeling, analysis and simulation technology as a training tool are boundless. Military and airline pilots have been using this technology for decades. Congress should be interested in using this technology for homeland security, disaster preparedness, and other ways to benefit the public; the resolution before the House today ensures that this body is aware of how critical this technology is for our Nation.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to represent the people and businesses of the Third Congressional District of Virginia who are a part of this important and growing sector of Virginia's economy. In addition to our local military bases supporting the Joint Forces Center in Suffolk, our local colleges and universities and NASA Langley Research Center on the Virginia peninsula are engaged in applying people, tools and facilities to modeling, analysis and simulation technology. Hampton Roads is leading the way in modeling and simulation technology. The Virginia Modeling, Analysis and Simulation Center in Suffolk, Virginia, is a premier facility that is second to none.

The modeling and simulation industry is vital to the growing economy of Hampton Roads and the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Hampton Roads Congressional Delegation has a history of working together and we will continue to do so in promoting this important industry in this Congress. Using modeling and simulation technology in the fields of science, national defense, homeland security and disaster planning will better the lives of all Americans and make our great Nation safer.

Madam Speaker, I am glad that the House is considering this resolution today and I encourage all my colleagues to support this resolution and to learn more about this critical technology.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to stress the importance of health care to the well-being of our children and to our Nation. In 2003, a report was released by the National Academy of Science entitled ``Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care.'' It

confirmed what many of us have known for a long time, that even when African Americans and other minorities have equal insurance and equal access to physicians, their outcomes are different.

Minority populations just don't get the same health care and are not offered the same treatments. Unfortunately, we're foundering under the constraints of a profit-driven, multi-tiered health care where racial and ethnic stereotypes often distort the decision-making process by many health care providers.

The situation becomes even more critical when we realize that over 20 percent of all African Americans do not have health insurance. Those who do are more likely to have public insurance or Medicaid, which, unfortunately, often does not command the full measure of services available in private insurance.

Every day, more and more African Americans are diagnosed with life- threatening illnesses which can be avoided with proper care and prevention. The diagnosis of illnesses such as diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease and HIV/AIDS continues to increase among African Americans in the African American culture as access to health care becomes more and more elusive.

It is no surprise that when it comes to taking care of our medical needs, many of us and our Hispanic, Native American and Asian Pacific Islanders are slipping through the safety nets available to other Americans.

Mr. Speaker, the total number of uninsured has actually increased from 41 million, just a few years ago, to 46 million by the most recent numbers. In the country where we pride ourselves as being the world's leading and most prosperous democracy, we have millions of children and young adults walking around without health insurance.

A sad reflection of how ominous the absence of health care insurance can be is the death of a 16-year-old boy in Maryland who died from infections caused by an abscessed tooth because his family had no health insurance to seek medical care.

Mr. Speaker, in the next few weeks, we'll address the reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, which is a vital Federal program which allows States to target and cover low- income children with no health insurance and families with incomes above the Medicaid eligibility levels.

Almost 90 percent of these children live in households with a working parent. More than half live in two-family households. Many of these children are actually eligible for coverage under SCHIP or Medicaid but are not enrolled due in large part to barriers to enrollment in programs and complex eligibility rules that make it difficult to obtain or keep coverage. Millions more children are underinsured or at risk of losing coverage if their parents change jobs or if employers drop health coverage for families.

Mr. Speaker, we need to do more than just renew SCHIP. We need to expand it so that it adequately covers every uninsured child living in the United States.

Early and preventive screening, diagnosis and treatment, EPSDT, which would include services such as dental, vision and mental health services should be available to all children. EPSDT is the current requirement under Medicaid to make sure that the health needs of children are being met, and we should bring this requirement to SCHIP.

Coverage for low-income pregnant women. We need to make sure that women are receiving the necessary prenatal care needed to ensure that infants have a healthy start in life.

Presumptive eligibility. We need a unified application system for SCHIP. There are many social services programs, such as reduced or free school lunch, that have eligibility requirements clearly more restrictive than SCHIP. So if a child is eligible for such a program, it is a virtual certainty that he's also eligible for SCHIP.

The problem arises that States do not presume eligibility, and parents are required to fill out different applications in different offices, often with the exact same information, just to access the services they obviously qualify for.

A commonsense solution would be to streamline the application process for SCHIP and other programs so that if you're enrolled in another social service program, you should not have to fill out another application just to get health care benefits. Money to promote the streamlining of this process should be included in the reauthorization of SCHIP.

Mr. Speaker, there is an urgent need for expanded health care coverage for children, and that's why I introduced H.R. 1688, the All Healthy Children's Act. That act has been endorsed by the Children's Defense Fund. It's a logical, smart, and achievable incremental next step to close the child coverage gap and guarantees that all children will have access to health care coverage that they need to survive, thrive, and learn.

This proposal will ensure that all children are covered by expanding the coverage of both Medicaid and SCHIP programs, while eliminating the procedural red tape that currently prevents children from being covered by either program. The comprehensive program would include all basic health care, as well as coverage for mental health and prenatal care.

Mr. Speaker, the United States health care system has yet to solve the fundamental challenge, delivering health care coverage to all Americans at an affordable price. The tragedy is that we know what to do to fix the problem once and for all. And what is required is a national health care system with universal access to comprehensive prevention-oriented benefits. And it is time to take action, and we should start with our children by passing the All Healthy Children's Act.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the College Cost Reduction Act and the rule which makes in order the manager's amendment to the bill. I would like to thank Chairman Miller and Subcommittee Chairman Hinojosa for their work on this bill.

We know that higher education is crucial, not only to the individual but also to our Nation. We know, for example, that the more you learn, the more you earn. We know that those who are in college are much less likely to be involved with welfare, much less likely to be involved in crime. Education is critical for our national economy. We know that the economic future of the United States depends on the success of our higher education policy.

We live in a high-tech, high-information economy, so the number of college students that we have will be an important economic resource. We can't afford to have any of our children fail to achieve full potential because they were not able to afford to go to college.

There are many improvements in the bill. The cost of education through student loans will be made more affordable. There are significant increases in Pell Grants. One of the major increases, the first in the last 4 years, $500 over the next 4 years, will be the increase in the maximum Pell Grant award. We know this is critical, because in the last 6 years, the cost of college education has gone up about 55 percent, but in the last 4 years, the Pell Grant didn't go up at all.

This bill makes significant investments in Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other minority-serving institutions. A significant portion of the students at these colleges and universities are first-generation students. We know they often come from low-income families, so support of these institutions is critical. We know that these colleges offer an opportunity that otherwise would not be there.

This bill also makes improvements in Upward Bound. It provides additional funds for Upward Bound because many qualified Upward Bound programs were not funded this year because the program just ran out of money. Upward Bound focuses on those who have the potential to go to college but may not, just because they don't think they are expected to go to college. This bill makes critical improvements in the Upward Bound program and makes sure that those qualified programs can get funded.

Mr. Speaker, the College Cost Reduction Act will reduce the cost of going to college. It will enable many to go to college that otherwise could not have afforded to go to college. Chairman Miller's amendment makes improvements to the bill, and therefore I support the rule and support the bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Every Student Counts Act. In 2001, Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act with broad bipartisan support. The purpose of No Child Left Behind was to ensure that every student in America could receive a quality education, and over the past 6 years, NCLB has helped shed light on many issues facing our education system today.

However, NCLB has not been without flaw. Certain aspects of the law are difficult to implement or are not having the results that we had hoped for. One of the major shortcomings of NCLB is the law's failure to hold schools accountable for dropouts. Although we believed we addressed this issue in the original NCLB legislation, this portion of the law has not been implemented as we had hoped. Instead, under current law, the only meaningful accountability standard for high schools is students' scores on assessments, not how many students graduate or drop out of school. Unfortunately, this myopic accountability standard has created an incentive for high schools to push out students who are struggling academically, so that their tests scores are not counted in the assessments. Furthermore, the current accountability system also has allowed states to report graduation rates inconsistently and in misleading ways. Finally, NCLB does not require the disaggregation of graduation rates by subgroup, leading to incomplete data on how our schools are doing with all students.

This current high school accountability system is failing both our students and our Nation. Almost one-third of all high school students in the United States fail to graduate with their peers--about 1.2 million every year. In Virginia alone, each year nearly 24,000 students do not graduate with their peers. But the numbers are worse for minorities--only about 50 percent of African American students and 60 percent of Hispanic students graduate on time with a regular diploma, compared to 75 percent of whites.

These numbers only show the tip of the iceberg. Research shows that each dropout, over his or her lifetime, costs the Nation approximately $260,000. At the current rate, more than 12 million students will drop out over the next decade resulting in a loss to the nation of $3 trillion. Statistics also show that high school dropouts are more likely to be on public assistance programs--such as welfare--than students who complete high school. If high school dropouts do find employment, they are much more likely to work at unskilled jobs that offer little opportunity for upward mobility or promotions. Indeed, the median earnings of high school dropouts remain between $20,000 and $30,000 throughout their lives with little increase as they get older. Unfortunately, there is also a relationship between high school dropouts and prison; one estimate states that approximately two-thirds of all prisoners are high school dropouts. In one study in my home state of Virginia, 75 percent of the inmates serving life sentences were found to have reading achievement levels of 4th grade or worse.

Madam Speaker, the large number of dropouts in America's school system is also troubling in terms of America's position in the global economy. The globalization of the marketplace has altered the way the United States and other countries have to compete for business. With the rapid development of the global marketplace, the United States is no longer the single dominant country in the world economy. And in this economy, one of the major competitive advantages we have in America is our advantage in education. We certainly can't compete with other countries with lower wages when many around the world may work for a few dollars or even pennies a day. Nor can we compete in terms of location. Products can be made anywhere and shipped to customers anywhere else overnight. The technology of today--fax machines, cell phones, blackberries and wireless Internet--allows any

worker who can work across the hall to work across the globe. One of the main reasons businesses still want to locate in America is because we have well-educated workers. Because of this need for well-educated workers to keep our country competitive, we can't allow--or afford-- people to drop out and not reach their full potential.

I am therefore introducing the Every Student Counts Act to bring meaningful accountability to high schools for America's dropout crisis. The legislation builds on the National Governors Association's Graduation Rate Compact, which was signed by all 50 of the Nation's governors in 2005. It would ensure that schools are held accountable for graduating students by creating a single, accurate, and consistent measurement for reporting and accountability of high school graduation rates. The Every Student Counts Act would require high schools to increase their graduation rates by meeting annual, research-based benchmarks with the long-term goal of reaching a 90 percent graduation rate. The bill would also require the disaggregation of graduation data by subgroup to ensure that schools are held accountable for increasing the graduation rate for all of our students. Finally, the bill would give schools credit for graduating students who need extra time by allowing students who graduate in 5 years to count toward a school's successful graduation rates.

It is my hope that with this bill, we can make great strides toward graduating more of America's students and preparing them to succeed in college and in life. I would like to thank Ruben Hinojosa, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness and an original cosponsor of this bill, for his support. I encourage my colleagues to become cosponsors of this critical legislation and hope that we will see it become law during the 110th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2286, the Bail Bond Fairness Act of 2007. The legislation was introduced by Representative Wexler and Representative Keller on May 10 of this year and largely mirrors several other bipartisan bills introduced in the last three Congresses.

Historically, bail has been issued for the sole purpose of ensuring a defendant's appearance in court as ordered. In recent years, however, Federal judges have ordered bail bonds forfeited even when the defendants, in fact, appear in court, but they have violated collateral conditions of pretrial release.

Although actual bail forfeitures of bonds for violating collateral conditions are rare, and one of the reasons is that bail bonds, in fact, are rare, one reason cited is that some Federal judges now allow defendants to deposit their own funds in amounts that would be equal to the premium of a commercial bond underwriter, making the commercial bond unnecessary. Even so, the practice of attaching ancillary conditions to the issuance of a bond has created a barrier to pretrial release, because the risk of bond forfeiture has forced many commercial bond underwriters to avoid the Federal system altogether.

We find that commercial bond underwriters will opt to offer their services to defendants in the State system where a risk of loss is lower because they only have to be concerned about the defendant's appearance, not his behavior, or where they also maintain that friends and family of defendants are reluctant to post a bond for defendants because they cannot risk their homes or life savings based on a person's behavior. They may be able to risk it assuming he will show up in court.

H.R. 2286 would return the use of bail bonds to the historic purpose of limiting a judge's authority to order a bond forfeited to a defendant's failure to appear physically in court. It is important to note that the bill does preserve a judge's authority to impose conditions of release and to revoke the pretrial release and order pretrial custody, should a defendant violate any conditions of pretrial release. But so long as a defendant actually appears in court, the bond should not be revoked.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 923) to establish an Unsolved Crimes Section in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, and an Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Investigative Office in the Civil Rights Unit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time on this side.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 923, the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act of 2007. This important bill enjoys wide bipartisan and bicameral support. The bill will assist Federal, State, and local governments with the important task of solving unsolved civil rights-era crimes.

Mr. Speaker, at the recent joint hearing held by the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security and the Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, we heard from six excellent witnesses. The most moving of these were Mrs. Myrlie Evers Williams and Mrs. Rita Schwerner Bender, both of whose husbands the Ku Klux Klan assassinated because of the import civil rights work they were doing. The Klan assassinated Medgar Evers on June 12, 1963, and Michael Schwerner on June 21, 1964. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) has asked us to take up this act now because it coincides with the anniversary of these two important events. In both cases it took government authorities decades before the killers were convicted of these brutal murders.

Unfortunately, these cases were not isolated incidents. There are dozens of cases, probably hundreds, like these, some of which have never been acknowledged, investigated, or prosecuted. Indeed, we don't even know how many people were murdered during the 1950s and 1960s, because retaliation was so common that many families did not dare report that their loved ones had been murdered. The FBI has identified more than 100 cold cases that should be investigated and, when possible, charges should be brought against the accused killers.

I support H.R. 923 because it will hold the Department of Justice and the FBI accountable for following through on these investigations and prosecutions. The act requires the Attorney General to appoint a specific high-ranking employee in each agency to be accountable for this work. The act also requires the Department of Justice to report to Congress annually on the progress it has made towards solving these cases, and the first such report is due 6 months after the bill becomes law.

Lastly, the bill authorizes funds to the Department of Justice, the FBI, and when appropriate, State and local enforcement agencies, to investigate and prosecute these cases.

The FBI has already made a start in investigating these cases when it kicked off the Cold Cases Campaign in February of 2006 and expanded on this campaign in February 2007 when it solicited assistance from major civil rights organizations. However, there is still much more work that needs to be done, and Federal resources are necessary to do it. H.R. 923 will provide these necessary resources.

I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus to discuss the important issue of education. Obtaining an education is critical for today's youth. An individual's prosperity and quality of life will be directly affected by the education they receive.

We all know the phrase, ``The more you learn, the more you earn.'' In addition to increased earnings, individuals with higher levels of education are less likely to be unemployed, less likely to need public assistance, and less likely to become involved in the criminal justice system.

Mr. Speaker, today's communities will also benefit by increased education. Those communities will suffer lower crime rates, have fewer people on welfare, and will benefit from a better economy.

In fact, we have found that in this global economy, our competitive advantage is in education because we can't compete on wages. There are people in countries around the world who work for pennies and a few dollars a day. We're not going to compete with that.

We can't compete because people don't have to be in the United States to work. If you can work with your coworkers from across the hall, you can work with your coworkers across the globe. All you need is a cell phone, a computer and a modem, a fax machine, you can work anywhere in the world.

You don't need to be close to your customers. You can manufacture your goods anywhere and send them anywhere else in the world almost overnight.

And you don't need to be in the United States to finance a new plant. Used to be you had to be here to finance a plant. With worldwide banking you can have that plant located anywhere in the world.

The competitive advantage we have is the fact that businesses know that they can get well-educated and well-trained workers if they locate in the United States. But unfortunately, we're losing that competitive advantage.

In a recent measure of high school achievement, we found that students in the United States ranked below dozens of other countries in math and science. And so we're losing that competitive advantage. And the Education and Labor Committee is, therefore, focused on improving our international standing.

Earlier this year, the House passed the bill to renew the Head Start program with renewed emphasis on early Head Start. These programs are critical to getting our children on the right path early in life and the earlier, the better. At the K-12 level, the committee is also working towards renewing the No Child Left Behind Act. We will be addressing issues in that bill, for example, finding ways to meaningfully measure and reduce the achievement gap; ensuring that all students have access to high-quality teachers, and to effectively improve those schools which fail to make adequate yearly progress.

One of the most critical issues that must be addressed in No Child Left Behind is the fact that approximately one-third of all high school students in the United States fail to graduate with their peers. And in some communities, as many as half of the students fail to graduate and find themselves on the path to hopelessness.

The Education and Labor Committee will also consider renewing the Higher Education Act, which is primarily focused on access to college. Last year, approximately 1 million qualified students did not go to college because they could not afford the cost. Since the 2001/2002 school year, tuition at a public 4-year college has risen 55 percent. But during that same period the maximum Pell Grant only went up about 8 percent, and in the last 4 years didn't go up at all.

Unfortunately, this means that many of today's students, unlike previous

generations, are being denied the opportunity to live to their fullest potential because they were denied the opportunity of a college education.

This year, the Education and Labor Committee is leading legislation that will significantly improve access to college with improved Pell Grants and cuts in student loans.

So, Mr. Speaker, education affects many issues that we deal with: economic competitiveness, crime and welfare. And so I'd like to thank the gentlelady from Michigan, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, Ms. Kilpatrick, for organizing the effort to focus on education tonight.

Madam Speaker, today I am proud to stand before this chamber and introduce the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2007. This bill was first introduced in the Senate by my friend and fellow Virginia colleague, Senator Jim Webb, earlier this year.

Not since Pearl Harbor has a single event so shaped a generation until the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Like Pearl Harbor, September 11th became a call to arms for many Americans to join the Armed Forces.

For the 15 million veterans who returned home from World War II, Congress passed the first G.I. Bill of Rights of 1944. The first G.I. Bill helped veterans readjust to civilian life and afforded them the opportunity to do something that many had missed out on--getting a college education. That first G.I. Bill paid for veterans' tuition, books, fees, room and board, and even provided them a monthly stipend. Approximately 7.8 million World War II veterans used the benefits in the G.I. Bill of 1944 to increase their quality of life through education.

After World War II, Congress passed several other G.I. Bills to provide educational benefits for veterans returning home from the Korean War and the Vietnam War. Since the Vietnam War, Congress passed two G.I. Bills that established peacetime educational benefits for members of the all volunteer Armed Services. Although the current Montgomery G.I. Bill of 1985 provides peacetime educational benefits, the current program was not designed to meet the needs of our current global situation--a situation in which several hundred thousand men and woman in uniform are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have strained our entire all- volunteer military, forcing many of our Reservist and National Guard units into extended tours of duty. Many of our men and women in the Army, Air Force, Navy, and the Marine Corps have served more than one tour of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.

With hundreds of thousands of our brave men and woman currently fighting overseas in Afghanistan and Iraq, we need a new G.I. Bill to honor these veterans when they all finally return home. The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2007 is designed to expand the educational benefits that our nation offers to our brave men and women who have served us so honorably and who have sacrificed so much since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The bill that I am introducing today is designed to give this generation, who took it upon themselves to enlist after 9/11, benefits very similar to those provided to the veterans of World War II.

Madam Speaker, the bill that I am introducing today would specifically increase educational benefits to members of the military who have served at least 2 years of active duty, with at least some period of active duty time served beginning on or after September 11, 2001. Veterans will be eligible to receive these benefits for no more than 36 months or 4 academic years and would have 15 years to exercise these benefits. The version of this legislation that I am introducing today limits benefit payments to the cost of the most expensive public institution in the state in which the veteran is enrolled. If the veteran chooses to attend a private institution, the veteran must pay the difference between the cost of the college of his or her choice and the most expensive public institution of the state in which the veteran is enrolled. Like the G.I. Bill of 1944, the Post-9/11 G.I. bill will pay for tuition, books, fees, room and board, and provide a monthly stipend of $1,000.

Madam Speaker, while in law school, I was privileged to serve in the Massachusetts National Guard and the U.S. Army Reserves. I fortunately was never called into active duty, but the circumstances of our global situation today have pulled thousands of Guard and Reservists out of college into active duty. I am proud to represent the Third Congressional District of Virginia which is home to thousands of military personnel. You can't go very far in my district without running into a military installation or a member of our Armed Forces. I see the sacrifices of our men and women and their families each and every time I return home.

Madam Speaker, it is time that we pass a G.I. Bill on the same scale of the first G.I. Bill that was passed at the end of World War II to meet the sacrifices of this generation. I am pleased to join Senator Webb by introducing the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2007 in the House today and I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1525, the Internet Spyware (I- SPY) Prevention Act of 2007. I would like to commend Congresswoman Lofgren and Congressman Goodlatte for developing the legislation and moving the bill on a bipartisan basis. Earlier this month the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security held a hearing and markup on the bill and reported it favorably to the full committee.

The bill amends title 18, U.S. Code, to impose criminal penalties on those who use spyware to perpetrate identity theft and numerous other privacy intrusions on innocent Internet users. The bill also provides resources and guidance to the Department of Justice for the prosecution of these offenses.

The bill is narrowly aimed at the practices of using ``spyware'' and ``phishing'' to harm consumers. Recent studies estimate that 80 percent of computers are infected with some form of spyware and that 89 percent of consumers are unaware of the fact that they have spyware. The greatest security and privacy challenges posed by spyware relate to technologies such as keystroke logging programs that capture a user's passwords, Social Security, or account numbers. This information can then be redirected for criminal purposes including fraud, larceny, identity theft, or other cyber crimes.

This bill combats spyware by clarifying that it is a crime, punishable for up to 5 years in prison, to intentionally access a computer without authorization by causing a computer program or code to be copied onto a computer and then using that program or code in furtherance of another Federal criminal offense. The bill also provides fines or imprisonment up to 2 years for anyone who, through means of that program or code, intentionally obtains, or transmits to another, personal information with the intent to defraud or injure a person.

The bill also authorizes funds to combat ``phishing.'' Phishing is a general term for using what appears to others to be either the Web site of, or e-mails from, well-known, legitimate businesses in an attempt to deceive Internet users into revealing their personal information. Phishing is adequately covered by the criminal code under existing Federal wire fraud or identity theft statutes, but additional funds are needed to prosecute the crime. This bill would authorize $10 million for each of the fiscal years 2008-2011 to combat phishing and spyware.

I would also like to note that the Energy and Commerce Committee is considering a bill on this subject as well. But that bill lacks the criminal penalty enforcement mechanism in this bill and in its place imposes a regulatory scheme which focuses on the uses of technology rather than the perpetrators of crimes. My concern is such a regulatory regime may unavoidably sweep in legitimate uses of the technology.

The I-SPY Prevention Act is a strong bill that protects consumers by providing criminal penalties for egregious behavior. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1615, the Securing Aircraft Cockpits Against Lasers Act of 2007. And I want to thank Chairman Conyers for holding a markup and moving the bill through the full committee. I would also like to thank our colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), who has been instrumental in bringing attention to this issue. Congressman Keller introduced this bill in the 109th Congress. I joined him in cosponsoring the bill then, and I continue to support the legislation now.

The purpose of the bill is to address the problem of individuals aiming lasers at cockpits of aircraft, and this is particularly troublesome since it will usually occur at the critical stages of take- off and landing. This practice obviously constitutes a threat to aviation security and passenger safety. The bill adds a section following title 18, U.S. Code, section 38, to impose criminal penalties upon any individual who knowingly aims a laser pointer at an aircraft within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States.

The penalties impose imprisonment up to 5 years in prison.

Research from the FAA has shown that laser illuminations can temporarily disorient or disable a pilot during critical stages of flight, such as taking off and landing, and in some cases may cause permanent injury to the pilot. For example, in 2004, a laser aimed at an airplane flying over Salt Lake City injured the eye of one of the plane's pilots. In January, 2005, responding to concerns regarding this escalating problem, the FAA issued an advisory to pilots instructing them to immediately report laser beams directed at their aircraft.

The House passed similar legislation in the 109th Congress. The Senate did, also. The legislation placed a provision in title 49, the Transportation title, and included a different level of intent. The House and Senate were unable to agree on a compromise version before the end of the 109th Congress. This version represents a compromise between the House and the Senate from the last Congress.

Although I have some concern that when the bill is applied it might involve some misguided young person fooling around with a laser beam, I realize that the conduct the bill prohibits can be dangerous, so it must be strongly discouraged. Since the bill does not have mandatory minimum sentencing, the Sentencing Commission and the courts can apply appropriate punishment for violators based on the facts and circumstances of the individual case.

After the bill is passed, as a further precautionary step, the appropriate committee of jurisdiction should consider requiring manufacturers of laser products to issue strong notices and warnings on the items and packaging regarding the provision of this law to put users on notice.

Mr. Speaker, I think passing this bill is an appropriate step for Congress to address this potentially dangerous problem. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding, and I thank him for including my amendment in the en bloc amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the defense authorization bill is a tremendous undertaking and I would like to commend Chairman Skelton and his Committee for their hard work. My amendment would simply insert findings that Modeling, Analysis and Simulation Technology is an important tool that ought to be utilized to the utmost by the Department of Defense.

Modeling and Simulation has become an essential component in ensuring that we meet both the defense and domestic challenges of the 21st century. It allows us to build and develop models of complex systems-- whether it be a car, an airplane, an entire battlefield, or even a major city's evacuation plan. By doing this, we can easily and effectively sharpen the tools, procedures, and decisions needed to address difficult and complex problems. Determining how certain actions will affect the end result before implementing the plan in real life provides strategic, tactical and financial benefits. These simulations help us develop better and practical analogies of real world situations.

With the growing international challenges of the 21st century, this technology is vital to the defense of our great Nation. The practical uses of Modeling, Analysis and Simulation technology as a training tool are boundless. Military and airline pilots have been using this technology for decades. Now, simulating battlefield conditions will sharpen the skills of the brave men and women serving in our armed forces. And it is my firm belief that Congress should be interested in using this technology for defense, homeland security, disaster preparedness, and other ways to benefit the public. Every effort should be made to include Modeling, Analysis and Simulation Technology in the training and planning doctrines of the Department of Defense. This amendment is a step in that direction.

The power of modeling, analysis and simulation technology can be particularly useful in urban areas. The fact is that current and future military operations, and emergency management of natural and manmade disasters, do and will continue to involve operations in highly complex, urban environments; we are no longer engaging in traditional battlefield operations. These urban environments include complex geographical, communications, transportation, informational, social, political, and public support subsystems. The interdependence of these subsystems and the cascading effects of warfare or disasters imposed upon them should be modeled in a computer simulation environment. This will help us prepare for emergency consequence management of military, natural and manmade disasters in complex urban environments.

Using modeling, analysis, and simulation technology in the fields of national defense, science, homeland security and disaster planning will better the lives of all Americans, make our Nation safer and save time and

money in the process. I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 1 o'clock and 33 minutes a.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, May 14, 2007, at 10:30 a.m., for morning-hour debate.