Harold Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) for yielding; and I come from a State with a good football team, but I am delighted that the greatest mind, at least in my era of following college sports, would see fit to allow a young Member like me to partner with him to do something that in the long run will benefit young people for many, many years to come. It is difficult to expand on what the gentleman from Nebraska has already said, but this bill gives my generation an opportunity to do something that we have not been able to do. For so long we have been reduced in a lot of ways, and some of us have chosen, to be spectators to conflict involving challenges to our values and freedoms. We are hopeful with our friends on the other side of the aisle and this bill's companion, S. 1792, which was introduced yesterday by Senators McCain and Bayh, we are hopeful that this legislation will attract the support of Democrats and Republicans alike in both Chambers. Mr. Speaker, the district of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) and my district could not be any more different than they are. He is from a rural area in Nebraska; I am from an urban area in Memphis, Tennessee. We are hopeful that regardless of who Americans are, where they live, or how they may identify themselves politically, this bill will attract the support of all of our colleagues, largely because it invites involvement. The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) spoke about the need for this and how critical it is; but just to give more specifics, the purpose of the bill is to basically expand the AmeriCorps program. We propose a fivefold expansion of the traditional program, including new opportunities, as has already been mentioned, for senior service, work study and homeland defense. Specifically, over half of the program's expansion would be used to augment homeland defense in the areas of law enforcement and public health. Additionally, the legislation would provide new options for military enlistment, including expansion of the Montgomery GI bill and the establishment of a new 18-18-18 short-term enlistment option. These provisions acknowledge that the GI bill has not kept pace with inflation, and a growing shortage exists for entry-level service needs. The short-term option would qualify E1 level recruits for an $18,000 education bonus after service of 18 months of active duty and 18 months of reserve duty. Finally, in an ongoing effort to enhance national service, the bill also sets accountability standards and provides for a new demonstration choice voucher plan, not the voucher plan that my colleagues often think about, but a voucher plan providing grants for young people to apply in areas of public service. We believe the Call to Service Act presents an immeasurable opportunity to seize on those attributes that define us as Americans and make us proud to serve in this country. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time and both Senators for their support; and I hope that all of our colleagues will see fit to support this important legislation.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay recognition to Memphis' Christian Brothers University as the school marks its 130th year of service. After nearly a decade of work and persuasion by citizens across the Memphis and Mid-South community, November 19, 1871, finally arrived. On that day, a procession of celebrants made the storied trek from St. Peter's Catholic Church to the Memphis Female College, changing the name of the destination to Christian Brothers College. From the beginning, this institution stood as part of the continuing legacy of St. John de la Salle, whose founding of the Institute of the Brothers of Christian Schools, or Frates Scholarum Christianarum, continues as one of the world's prolific educational systems. With the death of de la Salle in 1719 and his canonization in 1900, this system flourished to, by the middle of the 20th century, include more than 20,000 brothers teaching nearly half a million students worldwide. In Memphis, the students who attended the first day of classes at the newly formed institution numbered 26. The first president, Brother Maurelian, served two terms for 33 years. It was during these formative years that the institution made several changes and transition that further distinguished it as an educational institution of great worth. The school functioned as a combined elementary school, high school and college, granting high school diplomas as well as bachelor's and master's degrees. This continued from 1871 until 1915, when the college had to close its college division temporarily due to the inordinate amount of students that enlisted for the war effort. Following this period, the school reopened as a Junior College, granting Associate of Arts Degrees beginning in 1942. Some 11 years later, the Junior College was expanded into a 4-year institution offering bachelor's degrees to students once again. Since this time of renewal, the college has expanded tremendously in size and coursework offered. The Master's Program was reinstated in 1987 with exponential growth in size, as reflected by the official change of the school to Christian Brothers University. CBU today holds the distinction as one of the most diverse college communities in the Mid-South in terms of coursework offered and student population. For CBU's record of excellence and for the responsible role of leadership it has taken in the academic community, I ask you and my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in saluting the legacy of this flagship institution of higher learning, Christian Brothers University.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I am a little disappointed that we are actually in the midst of having this debate today before actually completing work on an aviation security bill and before completing work on a stimulus package for people all across this great Nation. Hopefully, the encouraging news we have heard today about progress being made on that bill will not only give assurance or perhaps provide a vehicle for us to pass something before we leave here but provide the American people with some comfort as they prepare to travel on the busiest holiday of the year. I rise today, Mr. Speaker, with a lot of disappointment about the package that has come before the House and with great concern. I rise to support the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), who has worked so tirelessly with Members on both sides of the aisle to find some sort of agreement acceptable, one that would balance the needs of advisors with investors. I might add that the Andrews substitute achieves the twin goals of investor education and choice far better than the base bill. The substitute offered by the gentleman from New Jersey presents the best opportunity, particularly in my eyes and I am sure many even on the other side, to achieve these goals. First, the Andrews substitute would ensure that individuals were aware of all potential conflicts by requiring that the disclosure be contemporaneous with each occasion on which advice is rendered, something all of us should be for. Although most advisors would act professionally and be up front, as we would say, this provision would prevent an unscrupulous firm from burying one line of disclosure boiler plate in a 10-page document filled with legalese. Second, the substitute would ensure that the advice is provided by qualified, licensed and regulated professionals. This provision would simply ensure that the advice is at least as good as they promised it to be. I have heard my friends on the other side talk about this, and why we do not guarantee this and mandate this is beyond me. Finally, as the gentleman from New Jersey said so well in his opening statement, the substitute empowers consumers to make a choice should they determine that a potential conflict necessitates declining that advice, meaning, as the gentleman from New Jersey said, that the advisor would have to consent to providing the investor a different advisor if he or she so chose. Any Member with misgivings about the scope of this bill should carefully consider the serious implications uncovered in a series of hearings held this past year. I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the substitute. I have not made my mind up on final passage, but I would certainly urge a ``yes'' vote on the Andrews substitute.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, the picture is clear: our airlines and airports simply lack the capacity and funding to fulfill this vital police function. We have heard it from all of our colleagues at Louis Armstrong Airport where a man boarded a plane with a gun, learned in midair he had a revolver in his briefcase which sensibly or I guess presumably ran through the security checkpoint. At O'Hare Airport yesterday and certainly at JFK not long ago where the entire concourse was closed, all of this underscores the urgent need for increased security measures. My colleague, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), whom I have great respect for, has indicated he cannot in any way sign on to a federalization or what the Senate 100 to zero, all Republicans and all Democrats, supported. He simply cannot support that legislation. Let me remind all of my colleagues that federalization is nothing more than a word for uniformity here: uniformity in training, standards and equipment. I do not suggest that my colleagues on the other side are driven by anything other than a desire to fix airport security installations, but how asinine and revolting to hear my friends and colleagues in this Chamber suggest that someone on this side, including the 49 Republicans in the Senate, are motivated by nothing more than an effort to increase political revenue and political support. The generous and legal contributions that we enjoy from unions and my colleagues enjoy from these private companies, none of that should influence the outcome of legislation, and we should separate that from this debate. If we want to fix that problem, let us pass campaign finance, but we are here today to discuss a motion to instruct the conferees. I have heard some of my colleagues on the other side say, well, private companies are able to protect nuclear reactors, where there is secondary as well as back-up and increased back-up measures to ensure that those private companies have no access to what happens at those nuclear reactors. I close on this note. For the first time in a long time the Congress is actually viewed favorably by the public. The week after the attacks on September 11, we acted as a body together. We stood on the steps and sang ``God Bless America'' and came together to support our President here in this Chamber. Let us not revert to the days in which we were viewed so unfavorably by the public. Let us have an airport security bill that protects the public. We have a Capitol Hill Police, a Secret Service, security for cabinet members. All of them are Federal law enforcement officials. The public deserves the same at our airports. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend well-deserved recognition to Mrs. Virginia McNeil of Memphis as she is named Elementary School Principal for the year 2001 by the Tennessee Principals' Study Council. A hands-on educator with varied experiences and an abiding devotion to her profession, Mrs. Virginia McNeil has rendered distinguished service as an elementary school teacher, assistant principal and as an instructional supervisor for the System-Wide Achievement Team of Memphis City Schools; however, the defining position of Mrs. McNeil's career has been her productive tenure as the principal of Alton Elementary school, a position she has held since August 1988. With a powerful determination and an expressed concern for each student, Principal McNeil has worked tirelessly to implement school reform, inspire students to achieve, encourage professional development for teachers and involve parents and community leaders in the everyday operation of this school. In the midst of her work, she also has been the impetus behind the creation of the school's strong sense of ``internal community.'' The collective attitude of the faculty and staff has been one which has encouraged support and collaboration. This has been extremely important given the fact that Mrs. McNeil has shepherded a staff that has consistently contained a significant number of new and young teachers. These efforts have helped to turn this low-performing urban school into a model for the Mid-South region with the dramatic turnaround that has occurred with not only the school's poor test scores, but also the positive attitude of the student body and entire school community. This recent award only further highlights a career and resolve that has been rendered in service to the students and young people of Memphis, Tennessee. She has championed the cause of education and been one of its most vocal and effective advocates. This can be easily seen with the noteworthy accomplishments she has achieved including her selection as an attendee to the Harvard Principal's Academy in 1999, her selection as a participant in the 2002 Leadership Memphis Class, her recognition as Distinguished Role Model of the Year with the Memphis Alliance of Black School Educators, and her role as president- elect of the Tennessee Association of Elementary and Middle School Principals (TAEMSP). For the incalculable effect her good work has had in the lives of countless youth, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you and my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives would join with me in honoring my friend and a friend to education, Mrs. Virginia McNeil of Memphis, Tennessee.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and extend well-deserved recognition to Mrs. Kana Barker-Mabon who was awarded the prestigious Milken Family Foundation National Educator Award for her dedication, compassion and diligence as an educator in the Memphis City Schools. Being only one of two educators ever awarded this distinguished award in Tennessee, Mrs. Barker-Mabon has always had a passion for working with children. While pursuing her bachelors in political science at Rhodes College, she also took education classes under Dr. Watson, the chair of the Education Department at Rhodes College and current Superintendent of Memphis City Public Schools. During her student teaching, Mrs. Barker-Mabon was determined to teach where she believed the children needed her the most, so she requested placement at Cypress Middle, one of the lowest performing schools in the state. She continues to teach there today. Mrs. Barker- Mabon is a product of Memphis City Schools and has been a success story since she was placed at Cypress. The results of her hard work are seen through the lives of the children she touches. Mrs. Barker-Mabon earned her M.Ed. in curriculum and instruction from Freed-Hardeman University and is currently working on her Ph.D. at the University of Mississippi. She continues to embrace her students in their academic endeavors and strives to meet their immediate needs by offering students study sessions in addition to providing them with food on the weekends. In her teaching career, Mrs. Barker-Mabon was promoted from classroom teacher to school facilitator after only five years at Cypress, and she teaches other educators how to be more effective. Her steadfastness and undying devotion manifests itself in the attitudes of her students and their test scores. She is held in very high esteem by her students, faculty and administration. This recent award only further highlights a career committed to educating and caring for the well-being of our children. Mr. Speaker, I hope that you and my colleagues will join me in honoring Mrs. Kana Barker-Mabon, a model educator whose kindness and dedication continues to change the lives of countless youth in Memphis, Tennessee.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I heard my dear friend from Florida rise, and I had not risen in some time but I wanted to have the record corrected. I was a part of a group of many Members on both sides of the aisle some few weeks ago who believed the argument put forward by many in the airline industry that if we did not pass an immediate industry stabilization package, I think totaling some $5 billion in cash and $10 billion in loan guaranties, that the industry would sink. Here we are, some several weeks after, 130,000 employees laid off, yet I still believe we did the right thing. Many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have expressed trepidation and concern about that vote, but here we are several weeks later still having done nothing to ensure the safety of those flying. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) is a friend, and a dear friend. But to hear him suggest that Democrats or some in this body are blocking passage of this legislation because we want Federal employees, nothing could be further from the truth. We want to ensure that every airport security installation in this Nation is able to cross-share information with every other airport security installation in this Nation, which will secure the safety of all our passengers. Let us follow the lead of the Senate and pass a bill here in this House that will allow for the safety of all Americans all across this great Nation.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, the September 11 attacks were the evil work of a well-financed global network of terror. It has been reported that the 19 terrorists, while living in America, received at least $500,000 from Al Qaeda sources overseas. Their coordinated attack could not have been planned or perpetrated without access to sources of substantial funding. The cowards of September 11 proved that our enemies do not need armies or tanks or missiles to wage war on the United States. But these terrorists did need money. By starving the Al Qaeda terrorist network and all terrorists of their funding, we can strip them of an essential tool in waging terror. By following the money, we can more effectively track terrorist activity and prevent terrorist attacks before they occur. No anti-terrorism package will be complete without strong financial anti-terrorism provisions. To fight global terrorism effectively, we have to crack down on illegal money laundering and on underground financial activity. To fight terrorism, we have to crack the financial networks of terrorists. Last Thursday, thanks in no small part to the hard work and exemplary cooperation between Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member LaFalce, the Financial Services Committee reported out bipartisan financial anti- terrorism legislation by a 62-1 margin. The Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 takes critical steps to give Treasury and other law enforcement agencies the tools they need to attack the financial infrastructure of terrorists. The bill encourages cooperation between Federal agencies and the financial services industry. Such cooperation between government and the private sector will be critical in our efforts ahead. The bill also helps prevent international money laundering by preventing banks from engaging with overseas shell banks. It gives the Treasury the authority to take special measures against countries, institutions, or transactions that are of ``primary money laundering concern.'' We cannot allow terrorists to use offshore money laundromats to evade the international network of transparent commerce. Financial anti-terrorism legislation is an essential, indispensable piece of our overall anti-terrorism efforts. In the words of Secretary O'Neill, we must ensure that the terrorists' moral bankruptcy must be matched by an empty wallet. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the passage of this bill. Financial anti-terrorism legislation, including strong money laundering provisions, must be included in any ultimate anti-terrorism package passed by this Congress.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, what happened last night, if the President is watching or the White House is watching, y'all did one heck of a job on my friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), who has been a champion, a stalwart on behalf of patients and consumers across this Nation, not just in Georgia. For those of you who thought what might have happened in Florida was good, what happened last night was that much better. Everyone will recite some of the legal things and the legal changes in this bill, but the truth still stands. The only bill on this floor that will be considered today that provides clear and enforceable rights for patients, clear lines of accountability for decisions made by either employers or insurance companies is the Ganske-Dingell-Berry legislation. I have great respect for the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and will continue to hold him in high regard. I have great respect for the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher). But for those of you interested in providing clear patients' rights, enforceable patients' rights, holding those accountable, those who make medical decisions, you have one clear choice, the American Medical Association's choice, Republican Members in the Senate including Mr. McCain, and those of us on our side: the Ganske-Dingell-Berry bill. Vote for patients, not the insurance companies.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote 307, I unfortunately missed the vote somehow or another. I wanted to declare that if indeed I would have voted, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 307.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, am I correct that the gentleman from Texas, speaking on behalf of the Speaker, is in support of Shays-Meehan; or is the gentleman against Shays-Meehan?

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, when I was growing up there was a kid on my street that was not very good at any games we played. He was so bad that he would oftentimes not get a chance to play after his team would lose. But because he owned the football and the basketball that we had, or we played with, he oftentimes got a chance to play. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) is laughing. He may know what I am talking about a little bit. It seems to me we have reached a point here in the Congress where there are some players on the other side of the aisle who simply are not as good as some of the players on this side of the aisle. In this instance, we have a bill called Shays-Meehan, which is superior to theirs. So my friend, the distinguished majority leader, has come to the floor and suggested to us all that the way in which we are proceeding with this legislation, the way in which my friends, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), went before the committee somehow or another surprised him. This is the same United States Congress that kept us here until 4 in the morning to vote on a $1.3 trillion budget, in the wee hours of the morning; the same United States Congress that kept us here until 7 in the morning to vote on a budget. Shame on you, Mr. Leader. Thank you, New York Times. We ought to be thankful that Shays-Meehan will eventually get an up or down vote and will eventually ban soft money. Mr. Leader, bring the ball back. Let the rest of us play. You have a bad bill, but America wants meaningful campaign finance reform.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, due to a commitment in my Congressional District, I was absent on Monday, June 25th for three recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes, No. 186, H.Res 160, No. 187, H. Res. 99, and rollcall vote No. 188, H. Con. Res. 161.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) for yielding me this time, and certainly to the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), my friend and distinguished ranking member, whom I agree with an overwhelming majority of the time, but on this issue here we have a small disagreement. I rise in support of H.R. 1088. There is no doubt that excessive fees imposed on financial transactions should be reduced. These fees were originally intended to fund the enforcement activities of the Securities and Exchange Commission, but the revenue collected by these user fees has come to far surpass the amount needed by the SEC, as a matter of fact, by a factor of five; and this warrants a little fixing, as they say in my part of the country. To be sure, we have a host of budget priorities exceedingly more important than the issue on the floor today; the quality and delivery of education, prescription drugs for seniors, and, clearly, national defense, as the President struggles to talk about it across the globe. But we should be addressing these priorities by being responsible with general tax revenue, not by overcharging a specific industry on user fees. It is simply unfair to say to investors, sorry, we charged you too much by accident; but we are not going to give the money back because we need it for other purposes. SEC fees should be reduced to the point where they fully fund the enforcement responsibilities of the Securities and Exchange Commission. And for the SEC to do its job effectively, its employees need to be paid at a competitive rate. Recruitment and retention of key employees are critical for the effective operation of any business or any government agency. However, the SEC's effectiveness will deteriorate if it cannot maintain its institutional memory and continuity of purpose. We rely on the SEC to protect investors, a mission that is becoming increasingly complex as more and more Americans become investors and our financial system becomes increasingly global. It is time we establish pay parity between SEC employees and the other financial regulators. H.R. 1088 accomplishes both goals, reducing SEC fees and establishing pay parity for SEC employees. It corrects an unfairness caused by unforeseen changes in the market, and for that reason I am proud to support it.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for all the hard work that was expended in crafting a compromise between the two parties. I will say that I plan to support this legislation for many of the reasons enumerated already, particularly by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind). I will add that I am a little disturbed and concerned about three issues, Mr. Speaker. One is the enormous gap between the funding levels provided in the authorization, and we all use all this terminology here, meaning, for those who are watching at home, if there is anyone watching at home, the amount of money that we said we would spend and the amount of money that we intend to spend. The amount of money that we said we want to spend, we indicated in the committee. The amount of money that we intend to spend was decided on the floor not long ago when we passed the budget resolution offered by the majority. The problem is there is an enormous gap between what we said we want to spend and what we actually intend to spend. So all of this sounds great, but until the appropriators come to meet and decide on what that level of funding would be, we face a problem. Two, we constantly complain in this body about how the Federal Government is not living up to its responsibility with local governments in terms of providing dollars for special education, or IDEA as we call it. I hear from educators all across my district, Democrats, Republicans, those who teach in schools where one has a large swath of poor kids and those who teach in districts where one has middle-class or upper-income students. The former chairman of our committee from Pennsylvania, who was a good man, often complained that before we moved as a Congress to enact new programs, we ought to live up to our commitment; we the Federal Government should live up to our commitment to provide up to 40 percent of funding for IDEA. We are not doing that. Not only are we not doing that, but amendments were blocked by the majority. The last two points: the most urgent challenge we face in the great State I am from, Tennessee, and the area I am from, Memphis, is building new schools. No money is provided for that and no opportunity to bring an amendment for that. Lastly, class size reduction. I had the opportunity to speak at one of the finest schools in my district's graduations. Thirty-six students graduated. Wonderful class. The kids are all going to go on to college. I will speak at a few other graduations in the coming days. As I hear fourth and fifth grade teachers complain about teaching 25 to 30 students, I cannot help but think why the majority would not allow an amendment to deal with class size reduction. Again, I intend to support this bill; but I submit to this Congress, if 5- and 6- and 7-, 8-, 9-, 10-, 11-, 12-year-olds could vote, they would vote us all out of the place. Because not one of them would support learning in a school that was 40 to 50 years old, where water does not run, where roofs are falling in. We would not subject ourselves to that, and we certainly should not subject our kids to that. We will pass this bill in the coming days, but I hope we come back and do what is right and build schools for kids all across this Nation.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to and commend Caitlin Steiger for her exemplary service and commitment to her community. On May 7, 2001, Caitlin was named one of America's top ten teen volunteers in Prudential's Spirit of Community Awards Ceremony. She was recognized for her efforts to organize an annual 5K run, which benefits Hope House day care center in Memphis. Through her own initiative, Caitlin created this local service project to strengthen her community and provide much needed services to children suffering with AIDS. Caitlin has successfully organized this event for the past two years and, during that time, raised over $50,000 for this day care center that services children with AIDS or who have relatives with AIDS. She was selected to the top ten from over one hundred teenagers who were honored for their community achievements. It is inspiring to see a young Tennesseean give something of quality back to the Memphis community and to the entire state. While there is no doubt that Caitlin found this work rewarding, I am sure that those who have benefitted from her efforts are very grateful for her special contribution. I am very proud of Caitlin's efforts to create a better, stronger community. Caitlin is an outstanding young leader and is certain to continue to make a difference in the world around her. Her commitment to public service is an example for all ages of what it means to be a leader. I appreciate what she has done for all Tennesseans and am certain that this is just the beginning of many successes for this most impressive young woman. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring her today.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for yielding the time to me and I thank all of my colleagues. As I listen to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), as I have listened to the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), I would hope that we can deal with what some of the realities are here. There is going to be a closing statement where some of these matters will be discussed, but we cannot reach a compromise nor can we advance government if leaders on both sides are not willing to work together, nor can the other side expect this side to believe we can reach an agreement if top leaders on your side can scuttle a deal if they go back to their office and learn they were not consulted, or learn that they were not part of a meeting and suggest to Americans, suggest to this Congress that they have no problems with shutting down this government. Mr. Speaker, it seems fitting that the majority whip's name is DeLay, because that is what is happening here. And I have great respect for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Delay). And I certainly do not mean to cast aspersions on his person or on him. But we have to deal with this reality. I say to my friends on the other side, if you can bring the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) to the table to agree to work to compromise and to reach some agreement, not for Republicans or Democrats, but for the people, then we can all go home. We are willing to deal. The President is willing to deal. From the newspaper accounts, Mr. Lott is willing to deal. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) is willing to deal. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) is willing to work to try to find agreement, but if the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is going to make all of these decisions, then perhaps he ought to be the only one in the room when an agreement is trying to be reached. Mr. Speaker, I say to all of my friends on the other side, I am proud to be a part of any organization that seeks to move government forward. I say to all of my friends, bring the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) to the table, let him lay out what it is exactly he wants, other than blaming Mr. Clinton for shutting down the government and, perhaps, we can start from there, move from there, and conclude from that point.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I have heard all my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, particularly the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, tout some of the successes of the committee. I serve on that committee and am glad to serve under his leadership, but I might add that some of the successes that we tout we have not seen them signed into law. I think the chairman would admit that he has had difficulty with some of these even on his side. I heard the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) talk about how close we are and how sad it is that we cannot close that gap. He mentions that we are perhaps promoting something false on this side. There is nothing false about kids learning in closets, there is nothing false about children learning in bathrooms, there is nothing false about children learning in trailers connected to their schools. If we can find $.25 trillion a year to help build roads and highways and bridges; if we can find Federal dollars to build prisons, then we ought to be able to find some dollars to build schools for children. The only quota that my friends on the other side of the aisle support, and I have many friends on that side of the aisle and do not mean to cast aspersions, is the quota to raise the number of foreign workers we allow into our nation to hold down jobs which we cannot produce enough people in our country to do that. Let us pass this motion and do right by our children. I look forward to working with both chairmen to get this done.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 15 minutes.

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes.

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).