Chaka Fattah

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, it is an honor to be able to rise in support of the legislation of my colleague. H.R. 4542, which would change the name of the Washington Opera to the National Opera, is a piece of legislation that our side supports wholeheartedly. This opera was born in 1956, which was the year I was born. It has moved from two performances to now over 80 performances a year with an attendance rate of 98 percent or better, and I want to compliment my chairman for offering this legislation. I think it is an appropriate designation to change the name. It is a world-renowned opera; and to have the designation of the National Opera, I think, is most appropriate. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FATTAH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to just reiterate my support for this legislation. This opera raises over $25 million annually in private support, but I do believe that the new designation as provided in this legislation hopefully will provide additional impetus for those who want to support the continuation of a great cultural institution. I want to compliment, again, the gentleman from Pennsylvania and also the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia for this legislation.

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 509. I would like to thank the chairman of the committee for facilitating this legislation's appearance here on the floor, and I would share with him again that we look forward to welcoming the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia. It is the first time our city will be hosting a convention in the last 50 years. Philadelphia is an appropriate place for either of our national parties to meet because it is the founding city of our country in which the document that was referred to earlier, the Declaration of Independence, was penned. Notwithstanding a few people who do not live in our city who may come to a sporting event and not act appropriately, the citizens of our city have agreed that they are going to be Republicans for a whole week when they come for the convention. Then, on this particular legislation, Philadelphia has played and continues to play, a very important role in the development of African- American music from the Philadelphia Sound, and Marian Anderson, and a host of others. This year I have introduced this resolution, particularly in honor of the late great Grover Washington, Jr. and Curtis Mayfield who both have passed, but the contributions of African Americans in the field of music are well known; and they go through all of the different types of music, from gospel to jazz to hip-hop and the like. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the majority, particularly the chairman, for allowing this resolution. It is important because, in this month of June under the leadership of the International African- American Music Association under the leadership of Diana Williams, there will be an important acknowledgment, and this dates back decades now from Jimmy Carter up through President Bill Clinton, acknowledging this month, and I think it is appropriate that the Congress does likewise. I want to thank all of my colleagues and hope for favorable consideration of this resolution.

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

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4241, joining my colleague, the gentleman from the great State of Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan). Les Aspin was a leader here in this Congress for many, many years dealing with issues related to national defense and the Armed Forces, but moreover, was a public servant who provided an extraordinary level of leadership to our Nation. He is someone who, as is obvious by the sponsorship of this bill, who enjoyed respect and support on both sides of the aisle. I would like to compliment the gentleman for the introduction. Madam Speaker, we look forward to favorable, if not unanimous, support for this bill. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 229, and I am again amazed at the multi-talented nature of the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. I was not aware that he also performed in these organizations beyond his work on the committee of setting a national education policy, but he is truly a Renaissance man. Madam Speaker, I support the legislation and the prime sponsor of it, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis). We came to the Congress together, and I hold him in high esteem. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I hope that all of the members of this body had the opportunity to hear Frank Raines, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie Mae speak at the National Press Club--Newsmakers Luncheon on May 12, 2000. I was very impressed when Frank reported that, ``Since 1993, Fannie Mae initiatives have boosted lending to African Americans by 31 percent, and to all minorities by 16 percent. Last year, Fannie Mae alone provided nearly $46 billion in housing finance for over 400,000 minority families.'' While more needs to be done, Fannie Mae is headed in the right direction. I plan to place Frank's speech in today's Record. Mr. Speaker, Fannie Mae has also established new anti-predatory lending policies for the loans it purchases from lenders. According to Frank Raines, ``Predatory lending violates three basic mortgage consumer rights: the right to access suitable mortgage credit; the right to the lowest cost mortgage for which a consumer can qualify; and, the right to know the true cost of a mortgage.'' Mr. Raines continues, ``We at Fannie Mae have an obligation to define the loans we will not buy, and practices we will not support--practices that can have the effect of encouraging predatory lending. Many of these practices such as steering, equity stripping, excessive fees, and prepayment penalties, take away affordable mortgage opportunities from those borrowers who need it the most.'' Mr. Speaker, Fannie Mae's guidelines and the company's recently released Mortgage Consumer's Bill of Rights, which promote consumer advocacy in housing finance, are bold steps forward in the effort to combat predatory lending practices. I applaud Mr. Raines for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, we need Fannie Mae to do for the so-called sub-prime market what they have done for the conventional mortgage market: establish underwriting standards that would make it harder for predatory lenders to charge consumers 25-point origination fees, pre- payment penalties and the like. Fannie Mae has begun that process by announcing the availability of their Timely Payment Rewards mortgage. This mortgage offers home buyers with slightly impaired credit a lower rate than they could hope to get from a sub-prime lender--plus the possibility of another percentage point decrease in the interest rate if they maintain an on-time payment history for 24 months. Consumer savings provided by the Timely Payment Rewards Mortgage, savings which could amount to as much as $230 a month on a $100,000 loan, come from the bottom lines of the predatory lenders. Consumer groups, and many lenders, have welcomed Fannie Mae's new loan for its innovation and appeal, as well as for the expansion of homeownership opportunities it portends. But not all lenders were pleased about this initiative. I'm sure that some of my colleagues have recently been visited by a group calling themselves FM Watch. They are a collection of mortgage insurers, taxpayer-guaranteed large depository institutions and sub-prime lenders who want to use the legislative process to win from Fannie Mae what they've been unable to win in the marketplace. They are supporting legislation introduced by Representative Richard Baker--H.R. 3703. Fannie Mae and others have dubbed FM Watch, ``The Coalition for Higher Mortgage Costs,'' because their actions produce this result. Two of the trade associations that formed FM Watch, the National Home Equity Mortgage Association and the Consumer Mortgage Coalition, attacked Fannie Mae's announcement as an intrusion into ``their market''. Both organizations include many lenders who are active in the sub-prime market. I hope that the lobbying efforts of competitors who are trying to protect their profits won't deter Fannie Mae from pushing forward with its anti-predatory lending principles and with Timely Payment Rewards. Mr. Speaker, each of us has an obligation to understand this predatory lending issue and to examine the true motives of some of those who lobby us on this matter. We all know that to find out the truth, you have to ``follow the money.'' Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to not listen to ``The Coalition for Higher Mortgage Costs'' and to oppose H.R. 3703. Remarks Prepared for Delivery by Franklin D. Raines, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Fannie Mae Thank you for joining us today. These are ``interesting'' times for the housing industry, and we wanted to bring you up to date since Jim Johnson gave his farewell address as Chairman of Fannie Mae from this podium in November of 1998. A year and a half may not seem like a long time, but it has been an unusually turbulent period, and much is at stake. As some of you may recall, Jim titled his speech, ``Why Homeownership Matters--Lessons Learned from a Decade in Housing Finance.'' He painted a very positive picture. He said the American Dream of homeownership was more alive, achievable and inclusive than ever. He said the growth in homeownership is making everything better, from the wealth of average families, to the health of older communities, to the strength of the nation's economy. The housing finance system, he declared, was the most efficient and effective ever devised. Jim was absolutely right. And things have gotten even better. The national homeownership rate has just topped 67 percent, a new record. Even though mortgage rates have gone up, the housing market remains robust. Housing starts are strong. Home sales are vigorous. Home values are appreciating. Households are growing. Homes are getting larger. Home equity is rising. Default and foreclosure rates are at historic lows. And the process of buying a home has never been better. Automated underwriting and other advances have made it faster, easier, less frustrating and less costly to finance a home, and reduced the bias in lending decisions. E-commerce and financial deregulation are giving consumers more power and more choices at lower costs. The mortgage industry has been breaking through the old red lines and bringing affordable housing finance to families that used to be overlooked, neglected or rejected. Behind all of this, the secondary mortgage market-- including Fannie Mae--is attracting billions of dollars of private capital from all over the world, providing lenders with a steady flow of funds in all communities at the lowest rates in the market and with zero risk to the government. With the system we have today, and with the economic winds at our backs, Yogi Berra warned that, ``A guy ought to be very careful in making predictions, especially about the future.'' But I think we're on pretty solid ground in predicting that the future of homeownership in America is very positive. But I stand before you at a moment when questions have been raised about the utility of the U.S. secondary mortgage market that is so integral to the system's functioning as a whole. Some of these inquiries are well meaning. But it is no secret that some of the questions are generated by financial competitors that would earn more if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not lowering costs for consumers. The U.S. housing finance system is strong, but it is not indestructible. Changing it significantly could have real consequences for real families. The burden of proof for anyone that wants to change the system is a simple but stringent test--does it help or hurt home buyers? Today, let me reinforce why our system works so well and what we are up against. To illustrate what is so good about our system, let's compare it to the other major industrialized countries. Most of the G-7 countries have a well-developed mortgage system organized around depository institutions. But the mortgages they offer are less consumer-friendly. In America we take the 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage for granted. Last year, 66 percent of the mortgages issued in the U.S. were 30-year, fixed-rate conventional mortgages. Outside the U.S., the long-term fixed-rate mortgage is a rarity. In Canada, they have rollover mortgages, where the rate is fixed during the first one to five years, with a prepayment penalty equal to three months of interest. The fixed-rate term in Spain is usually one year. In France, 80 percent of all mortgages have variable rates. In Germany, you can get a fixed-rate for five to fifteen years, but you can't refinance during this period without paying a huge penalty. The low down payment features of U.S. conventional mortgages are also unique. We now take for granted down payments as low as 5 and 3 percent. That's not the case in, say, Germany, France, the United Kingdom or Japan. In Germany, the down payment is typically 30 to 40 percent, and in Japan, you've had to put down effectively 50 to 60 percent. Why are American conventional mortgages more consumer- friendly? Mainly because we have a secondary mortgage market. In other countries, the banks largely make the loans from their deposits and hold the mortgages as an investment. Our system primarily worked that way until the 1970s and 1980s. Today in America, banks, thrifts, mortgage bankers and credit unions make the loans, but they can depend on the secondary market to supply the long-term funding. What Congress did in establishing a secondary market in the thirties and privatizing this market in the sixties made this change possible, and it has turned out to be absolutely brilliant. When it chartered Fannie Mae and then Freddie Mac as private companies, it created a system that harnesses private enterprise and private capital to deliver the public benefit of homeownership. And it maximizes this public benefit while minimizing the public risk, without a nickel of public funds. Let's do a quick risk-benefit analysis, starting with the risk side of the equation. There is a simple reason fixed-rate mortgages with low down payments are rare outside the U.S. Since they don't have a secondary market to buy the mortgage, the lender has to hold the loan and take on all the risk. That is, the lender has to assume the credit risk--the risk that the borrower could default--and the interest-rate risk--the risk that interest rates will change and cause the lender to pay out more to depositors than he is receiving on loans. So the lender protects himself by requiring the consumer to pay more up front and more each month if interest rates rise. In America, the secondary market purchases the mortgage, taking most of the credit and interest rate risk on the loan off the lenders' books. But the secondary market run by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac does not retain all the risk. We share or disperse the risk around the world. This process is called ``risk transformation.'' Here's how it works. Fannie Mae and our lender partners create mortgages that consumers want, like our 3 percent down Fannie 97. And we finance them with capital we raise by creating debt instruments that investors want, like our Benchmark securities. We share the credit risk on the Fannie 97 with mortgage insurance companies, and we hedge the interest rate risk by selling callable debt securities to Wall Street. We also work with Wall Street to develop even more refined strategies for hedging our interest-rate risk and credit risk. Last year, we spent about half of our gross revenues paying others to assume risk we didn't want. Managing risk, in fact, is all we do. We manage risk on one asset--U.S. home mortgages--perhaps the safest asset in the world. All told, 96 percent of all mortgages in America are paid in a timely fashion, which goes to show just how much Americans cherish homeownership. And to help us analyze our risk precisely, we have amassed performance data on 29 million loans dating back over 20 years. All of this helps to explain why our credit loss rate during the nineties averaged only 5 basis points--five cents on every hundred dollars--even during the recessions in California and New England. Just to compare, the bank credit loss rate on their more diverse set of assets was an average of 86 basis points, or 86 cents on every hundred dollars. Today, our loss rate is lower than ever, at just 1 basis point last year. A strong secondary market makes the entire financial system safer and more stable. The government holds Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the highest financial safety and soundness standards in the financial services industry. We have to hold enough capital to survive a stress test--essentially, ten years of devastating mortgage defaults and extreme interest rate movements. Other financial institutions would not last long under the scenario spelled out in our capital requirements. Thrifts, for example, would become insolvent after five to seven years. At the end of the ten years, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would be the only major holder of mortgage assets still standing. A strong secondary market puts mortgages in the safest hands. Now let's look at the public benefit. First, the secondary market means consumers never have to hear their lender say, ``sorry--we're out of money to lend.'' People think this can't happen, that it's something out of the Depression era. But without Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, this could have happened at least twice in the last 20 years. When the S&L system crashed during the eighties, the thrifts in California and Texas would have had no money to lend if we had not stepped The secondary market also drives down mortgage costs. Last week, a mortgage backed by Fannie Mae would be $19,000 cheaper, over the term, than a jumbo mortgage that's just a dollar beyond our loan limit. Our savings over the jumbo market jumped beyond $26,000 during the credit crisis of 1998. Today, a Fannie Mae loan is about $200,000 cheaper than a subprime mortgage, and even about $18,000 cheaper than an equivalent FHA or VA loan backed by the government. During the nineties, Fannie Mae alone saved consumers at least $20 billion through lower mortgage rates. The secondary market also expands homeownership. Under the 1992 revisions to our charter, Congress requires Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to meet affordable housing goals, to devote a set percentage of our business to underserved families and communities. As many of you know, Fannie Mae has gone well beyond these requirements. In 1994, Jim Johnson pledged that we would provide $1 trillion in housing finance to ten million underserved families by the end of 2000. We met that goal a month ago--eight months ahead of schedule--and immediately set an even greater goal to provide $2 trillion in financing to 18 million families during this decade. We call this new pledge the American Dream Commitment. Since 1993, these initiatives have boosted our lending to African Americans by 31 percent, and to all minorities by 16 percent. Last year, Fannie Mae alone provided nearly $46 billion in housing finance for over 400,000 minority families. That's what having a strong secondary market can do. The success of our housing finance system is not lost on the other major industrialized countries. I just returned on Tuesday from meetings in London and Frankfurt with our debt investors--the people who buy our Benchmark securities that allow us to finance mortgages here. One of the many ironies of being Chairman of Fannie Mae is that there are countries in which investors will help finance American homeownership while their own homeownership rate is lower. Naturally, many countries are curious about our system. Fannie Mae has responded to many requests to serve as advisors overseas, not because we will ever buy loans abroad, but because of our expertise in the unique U.S. secondary market, a market that is viewed in other countries as some kind of miracle. So over the past few years, a team from Fannie Mae has been invited to 29 different countries from Europe, to Africa, to Latin America, to Asia to help them figure out how to build a better system like ours. These countries have asked us how to deepen their capital markets, manage risk better and expand affordable lending and fair lending. We just had a team in South Africa to help a start-up secondary market conduit develop mortgage risk modeling, which they want to use to fight redlining. What you see in America is a dynamic web of entities--both public and private sector--delivering homeownership to citizens of all backgrounds, incomes and circumstances. We have small, medium and large mortgage originators and lenders, serving consumers from store fronts to web sites. We have home builders, Realtors, mortgage brokers, mortgage insurers and appraisers and mortgage.coms. We have consumer advocates, citizen activists and nonprofit housing organizations. The system receives wide support from local, county, state and federal agencies and elected leaders, The interaction of these entities is constantly driving the housing system to improve itself, to reward low cost and high quality, to police the bad actors and chuck out the bad apples, to search for new markets and untapped home buyers, and break down the barriers. Looking back over my years in the industry gives me confidence that the U.S. housing system, with a little nudging here and there, will continue to do the right thing for consumers. Good money will drive out the bad. A better mousetrap is always in development. Underserved families will be served. Our system is constantly evolving and innovating to make owning a home more possible for more people. Given how great our system is, it makes you wonder: Why are some voices suggesting there is something wrong with our housing finance system, something fundamental that needs to be fixed? Certainly, the system benefits from constructive scrutiny. It is entirely appropriate for the Congress to hold oversight hearings on the safety and soundness of the secondary mortgage market. I look forward to testifying before Mr. Baker's subcommittee next week. It is also appropriate for our regulators--HUD and OFHEO--to monitor us closely. And it is appropriate for other agencies to ask questions within their purview as well. We welcome official scrutiny. But something less constructive is also going on here in Washington. Recently, a senior Senator asked me why Fannie Mae was suddenly in the news so much. I explained to him that some very large financial institutions have decided they are not content with the way the system works for them. They see how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac drive down mortgage costs for consumers and serve all mortgage lenders. They see how we give small- and medium-sized mortgage lenders a chance to compete with the large institutions. So this small group of large institutions would like to eliminate the benefits that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provide, from low-cost financing to automated underwriting systems. They have brought the fight to Washington under the name FM Watch. They began by defining themselves as a watchdog group, and their rhetoric was mild. But over the course of the past year, they have been unable to gain any traction. They have been unable to answer the question of how the consumer would benefit from any of their proposals regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And or nickname for this group, the ``Coalition for Higher Mortgage Costs,'' has stuck like a tattoo. So this group has switched from watchdog to attack dog. Its strategy is now to create an instant crisis, to convince policymakers that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are a financial risk to the taxpayer, an S&L crisis waiting to happen. This is the equivalent of the owner of one movie theater going to a rival theater and shouting ``fire!'' A mortgage insurance industry that nearly collapsed in the 1980s and a banking industry that collapsed in the early 1990s now seek to tag the secondary mortgage industry with the word ``risky.'' By trying to create a crisis, FM Watch has gone beyond a watchdog role into an approach which, carried to its logical conclusion, would actually harm the housing finance system, all in an effort to create short-term advantages for its members. Never mind that its claims collapse under scrutiny. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are far from the S&L problems and banking problems that bankrupted their deposit insurance funds and required federal direct and indirect bailouts. Our safety and soundness allowed us to be the ``white hats'' in the S&L and banking crises as we rode in with additional capital to keep the housing system going. The risk-based capital standard that Congress gave us since the S&L and banking crises has made us even more safe and sound. What FM Watch does not mention is that if the economic stress test in our capital standard ever came to pass, the government would have to bail out their members long before Fannie Mae was in any danger. But you can learn a lot from debating with an entity like FM Watch. They use so many facts that you just can't find anywhere else. It reminds me of a story Adlai Stevenson once told. He reminded his audience of the old lawyer addressing the jury, who closed his summation by saying: ``And these, ladies and gentlemen, are the conclusions on which I base my facts.'' FM Watch is looking for any conclusion that will help to damage Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The facts will be altered to fit. If this Coalition for Higher Mortgage Costs were successful, it would destabilize the secondary mortgage market and the related capital markets. This destabilization would undermine the entire housing industry and its progress, raise costs for consumers and stifle the advance of homeownership--harming underserved families first. Because such an outcome is unacceptable, I don't think this will happen. The American people and their elected representatives are smart. They will soon recognize another lobbyist-driven Potemkin-crisis public relations campaign for what it is. Then they and the capital markets will stop listening. Certainly our housing system is not perfect. Minority homeownership rates are too low. There is still inequality in affordable mortgage credit. Too many families that can afford the least are being charged the most for mortgage credit. Too many borrowers are being targeted by predatory lenders or steered to subprime lending when they could, in fact, qualify for low-cost conventional financing. One issue deserving of further study is the question of why disparities in loan approvals between white and minority borrowers continue to persist. Many have suspected overt racial discrimination. But those disparities can be found even in automated underwriting systems using racially neutral underwriting criteria. We take this issue very seriously because in our experience, automated underwriting has in fact expanded lending to minority families. To try to understand the problem better, we have studied results from our system, Desktop Underwriter. We found that differences in credit histories account for about 50 percent of the difference in loan approvals. And when you also factor in the applicant's loan-to-value ratio and reserves, these three factors together account for over 90 percent of the difference in the approval ratings. The results of this study point to the need for public policies addressing consumer credit education and minority savings and wealth development. The housing finance system needs more answers to questions such as this. To further explore these issues, next month Fannie Mae is hosting a conference titled ``The Role of Automated Underwriting in Expanding Minority Homeownership.'' We're bringing together a range of advocates, academics, regulators and lenders to engage in a meaningful dialogue concerning automated underwriting systems and their role in expanding homeownership and promoting fair lending. I am personally committed to working every day to make sure that these systems are the best they can possibly be. All in all, the housing finance system--through inspiration, perspiration and a little luck--has grown into the most successful system in the world. It is worth protecting and defending. We must never allow the system to be damaged by those who would place their narrow financial interests ahead of those of the industry as a whole and--most importantly--ahead of the consumers we serve. This being a national election year, it is a good time to discuss and debate our national priorities, and certainly homeownership is high among them. Few ideals unite us more than owning a home to raise your family, invest your income, become part of a community and have something to show for it. There are many ways to go about improving the housing finance system to make it better, more affordable and more inclusive. As we pursue these efforts, we need to keep our eyes on the prize and ask the most important question, ``does this proposal help or hurt home buyers?'' Thank you.

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize a significant new minority enterprise in the Philadelphia area, Union Packaging, and its African- American president, Michael Pearson. Union Packaging was launched in December of last year by a $25.8 million 3-year contract to supply paper cartons to 2,300 McDonald's restaurants along the east coast. As a minority supplier, Union Packaging joins a growing force that last year provided over $3 billion in goods and services to the McDonald's system. The contract with McDonald's gives Pearson, as he says, ``an opportunity to provide a vehicle for job creation and to be a linchpin for rebirth'' in West Philadelphia. It reflects McDonald's commitment to investing in the community. Last year, the company brought new life and opportunities to our inner city by relocating one of its five divisional headquarters there. Mr. Speaker, I ask that this article on Union Packaging, published in the March 22, 2000, issue of Philadelphia Inquirer, be placed in the Record and I encourage my colleagues to read the account of this exciting new venture. [From the Philadelphia Inquirer, Mar. 22, 2000] Packed up and Rarin' To Go McDonald's has contracted with Union Packaging, a minority business, to supply cartons for its food (By Rosland Briggs-Gammon) The warehouse at Union Packaging L.L.C. is filled with empty McDonald's apple pie and chicken nugget cartons. They are some of the first of millions of fast-food cartons awaiting distribution to 2,300 McDonald's locations along the East Coast. The Yeadon company, a joint venture between two area product packaging firms, has a new three-year, $25.8 million contract to supply the paper cartons to McDonald's. It is McDonald Corp.'s first minority business enterprise contract in the Philadelphia area, and Union Packaging's first account. The two companies celebrated at an open house yesterday. Michael Pearson, president of Union Packaging, opened the plant in January at an industrial park that sits near the border of Delaware and Philadelphia Counties. The company is a joint venture between Providence Packaging Inc., owned by Pearson, and Dopaco Inc., a packaging firm in Exton. The partnership allows Union Packaging, 51 percent owned by Pearson, who is African American, to bid on corporate contracts as a minority-owned business. The partnership also allows Union Packaging to delay purchasing printing equipment until next year. In the interim, Dopaco prints and cuts the paper used to make the cartons. Dopaco also has lent the company experienced employees to help train its workers and start production. ``It is so expensive to get into business,'' said Dopaco's chairman and chief executive officer Edward Fitts. ``Dopaco has expensive equipment already so Union Packaging doesn't have to make an investment in equipment right now. That's the kind of relationship that will help minority firms.'' Such partnerships are becoming more common, said Lynda Ireland, president of the New York/New Jersey Minority Purchasing Council. Similar partnerships started in the construction industry, she said. ``It is certainly something we are trying to encourage,'' Ireland said. ``To get into the corporate-America arena, you have to be creative.'' Pearson, 38, spent three years working for a packaging firm in New York. Using his experience there, he decided to start his own business. As the first step of his three-step plan, he launched Providence, which also sells packaging products, in 1997, using Dopaco as the outside production firm. Union Packaging, with its limited production capabilities, is his second step, he said. He launched the firm with a bid for the McDonald's contract, which was awarded to Union Packaging in December. Also last year, McDonald's moved its Northeast region headquarters to Philadelphia. ``When we brought the Northeast division here, we wanted to bring jobs to the area,'' said William Lowery Jr., a senior vice president with McDonald's Northeast division. ``This is one of the ways we can do that and give back to the community.'' To start Union Packaging, Pearson received a $200,000 opportunity grant and $300,000 in tax credits from the state of Pennsylvania for creating new jobs. The money will help finance equipment purchases. One machine that folds and glues the boxes can cost between $300,000 and $500,000, Pearson said. Dopaco ships the printed and cut paper to Union Packaging's 65,000-square-foot plant. There, employees feed the small sheets through machinery that glues one edge and creates fold marks to transform the sheets into boxes. At the end of the production line, the flattened boxes are packaged and sealed for shipment. Joe DeBernardi, plant superintendent, said the line produces about 60,000 boxes an hour. Two other machines do the same for chicken nugget containers. The company has hired 20 people and hopes to have a staff of 100 within two years, Pearson said. The company chose its site because of the worker base in West Philadelphia and its location near graphics, engineering and other service firms, and because of the expansion possibilities. Union Packaging's lease includes the option to add up to 300,000 square feet of space adjacent to its building. ``It's an opportunity to provide a vehicle for job creation and to be a linchpin for rebirth in this area,'' Pearson said.

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, this year the Lively Arts Group bids farewell to its founding director, Naomi Klein, who is retiring after 25 years of service. The Lively Arts Group is unique as the nation's only nonprofit cultural arts touring organization since its founding in 1975 by Naomi Klein. Since then Mrs. Klein has conducted an average of 50 adult- education and cultural-arts tours each year, totaling 1,250 tours in her 25 years. Mrs. Klein has personally guided more than 62,000 Philadelphia area residents throughout our country to major museums, orchestra concerts, theater, ballet and opera performances, historic houses, mansions, villages and gardens. For many of these travelers, especially those with physical disabilities, it has been their eye- opening and mind-opening introduction to the various cultural arts, which they have subsequently pursued and enjoyed independently. At the same time, these group visits have provided a new outreach audience, additional new members and support for these cultural organizations and institutions. Directors of Philadelphia's museums and cultural institutions have served as the Lively Arts Group's Advisory Board, lending their prestige and professional knowledge to these tours. The Lively Arts Group adventures have spread Philadelphia's reputation for its cultural-minded citizens throughout the country and abroad and continues into its next century on the principles and highest standards of arts-education and community service created in 1975 by its founder, Naomi Klein.

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, we have proceeded in this conversation as if it is an either/or proposition. I would argue that it really is not. The purpose for this complaint and the protest is that we wanted an amendment made in order for the gentlewoman from California so that we could put it into the supplemental appropriation to increase resources for drug treatment. Now, it is true that a large amount of cocaine and heroin travels from Colombia to this country, but it is also true that those are not the only drugs that are causing problems for us here in America. There are domestically generated drugs, like methamphetamines. There are all kinds of other drugs. We have a serious problem of marijuana being grown here domestically. There are household inhalants that our children are using and, in some cases, killing themselves and destroying their potential. So it is not just a matter of cocaine or heroin, number one, when we talk about drugs. The question of treatment is a question of common sense and cost- effectiveness. We know that treatment works. We know that there are millions of Americans, 3 million in the latest study, that do not have access to treatment. We know that in most cities and in rural areas, not only do families not have access to the person in the family who needs help, but they do not have any opportunity for the counseling and the support that they need. We know that drug addiction causes divorce, home foreclosures, lack of productivity in the workplace. We know that this problem of drugs is a serious problem throughout our society, and that we should not be here today talking about on the one hand, we only want to deal with the problem in Colombia, and on the other hand, we will wait for another day to deal with the questions and the challenges of drug treatment here in this country. Mr. Chairman, all of our law enforcement officials tell us that even those people incarcerated do not have access in the majority to treatment programs for drug and alcohol abuse. We know that the National Institute of Justice did a study that shows that in our major cities more than 80 percent of the crime is drug driven. So the question for us has to be, as a Congress why can we not in a supplemental appropriation that is wide ranging, it is not just dealing with the question of Colombia, it is dealing with emergencies in North Carolina, it is dealing with a whole range of questions, why was it not fitting in the sense of the majority to make an amendment made in order so that we could talk about increased resources in an area in which so many people on both sides of the aisle see the need. If it was someone in our family, someone in our community, someone that we have come in contact with that needed treatment, we want to make sure that they have access to it. We should feel the same for those 3 million Americans out there today, and make sure that they have access to real treatment opportunities.

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join with my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh). Not only have we worked together on these initiatives, I still remain hopeful that we are going to work together and find a way to provide some modernization for our postal services. I want to thank him for his efforts legislatively leading this Chamber in that direction. Let me say that in terms of the bill in front of us, I rise in support of H.R. 1666, authored by my friend and colleague from the great State of Florida (Mr. Boyd). It honors a gentleman who is a true American hero, someone who faced adversity, found himself and stood and provided the leadership that was required, sacrificing himself in so many ways to help those members of his crew. We are going to hear more about this story of Colin P. Kelly, Jr. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), the prime sponsor and author of this bill and a member of my caucus and someone who wants to bring this story and make it live in the naming of this postal facility in Madison, Florida.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, fully and enthusiastically supporting this bill, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

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

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to also add my voice in support of H.R. 3701. This is another bill authored by our good friend and colleague, the gentleman from the State of Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who has been concerned with, among many other issues, the question of making sure that this Congress recognizes the importance of family. I think that is evident by these two bills, he understands that family extends even to Members who have left this body. And we honor ourselves by recognizing the contributions of those who come before us. So I want to thank him for offering this bill, and I add my support to it. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3701, to designate the United States Postal Service located at 3118 Washington Boulevard in Arlington, Virginia, as the ``Joseph L. Fisher Post Office Building,'' was introduced with the support and cosponsorship of the entire Virginia delegation. The late Congressman Joseph L. Fisher was born in Rhode Island. In 1963 he was elected to the Arlington, Virginia County Board and served as chairman of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. After unseating a former member of Congress, Congressman Joel Broyhill in 1974, Congressman Fisher was elected to represent the 10th District where he served for three terms. Congressman Fisher, a Democrat, was a dedicated member of the Committee on Ways and Means and Committee on the Budget. During his time in the Congress, he made a reputation for his work on taxes, energy and budget policy. At the time of his death in 1992, Congressman Fisher was a Distinguished Visiting Professor of Political Economy at George Mason University. I urge swift adoption of this measure and thank my colleague, Congressman Wolf for seeking to honor such distinguished men and former members of Congress. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to reiterate our thanks to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) and his colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) who chairs the Committee on International Relations, for having this resolution before this Congress today. It is critically important that our country, a superpower, have a super heart when it comes to humanitarian disaster, such as what we see in Mozambique. I wanted to commend the administration and our country, and in particular all American citizens, for what we have done, and challenge us to do even more. We need to provide all of the relief possible in terms of this crisis, and we also need to recognize and commend South Africa for its initial response. Hopefully, as we look down this road, perhaps there are joint arrangements that we could make, perhaps with South Africa, to help develop their capacity there to respond to humanitarian disasters on the continent, because they are obviously much more capable and able to develop the political will to act in a swift way, as exhibited by their actions here in Mozambique. But I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) for the introduction of this resolution, and thank him for his efforts, along with that of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and in particular the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for the attention they have brought to this issue, to make sure that our Nation does all it should do, given our role in this world.

Mr. FATTAH

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

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As a member of the Committee on Government Reform, I am pleased to join with the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) in the consideration of two postal-naming bills. Both bills honor fine individuals who have contributed much to the improvement of their country and their State. First, we will consider H.R. 3699, which honors Joel Broyhill. When the time is appropriate, Mr. Speaker, after we hear from the prime sponsor, I will yield to my colleague, the gentleman from the fine State of Virginia (Mr. Moran), to make some further comments on this bill. Mr. Speaker: H.R. 3699 and H.R. 3701, both sponsored by Congressman Frank Wolf, have met the committee cosponsorship requirement and are supported by the entire Virginia congressional delegation. It must be voted that the persons honored by H.R. 3699 and H.R. 3701--former members of Congress--Joel Broyhill and Joseph Fisher, both represented the congressional district currently held by Congressman Frank Wolf. As the Ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on the Postal Service, I would like to thank Chairman Burton and Chairman McHugh for their support and assistance in the accommodation and timely consideration of these postal naming bills. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3699, to designate the United States Postal Service located at 8409 Lee Highway in Merrifield, Virginia, as the ``Joel T. Broyhill Postal Building,'' was introduced by Congressman Wolf on Tuesday, February 29, 2000, with the support and cosponsorship of the entire Virginia delegation. Congressman Joel T. Broyhill was born in 1919 in Hopewell, Virginia. A World War II Army veteran, he fought in the famous ``Battle of the Bulge,'' was captured and held as a POW in a German camp until his escape. Mr. Broyhill returned to Virginia and was elected to Congress in 1952, representing the 1oth District for 22 years. He served as a Republican member of the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, the Committee on the District of Columbia, and the Committee on Ways and Means. I urge swift adoption of this measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of Senate bill 335, the Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act. As has been mentioned by my colleague and the majority chairman from the great State of New York, a number of other provisions have been added to this bill. H.R. 807, which would respond I think appropriately to some adjustments needed and retirement opportunities for Federal Reserve Board employees, and H.R. 3187, having to do with the disposition of surplus Federal property. I would note that under the disposition of Federal property bill, that no property will be able to be disposed of, but that this extension will allow a continuation of applications and appropriate consideration by the GSA of proposals by local governments and nonprofits for usage of those Federal properties. I would like to say that I think that on the primary bill, the sweepstakes bill, that we have done a very good job, and I would like to compliment the work of the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit) on my side of the aisle who was also a prime sponsor, cosponsor of the original legislation. I think that this bill as presented now and as agreed to by the Senate appropriately addresses the need for curtailment of some of the excesses that we have seen in terms of sweepstakes mailings. I am particularly pleased that adopted and embraced in this bill is my amendment that will provide a private right of action for individuals in relationship to abuses that they face. Again, I am pleased that the committee found it appropriate, the conference committee, to endorse and embrace the amendment that I offered that would allow a private right of action to individual citizens who want to seek redress for excesses that we all have found all too common through parts of this industry. So I rise in support of S. 335. I would hope that the House would adopt it. I think it is appropriate, and moderate in its approaches, but I think it will get the job done. I do want to thank the majority Chairman, because I think he has helped guide this legislation through, and on this evening we are going to see the result of his hard work. Mr. Speaker, as the Ranking Minority member of the Subcommittee on the Postal Service, I am pleased to join Chairman McHugh in the consideration of S. 335, the Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act. In addition, I support the consideration of this measure amended, with the text of the following three bills: H.R. 170, the Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act of 1999, as passed by the House by voice vote on November 2, 1999; H.R. 807, the Federal Reserve Board Retirement Portability Act, as passed by the House by voice vote on March 16, 1999, and H.R. 3187, legislation amending the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to temporarily continue authority relating to transfers of certain surplus property to State and local governments for law enforcement and emergency response purposes. H.R. 170, was introduced on January 6, 1999, by Congressmen LoBiondo and Condit, and reported on October 28, 1999, from the Government Reform Committee, and passed unanimously by the House on November 2, 1999. While closely mirroring the sweepstakes language contained in S. 335, H.R. 170, adds two very important and critical consumer protection provisions. First, although we provided the Postal Service with subpoena authority to combat sweepstakes fraud, we have limited the scope of subpoena authority to only those provisions of law addressing deceptive mailings, and required the Postal Service to develop procedures for the issuance of subpoenas. Second, we have added language which I authored, establishing a private right of action to sweepstakes legislation. The private right of action would allow consumers to file suit in state court if a sweepstakes promoter continues to send mailings despite having requested removal from a mailer's list. This is an important enforcement tool particularly with respect to the problem of unwanted mailings. I am pleased to note that it is supported by the National Consumers League, the American Association of Retired Persons and the Direct Marketing Association. The issue of consumer protection, whether it relates to telemarketing fraud or sweepstakes deception is receiving the attention it deserves. Just last week, the United States Inspection Service joined key government and civic organizations at a national press conference to launch the most ambitious fraud prevention initiative in history. On November 16, 1999, a jumbo postcard containing valuable mail and telemarketing fraud prevention tips will be mailed to every home in America. A portion of the card reads, ``Fraudulent Telemarketers: They've got your number . . . now they want your money!'' I am pleased my colleagues have recognized the importance of consumer protection and voted support a private right of action! h.r. 807 H.R. 807, the Federal Reserve Board Retirement Portability Act was introduced by Congressman Scarborough, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service. It is cosponsored by the Ranking Minority Member of that subcommittee, Congressman Cummings and the Ranking full committee member, Congressman Waxman. It was passed unanimously by the House on August 2, 1999. The legislation would amend title 5, of the U.S. code pertaining to government organization and employees, to provide portability of service credit for persons who leave employment with the Federal Reserve Board to take positions with other Government agencies. Currently, if an employee of the Federal Reserve Board leaves to work for another federal agency, the employee is required to join the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). Under the current FERS statute, time spent working at the Board after 1988, does not count as ``creditable service'' towards a FERS annuity. As a result, these employees will receive smaller pensions upon retirement. H.R. 807 will correct this problem and also allow current and future Federal employees who transfer to the Board, to transfer the funds from their FERS Thrift Savings Accounts (TSP) to the Federal Reserve Thrift Savings Plan. In addition, H.R. 807 contains clarifying language ensuring that America's veterans are hired as Career Status appointees. Apparently, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) interpreted the Veterans' Employment Opportunities Act of 1998, to mean that veterans could be hired for a Federal job as Schedule B appointees, rather than as Career Status appointees. Schedule B appointments are not afforded the same rights and privileges as Career Status employees. The Veterans' Employment Opportunities Act improves the ability of veterans to compete during the Federal hiring process and extends veterans preference to all branches of the Federal government. Both the Senate and OPM have agreed that language was needed to clarify the original intent of Congress.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the great State of Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who is a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and also is a better golfer than me.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to say that the first amendment that I passed on the floor of this House had to do with going after telemarketing fraud. This sweepstakes issue is just another, I think, head of the same animal. It is of note that just last week the United States Postal Service, along with key government and civic leaders, had a press conference to announce a nationwide effort to go after telemarketing fraud in a very serious way, and I just want to say that I think the House this evening collaborates in that effort by the passage of this very important piece of legislation. I thank my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), someone who I have had the pleasure to work with for a few years on this committee, and we have gotten a lot done. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, let me thank my ranking member for yielding me this time. Later on, we will have a chance to vote on the only Democratic amendment to this bill. It will not make this bill one that is supportable in many respects, because there are still major issues that divide us. But I want to take some time to just discuss the issue that I am going to raise in my amendment. The thrust of the bill, which I think sincerely is offered by my colleagues, many of whom I serve with on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, is that what we need to do is give States more flexibility, give them some money, and let them figure how to disburse it because they know best how to educate their children. I think that theory needs to be analyzed. We need to look at what States are doing with the money they now control, and have total control of, and what their doing in response to the needs of disadvantaged children. What is going on in 49 out of our 50 States in this country is that there is a wide disparity between what is being spent in one school district in our States and in other school districts in our States. In fact, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of school districts have filed suit in either State or Federal Court challenging these school finance systems. And more than the majority of States, some 37 States are in various stages of litigation. We have seen the State court of Michigan and Ohio and a number of other States, New Jersey, rule the school finance systems unconstitutional because they take disadvantaged students and they give them sometimes as much a third less, or a third, of what they give other school districts. That is that we have disparities that range from $8,000 per pupil in some of our States to many of them $1,000 or $2,000 or $3,000 per pupil per year. When we add that up in the aggregate by classroom, let me give my colleagues a sense of what those numbers mean. In Philadelphia, the City is spending $70,000 less per classroom than in the average suburban school district surrounding the City. The 45 suburban school districts are spending on average $70,000 more per classroom. Over the K-12 experience of a kid's educational life, we are talking about upwards of an $800,000 differential being spent in one classroom versus the other. Some may have seen the story in the Washington Post looking at high schools in Illinois 30 minutes apart describing those two schools in terms of their circumstances, one with no chemistry equipment in the lab, no financial connection to the Internet, very little by way of library books; the other with three gymnasiums, 12 tennis courts, functional computers in every classroom. And on and on and on the story went. Well, that was about Illinois. But my colleagues know and I know that we can find schools that meet those descriptions in any State in our country. In States who control more than 90 percent of the money, as many of my colleagues on the Republican side keep reminding us, they every day have funding formulas that put disadvantaged families in rural America and in urban America at a disadvantage. We have 216 rural districts in Pennsylvania that have filed suit 13 years ago challenging the school finance system. There are children who started in kindergarten in those school districts that have now graduated from high school in those districts, and the supreme court in our State has yet to find it appropriate to rule on it, as has been the case in some other States. I would suggest to my colleagues that before we give States flexibility we demand some accountability. My amendment will offer them that opportunity. Think about the Congress. We all get paid the same amount of money. Think about the NFL. They have a strict set of guidelines in terms of salary caps, the spread of the field, the number of people on each team, and then they can go compete. We have poor people who we are asking them to compete without giving them the resources to compete. I think that it is a time now for the Federal Government to step in and say, look, they can have the Federal dollars, but the first thing they need to do is equalize their per-pupil expenditure, and if they are telling us that money does not matter, then equalize their achievement; and if they can equalize their achievement, then they do not have to equalize their expenditure. But they cannot have it both ways. If money matters, then give every kid a fair opportunity.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that I will offer to every education bill that I have the opportunity to offer this amendment to, because I think that this is the fundamental issue that needs to be addressed in our country. If tomorrow the Federal Government did not put a penny into education or if we doubled our appropriations, we need State governments to provide an equal playing field for children in their States. There is no excuse in America today for us to be spending three times as much on one first grader in a public school 30 minutes away from a public school in which we are spending a third less. We have that situation in my home State. We have it in 49 out of our 50 States. We have litigation going on in close to 40 States in our country, where literally almost a thousand school districts, mostly rural and urban districts, have been fighting in State courts, in some cases for decades, for relief. We have seen the Supreme Court of Ohio, we have seen action in the New Jersey court and in Kentucky, we have seen in Michigan courts rule these property tax-based school systems unconstitutional. We have seen the rulings in New Hampshire and in Vermont where they ruled them unconstitutional, where the Court has stepped in to say that children should be given a fair opportunity and that there is nothing so cosmically special about one child as another that we should be spending twice as much or three times as much on one kid's education than another. I ask my colleagues to begin to consider a country in which we gave every young person an equal opportunity, where we eliminated this circumstance in which we have in many of our districts young people who are not given the books, nor the teachers, nor the technology. They are not offered the curriculum in order for them to achieve. Yet we come and we try to put a Band-Aid on it, either through Title I or through AAA. The 6 or 7 pennies out of every dollar that is spent by the Federal Government is never going to deal with the disparity that exists in our States, which ranges from a thousand dollars per pupil, to in many States $5,000 and $6,000; and in one of our States the disparity is $8,000 between what is being spent in the poorest school district per pupil and what is being spent in the wealthiest. Now tonight, I am not sure that the votes will add up for this amendment that I offer, but I promise that this Congress will not be able to skirt this issue, because every single opportunity I am going to raise it. I think it is critical to the debate. We talk class size. Well, class size is a function of money. If we are spending $70,000 more per classroom in a city district versus a suburban district, we can cut the class size in half in that city district. We talk about school construction. Where are the school buildings falling apart? Are they falling apart in the districts where we are spending in some States, like in Texas, $20,000 per pupil, or are they falling apart in the State of Texas in the districts where we are spending $2,500 per pupil? School construction, class size, technology in the classroom, all of these issues get back to the fundamental question, and that is, are States going to even the playing field? Now, we can wait for State courts to act, and we can acknowledge even the action now that is starting to take hold in Federal court, when the State of Kansas, dozens of school districts got together in rural Kansas and filed a suit that the Justice Department or the Federal Government has just added its voice to as a party to that suit and said they are right; that the funding system in Kansas discriminates against poor children in rural Kansas. Look at the situation in New York State where the disparity is a great one. We have now had the Justice Department add its voice to that suit. Or the Congress could act; not in forcing States to equalize their distribution of school aid but using as a carrot Federal aid to encourage States to move in that direction. My amendment, simply put, states that States would have 3 years to move towards a substantially equal per-pupil expenditure. It would help rural districts. It would help urban districts. For the wealthiest districts in our States, I would say today it would help those districts because we cannot have a country where some of the children have everything in the world to look forward to and others have very little to look forward to. That is an explosive mix that, going into the next century, does not bode well. We have books in the school libraries in Philadelphia, and this was played on ABC News Tonight and we should all be embarrassed because Philadelphia is the birthplace of this country of ours, that say that Gerald Ford is the last President of the United States. We have a book in one of our schools that says Nelson Mandela died in prison 15 years ago. We have books that do not represent any of the knowledge that is currently part of the educational system that we would want. We have a chemistry lab in Chicago in which there is no equipment at all, 30 minutes from a school that has everything we could ever want for our children. We need to think about these disparities, think about giving young people a fair chance. If we want to give States more flexibility, if we think States have these rights, let us have States be more responsible. Let us have them take the dollars that they are now spending and give an equal playing field to the children that we represent and that they have a responsibility, a constitutional responsibility, to provide them an equitable education. I want to thank the Chair. I want to thank the ranking member of my committee and the chairman of the full committee. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.