Ric Keller

Mr. KELLER of Florida

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

Mr. KELLER of Florida

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

Mr. KELLER of Florida

Mr. KELLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, prior to 1986, the district court appointed interim U.S. attorneys to fill vacancies until a replacement could be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. In 1986, the process was changed to authorize the Attorney General to appoint an interim U.S. attorney for 120 days. After 120 days, the district court would appoint an interim to serve until the Senate confirmed a permanent replacement. Last year, Congress addressed concerns that allowing the judiciary to appoint the prosecutors before their court created a conflict of interest. The PATRIOT Act reauthorization eliminated the 120-day time limit for an executive-appointed interim to serve, and eliminated the authority for the district court to appoint an interim. S. 214 returns the authority of the judiciary to appoint interim U.S. attorneys if a permanent replacement is not confirmed within 120 days. Mr. Speaker, it is fairly obvious that the motivation behind this legislation was the dismissal of several U.S. attorneys earlier this year. Congress has been investigating the circumstances surrounding those dismissals for several months now. Notwithstanding the heated political rhetoric from some of my colleagues, this investigation has turned up no evidence of criminal wrongdoing or obstruction of justice. Let me just try to lay this issue out as fairly as I can. Some of my colleagues still have concerns about allowing a judge to appoint the prosecutors before their court because they feel that is a conflict of interest. On the other hand, some of my equally smart colleagues have suggested that we should return to the way interim U.S. attorneys were appointed for 20 years, from 1986 to 2006, before the recent PATRIOT Act changes, to ensure that the process is not used to circumvent the Senate confirmation process. The House Judiciary Committee has held hearings on this matter. We held a markup on the companion legislation, H.R. 580. The Justice Department does not object to this legislation, and I will be supporting it myself personally. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. KELLER of Florida

Mr. KELLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is painfully obvious to the American people that the price of gasoline is going up. The nationwide average for regular, unleaded gas is at a record $3.20 a gallon, according to AAA, up almost 34 cents from a month ago, and the peak summer driving season hasn't even started yet. The American people are mad as heck, and they don't want to take it anymore. To heck with OPEC. How about NOPEC? That's what this legislation is all about. Last week, the Antitrust Task Force of the House Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, held a hearing on prices at the pump, market failure, and the oil industry. The experts at this hearing, including the Connecticut attorney general, Mr. Blumenthal, insisted we do something about the OPEC cartel. The price of gasoline at the pump closely tracks the price of a barrel of oil on the world oil market. That is because the price of crude oil comprises 56 percent of the cost of a gallon of gasoline. American refineries, which import over 60 percent of their oil from foreign countries, compete for those oil resources with China and India. Demand for oil in those two countries has dramatically increased in recent years. As the demand has increased at home and abroad, supplies have not kept up and the price of oil has gone up. Complicating this problem is the fact that we haven't built a refinery in this country in 30 years. And recent, unexpected refinery shutdowns have constricted supply. Of course, there are also anticompetitive forces in play that manipulate the law of supply and demand to their selfish benefit and our detriment. For example, the world oil price is dictated mainly by the quantity of oil that the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC, is willing to supply. The 11 current OPEC members account for 40 percent of the world oil production and about two-thirds of the world's proven oil reserves. Most would argue that the presence of this cartel, controlled in large part by totalitarian or hostile regimes like Iran and Venezuela, is not helpful. The question is: What can Congress do about it? NOPEC is one possible solution to this problem. Because of the ``act of state'' doctrine and the concept of sovereign immunity, Americans are precluded from suing the cartel that controls a good portion of the world's oil supply. This bill would change that. Under this NOPEC legislation, the U.S. Attorney General would be allowed to bring an antitrust lawsuit against the oil cartel members for collusion, price fixing, and other anticompetitive activities designed to gouge American consumers. I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) for their leadership on this NOPEC legislation. I would point out, in the interest of straight talk, that the White House this morning issued a statement saying that the President will veto the NOPEC legislation. I would point out that they misspelled the word ``President'' in this release; President is spelled P-R-E-S-E-N-T. Apparently, the White House cares even less about spell-check than they do about OPEC with regard to this matter. I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do something about OPEC's price fixing misbehavior and vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2264. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KELLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) who is the lead Republican cosponsor of NOPEC and has worked hard on this legislation for 3 years.

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

Mr. KELLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I'm prepared to close. Let me just say this. Gas prices are at a record high, and Hugo Chavez is laughing all the way to the bank. Coddling and jawboning leaders like Mr. Chavez of Venezuela has not worked. If you are serious about doing something about OPEC's price-fixing misbehavior, then please vote ``yes'' on NOPEC and allow us to bring antitrust lawsuits against these oil cartel members for collusion, price fixing and other anticompetitive activities that continue to gouge American consumers. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on NOPEC. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KELLER of Florida

Mr. KELLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 1104 expands an existing program that provides 50 special immigrant visas per year to Iraqi and Afghani nationals who have served as translators for our Armed Forces. Translators and interpreters would be eligible to petition if they are an Iraqi or an Afghani national, have served with our military for at least 12 months, and receive a favorable recommendation from the unit in which he or she served. Many of us have heard stories about Iraqis who have faithfully served alongside our troops bridging the language divide. They have been a valuable resource for the United States and its allies. Yet many Iraqi and Afghani translators have faced intense persecution from their communities as a result of serving the U.S. military. It is because of this persecution that the translator visa program was first established. This program allows us to reward those who worked directly for the United States Government in supporting our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. S. 1104, as amended in committee, increases the number of special immigrant visas available to translators to 500 per year for the next 2 years. The increase to 500 visas is a direct response to the number of petitions that have been received and approved by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Without this increase, many translators will continue to face persecution while they wait in their home country for a visa to become available. This bill has already been approved unanimously in the Senate, and I urge its passage here today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KELLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), who is the sponsor of the companion House version of this legislation and has been a leader in the House on this important issue.

Mr. KELLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

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

Mr. KELLER of Florida

Mr. KELLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss H.R. 2399, Alien Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. Let me address a few basic issues about this legislation. First of all, what is alien smuggling? What is the existing law? What are the changes that we're proposing? And what, if any, are the problems that we need to fix with regard to this issue of alien smuggling? Well, let's begin with what is alien smuggling. Alien smuggling is the process whereby people often known as ``coyotes'' take someone from a country like Mexico and sneak them in, often under the cover of darkness, into the United States for an average fee currently of approximately $1,500 per person. It requires specialized skills; and folks often feel that they can't come over, say, from Mexico to California and bypass all the border security agents without having a coyote or alien smuggler to help them. So they often have their family members pay the $1,500 fee. I wanted to know more about this, so I personally went to the San Diego-Mexico border and spent a week traveling around at 2, 3 in the morning with Border Patrol agents as they arrested illegals and alien smugglers as they came across the border. And I learned from the Border Patrol agents that their biggest frustration is that they have arrested the same alien smugglers more than 20 times. In fact, the agents I met with were so demoralized they had what's called a wall of shame. And it's hard to see from where you sit, Mr. Speaker, but this is a wall showing over 200 photographs of alien smugglers who they have repeatedly arrested, some of them more than 20 times, such as Antonio Amparo Lopez. And it is currently the law that if you smuggle someone into the United States for financial gain you will be sent to Federal prison for a minimum of 3 years. And yet, agent after agent told me they arrest the same people and they weren't prosecuted by the local San Diego prosecutor. Well, the existing law, 3 years mandatory minimum if you smuggle someone into the United States. What does this bill do? It keeps the existing law at 3 years for smuggling someone in for financial gain, but adds some newer, stiffer penalties for certain people that you bring in. For example, if a smuggler brings someone in who is a known terrorist, then instead of being a mandatory 3 years in prison, you could be subjected to up to 30 years in prison. And here is the challenge that I want to talk a little bit about this issue and why it's so important: When Attorney General Gonzales came before the Judiciary Committee on April 6, 2006, I relayed to him the story that I just relayed to you, Mr. Speaker, about the problems with these alien smugglers not being prosecuted. I happen to have a transcript, and I said on April 6 to the Attorney General, ``The pathetic failure of your U.S. attorney in San Diego to prosecute alien smugglers who have been arrested 20 times is a demoralizing slap in the face to Border Patrol agents who risk their lives every day. It also undermines the credibility that you and President Bush have when you talk tough about enforcing laws. And it renders meaningless the laws this Congress passes to crack down on alien smugglers.'' Then I asked him, ``What, if anything, will you do to see that the U.S. attorney in San Diego prosecutes these alien smugglers, at least those that have been repeatedly arrested by Border Patrol agents?'' This is what the Attorney General said: ``I'm aware of what you're talking about with respect to the San Diego situation and we are looking into it. We're asking all U.S. attorneys, particularly those on the southern border to do more, quite frankly. We need to be doing more. ``But the U.S. attorneys along the southern border tell me that the existing law regarding alien smugglers could be tighter. There is a discussion and debate now about what the language should be. No one wants to prosecute those who are engaged in Good Samaritan activities. We are looking into the situation in San Diego, and we are directing that our U.S. attorneys do more because you're right; if people are coming across the border repeatedly, particularly those who are coyotes and they're smugglers or they're criminals or felons, they ought to be prosecuted.'' Now, I bring this up because there happen to be a few of us in Congress, and I happen to be one, who are pretty familiar with this issue of alien smuggling, familiar enough, having been there and talked with the Attorney General, talked with the Border Patrol agents. But we didn't have any input to this legislation. I have the bill before us that we are debating. This is the last version, the one we're debating on. And the date on it is May 22, at 1:35 p.m. It is now 3:40 p.m. It's as thick as a small town phone book, and yet we've only had it for a couple of hours. There have been no hearings. No subcommittee markup. No full committee markup. Now, I'm not someone who usually gets up and complains about process, but this is an example where someone like me and others of the committee could have been quite helpful if we had had hearings, could have had a markup. There are a couple of major flaws in this bill that I'll talk about. And I say this in good spirit. I'm going to actually vote for this bill because I think your intentions are correct. But let me just give you two examples. First, if you help smuggle in a terrorist, you can go to jail for up to 30 years. Under the language of this bill, you have to show that the smuggler knew that the person was a terrorist and knew that he intended to engage in terrorist activities. Now, you don't have to be Johnny Cochran to successfully defend a defendant in that particular case. The standard is just almost impossible for a prosecutor to prove. For example, let's say that you have Mohammad Atta on the stand, and he's just been detained by a Border Patrol agent and we want to apply this new provision. If I was the defense attorney, my first question to the Border Patrol agent would be, Mr. Border Patrol Agent, you've arrested my client. You want to send him to prison for 30 years. Did Mr. Atta show you his al Qaeda ID card? No? Did Mr. Atta show you the picture that he has with Bin Laden and his family? No? Did he show you some videotape showing him on the monkey bars in the Afghanistan training camps? No? Well, if not, how do you know with mathematical certainty that this guy is a terrorist? It's almost impossible to prove. That's an example of something we could have fixed during the markup, saying, if you brought this person into the country for financial gain and he's a member of the terrorist watch list, we're going to give you an enhanced sentence up to 30 years. But we didn't have that chance because there was no markup. Another thing that's flawed is, it doesn't fix the Good Samaritan exception. There's language in this bill that talks about Good Samaritans. Specifically, it says it is a defense, if you are arrested for a religious organization or one of its members to provide room, board, travel, medical assistance or other basic living expenses. That's the situation of a nun, for example, helping someone who's going to die out there in the 110-degree heat. We all believe that that should be provided. But I read you the transcript of the Attorney General; he said, because this Good Samaritan exception needs to be tightened, and it does. For example, under this law, because you didn't talk with us about fixing it, if you are a member of the Red Cross or you're a member of the United Way, which is not religious affiliated, you could still be prosecuted. Now, none of us wants that to happen. My point is, as this bill moves forward, I'm willing to support it because I support the intent behind it. I support getting tough with alien smugglers. But the bottom line is, we need to fix this in conference. We need to work with Republicans and Democrats to include our input to make sure that at the end the day we have a much better bill that we can be proud of. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. KELLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. KELLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. KELLER of Florida

Mr. KELLER of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be the lead Republican original cosponsor of this legislation which will reauthorize the COPS program and put 50,000 more cops on our streets. The COPS program is responsible for putting nearly 120,000 cops on the streets nationwide, including 774 cops in central Florida. Violent crime is on the rise, and we need this legislation now more than ever. For example, in my hometown of Orlando, Florida, the murder rate is up 122 percent. I recently met with all of central Florida's chiefs of police and sheriffs, and 100 percent of them support the COPS program. This legislation is also endorsed by the National Sheriffs Association and the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Is the COPS program successful? Absolutely. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft described the COPS program as a ``miraculous sort of success.'' A 2005 GAO study concluded that the COPS program successfully played a role in the decline in violent crime in the 1990s. And more than 95 percent of law enforcement officers hired by a COPS grant are still on the street today. Now, some might say that putting cops on the street is not a priority worth funding with Federal dollars. Well, I would rather put cops on the street than build bridges to nowhere or give subsidies to spinach growers. Let's be practical. There are children in Orlando, Florida, growing up in neighborhoods where 49 people were killed last year. Those kids want to be able to walk home from school safely and play in their neighborhoods without fear. These kids don't care if the cops' salary is paid for with purely local funds or a mixture of local and Federal funds. They just want to feel safe. This legislation is a step in the right direction. I want to thank the cosponsor of this legislation, Congressman Anthony Weiner, for his leadership and strong support of the COPS program. He and I worked together earlier to get $70 million added in the supplemental. Some have said that some Republicans are new to this. I can assure you that I've been an original cosponsor of this bill ever since I got here to Congress. If I can quote L.L. Cool Jay, the rapper: ``Don't call it a comeback; I've been here for years.'' This COPS legislation was approved by the Judiciary Committee by a full voice vote and is worthy of our bipartisan support. I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 1700.

Mr. KELLER of Florida

Mr. KELLER of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I appreciate the Freudian slip by Congressman Chairman Miller. I still am Republican. I am reminded every day when my parking space is now out in Maryland that I'm a Member of the minority party here. I rise today in support of the Student Loan Sunshine Act, H.R. 890, for three specific reasons. First, this legislation fully includes legislation that I authored called the One-Stop Financial Aid Information Act, H.R. 1522, which creates an easy-to-use one-stop Web site for students and their families about financial aid information for college, including information about Pell Grants, student loans and scholarships offered by various Federal agencies. Far too many young people give up on their chance to go to college because they lack information about the various grants and scholarships available to them. Now they will have all this information right there at their fingertips as a result of an easy-to- access link right there on the home page of ed.gov. I want to especially thank Congressman Henry Cuellar of Texas. It was Congressman Cuellar who actually conceived of this idea and shared it with me on a codel that he and I had to Iraq based on his positive experience with a similar Web site in Texas, and he is a coauthor of this provision. The second reason I support this legislation is because it specifically includes a financial aid code of conduct that must be adopted by colleges; and that language is taken out of the bill authored by Congressman Buck McKeon called the Financial Aid Accountability and Transparency Act, H.R. 1994. In a nutshell, it provides that there shall be no conflicts of interests, gifts or revenue sharing between lenders and colleges or their employees. The third reason I support this legislation is because it does not ban preferred lender lists under the market-based FFEL program. Now after the recent student loan scandal, some of which was highlighted by Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York, there was a temptation on a handful of people's part to overreact. Some wanted to abolish or place a moratorium on preferred lender lists. Some even suggested that we switch from the market-based FFEL program to direct lending. This appropriate legislation doesn't contain that overreaction, and I'm proud that it doesn't, and the reason is preferred lender lists play a very positive role when done right. There are literally over a thousand student lenders. Some of those lenders have lower interest rates, low origination fees, more flexible terms for deferring repayments and better customer service. On the other hand, there are lenders that have higher rates and fees, bad customer service and can be characterized as fly-by-night operations. It's pretty hard to tell if you're an 18-year-old kid which lender is which, but if you're a financial aid administrator who has been in the business for two or three decades, you can give some guidance into that issue. This bill specifically allows these preferred lenders to still have a preferred lender list, provided that each college gives a choice of at least three lenders, the college disclose why they were selected as a lender, and the college disclose what terms they remain a lender. That is a pretty fair and appropriate response to the scandals that we have had and a pretty good contrast to what we have with the Federal direct lending program where a college says you only have one lender, it's the Federal Government, and there is no competition for lower fees or rates. In closing, Mr. Speaker, this legislation helps to rein in some of the bad apples in the student loan industry, while preserving the healthy and appropriate competition between the direct lending and FFEL program. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation.

Mr. KELLER of Florida

Mr. KELLER of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the University of Florida's men's basketball team on their second consecutive NCAA, Division I championship. On April 2 of this year, they joined only six other teams in NCAA history to win back-to-back championships. My congratulations also go out to Coach Billy Donovan, who has done a fine job with these young men, not only leading them to back-to-back championships but also for preparing them for what lies ahead in life. The University of Florida is a fine institution with many standout athletes. My home State of Florida and I are tremendously proud of their accomplishments on and off the field. The University of Florida is the only Division I college in history to win the national championship in basketball and football in the same calendar year. In fact, between the Gator championships in basketball and football, I don't think there will be an athlete on campus who has not met the President by the time they graduate. Now, so many of these Gator basketball and football will be heading off to the NBA and NFL where they will have to struggle to make due on their multi-million dollar salaries. The good news for many of these other schools is that a lot of the starters will be moving on. The bad news, of course, is I am hearing they are having their best recruiting classes ever in both football and basketball. Ohio State was such a worthy opponent both in football and basketball and handled themselves with so much class, much praise is warranted to the Buckeye fans as well. Congratulations on a job well done.

Mr. KELLER of Florida

Mr. KELLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today is tax day. Millions of Americans will write big fat checks to Uncle Sam. Who is paying the bill? The top 10 percent of households, families with incomes of $100,000 or more, pay 70 percent of all Federal income taxes. Coincidentally, 70 percent of all the new jobs in America are created by small businessmen. The tax cuts of 2003 have created 7.8 million new jobs and have given us the lowest unemployment rate in four decades. Unfortunately, the Democrat budget proposal contemplates allowing these tax cuts to expire which will give Americans the largest tax increase in history. Under the Democrat tax increase, small businesses will be hurt and 42 million families with children will see their tax bill go up by an average of $2,100. A married couple with two kids making $60,000 will see their taxes go up by 60 percent. On tax day let's remember the hardworking families who are paying the bills to Uncle Sam and oppose all new taxes.

Mr. KELLER

Mr. KELLER. Madam Chairman, I rise today to support the Baker amendment and to oppose the underlying bill, H.R. 720. I had hoped to support this legislation, which would allow States and municipalities to build water treatment plants and other necessary infrastructure. Unfortunately, our friends in the Democratic majority have taken away the rights of States and municipalities by forcing them to comply with Federal Davis-Bacon requirements, which waste taxpayer dollars by inflating construction costs. My state of Florida does not have a state prevailing wage law. This legislation would force small, rural communities in my district and throughout Florida to pay vastly inflated Federal prevailing wages to build these critical infrastructure projects. Studies have shown that Davis-Bacon inflates the cost of construction by up to 38 percent in rural areas. I cannot support imposing the antiquated Davis-Bacon requirements on my local communities--wasting their hard-earned tax dollars on inflated construction costs. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation, and yes to the Baker Amendment.