Harold Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Conyers substitute because I do think that there is a need for reasonable legislation that addresses this once-in-a-lifetime problem. I am a cosponsor of this legislation, but I cannot support it in its current form for a number of reasons: The use of a ``reasonable efforts'' standard for the sole defense in Y2K litigation exceeds the burden of proof in most federal and state court civil proceedings. Normally, plaintiffs must meet the less onerous ``preponderance of the evidence'' standard. In addition to setting up a new legal standard, this term is at best ambiguous. How will the courts know how to interpret this language? Finally, the supporters of this legislation are inconsistent. Just last week this Chamber passed a bankruptcy reform bill with the cries of ``personal/corporate responsibility''. In its current form, this legislation would permit some of these same entities to evade any sort of responsibility. This Democratic substitute is narrowly tailored to address Y2K concerns. Like the base bill, it provides for a cooling off period, has additional pleading requirements to discourage frivolous lawsuits, and provides for a fair way for the parties with Y2K claims to chair the liability. I urge my colleagues to support the Conyers substitute.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Reverend J. Delnoah Williams, a highly respected community leader and Publisher of the Silver Star News, a weekly newspaper in the Ninth Congressional District. Since the newspaper's establishment in 1986, Reverend Williams has sought to make it more than just an outlet for the dissemination of news. The Silver Star News plays an integral role in improving our community. On its pages are important local and national issues. Reverend Williams and his professional staff always work to ensure that the activities of important local institutions like churches, small businesses, associations, sororities and non- profits are given prominent attention. As the newspaper's masthead states, the Silver Star News is ``Building Bridges For A Brighter Future'' in Memphis. In that tradition, Reverend Williams has undertaken a new venture. On May 15th, Reverend Williams will open the new Silver Park Plaza, a multi-service complex, for public and private events, including conferences, banquets, receptions, weddings, parties, meetings, seminars, recitals and concerts. The center will also serve as the newspaper's new home. What's significant about this new complex, Mr. Speaker, is that it not only represents a new beginning for the paper, it represents a new beginning for the Orange Mound community, the area of Memphis where the Silver Star News has had its offices since its founding. Through Reverend Williams vision and leadership, the Silver Star Park Plaza will serve as a catalyst for economic growth in the Ninth District. The Silver Park Plaza venture is part of a larger national trend of capitalizing on the untapped social and economic assets in our under- served and rural areas. Michael Porter, a Professor of Business Administration at the Harvard Business School and founder and Chairman of the Initiative for a Competitive Inner City, believes that a new vision of economic development is needed to accelerate business growth in these areas. Sustainable economic progress, according to Professor Porter, must be based on drawing on our untapped competitive economic advantages which already exist in our central cities. Consider that more than 54 percent of the workforce growth over the next ten years will come from workers in central cities. Moreover, our central cities represent more than $85 billion in retail spending potential each year in the United States. The University of Memphis has documented this untapped economic potential in various sections of our city. Governments can help spur economic growth, but ultimately, it's the private, for-profit business enterprises that will transform our communities, create jobs and produce wealth. The Silver Park venture embodies that philosophy. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to recognize Reverend Williams and the Silver Park Plaza. I know that similar, untold success stories exist in congressional districts throughout the nation. I urge my colleagues to take a close look at them in order to learn how we can best shape public policy in recognition of this new direction of economic growth in America.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I just want to the add my voice of congratulations to Jesse Jackson, who in many ways is like a father figure to me. I have known the family for so long. I am not surprised what Jesse Jackson was able to accomplish. And I say to my dear friend who came with me in the same class in 1996, that great Congressman from Chicago, he was one heck of a wing man and the Reverend could not have done it without him. Congratulations, Reverend Jackson. And to the Ramirez, Stone and Gonzales families, I thank them for producing three great men like they have. God bless America.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of both resolutions we are considering today, both which urge this Congress and the President to fully fund IDEA and the Pell grant Programs before funding any new program. As a supporter of both these programs, I understand that IDEA provides an education for many American children who would otherwise be denied an education, and the Pell grant has enabled millions of Americans, including my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), to attend college. However, Mr. Speaker, these nonbinding resolutions will not make a dent, really, even with all the flowery and wonderful rhetoric we have heard from both sides today. For we are merely expressing our wishes, merely talking about the problem, but not acting. I can assure my colleagues that if Democrats were in control of this Chamber, not only would we be talking today, we would be preparing to act. In fact, if we were serious about education, we would probably think about funding the class size reduction program of the President and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay). As the chairman of the full committee and the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) both know, in Tennessee, where I am from, a study was just completed to show that small classes in grades K through 3 continue to outperform students in larger classes right through high school graduation. I know my dear friend, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Barrett), knows and strongly believes, as I do, that we should support programs that work. This program works. In addition, our schools are in dire need of modernization. It has been shown that this Federal Government can contribute money to build new prisons and build new roads and build new highways. We have to find the capacity and the courage to build new schools. Let us stop being the suspension bill and resolution Congress. I say to the other side, let us go to work and do the job the American people pay us $136,500 a year to do. Resolutions, expressing our wishes will not do it. It is time to act. This Congress has failed that test, and we are failing American children in the process.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, this nation is shocked and deeply affected by the lives that were lost in Littleton, Colorado on Tuesday, April 20, 1999, as a result of a senseless shooting rampage. We must work harder to deter violence and promote safety in our nations schools. I agree with the President: We need to ``wake up to school violence,'' and ``if it can happen here, then surely people will recognize [t]he possibility that it can occur in any community in America, and maybe that will help us to keep it from happening again.'' My prayers go out to the students, teachers, faculty, staff, and parents of students who attend Columbine High School and to the suburban Denver community rocked by this shooting rampage. This nation has made little progress in the way of making our school and communities safer and preventing these horrific tragedies from reoccurring. In fact, this was the ninth such incident of tragic school violence in recent years. Many schoolchildren have access to weapons and they do not have the support systems to deal with their grievances. Yesterday was a poignant reminder to all of us that communities, parents and gun makers have an obligation to act responsibly to keep our communities and schools safer. But, parents and communities should not have to meet these challenges alone. Government has a role in keeping products such as assault weapons off of our streets and out of the hands of schoolchildren. I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join me in making our schools, our communities, and our nation safer.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of bill H.R. 573 to honor the eternal Mother of the Modern Civil Rights Movement, Rosa Parks. Ms. Parks' humble and courageous resistance on that great day in 1955 served as a catalyst for great change in our nation. Her refusal of ``second class citizenship'' served as a testimony to her pursuit of equality and justice for all Americans. Ms. Parks' is one of the great figures of modern times, and it is, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, ``altogether fitting and proper'' that we repay her dedication with the Congressional Gold Medal. When they arrested and removed Ms. Parks from that bus in Montgomery, Alabama, she did not know the momentous impact of her actions. She didn't know that her quiet courage would spark the bus boycotts and the emergence of a young minister by the name of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Ultimately, the movement ignited by Ms. Parks led to the monumental civil rights legislation passed by this great body. Ms. Parks has been recognized by virtually every national organization dedicated to equality and social justice in this nation, yet until today, the U.S. Congress had not extended such an honor. I urge each and every person in this House to vote ``yes'' to bill H.R. 573. Join me in honoring Rosa Parks, a champion of the Civil Rights Struggle, with the Congressional Gold Medal.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and to the leaders on both sides, John Maynard Keynes, that noted economist, once said that the difficulty lies not in generating new ideas, but escaping from the old ones. We cannot seem to get away from, in this Congress, wanting to do all things for all people. All the language and all the rhetoric that has been used today, all of it sounds great, $800 billion in tax cuts over 10 years, $1.7 trillion over 15 years, a lockbox for social security funding. The only problem, Mr. Speaker, is that it does not all add up. We want to do all of these wonderful and great things, but the party that touted fiscal responsibility for so many years has now assumed the role that they accuse liberal Democrats of assuming for the last 15 to 20 years. I know they have good people on their side that can add, subtract, multiply, and divide. It is only my hope and certainly that of my colleagues on this side that those folks who cannot add and subtract come to the forefront, add this budget up, realize that it does not add up, and do what is right. Let us save social security and Medicare first and then bring about those tax cuts. If we win the lottery, we should not spend all our money at the casinos, we should take care of the debts and obligations first, and then take care of the things we want to do. We ought to do the same thing in this Congress. The people expect no less.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me, soon to be chairwoman of the subcommittee, no disrespect to our current chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller). Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 472, and would take the liberty to ask all of my colleagues to support the Maloney amendment. I have heard nothing, Mr. Chairman, since being a member of the committee, but lip service paid to this notion of an accurate count. While many of the independent experts, including those mentioned by the committee ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), tell us that the key to an accurate Census is the use of modern statistical methods, whether the majority leader likes it or not. We have not been able to count all the folks in this great Nation. There were 8 million missed in 1990; in my district alone 20,000, and in my State of Tennessee, 8,000. Had we counted all of them, that would have been the fifth largest city in the State. The 20,000 missed in my district, 10,000 of them were children; 17 new schools, 530 new teachers, according to children's organizations who have done some of the numbers. Census data, Census data, is used to determine the amount of funding, Federal funding for education, for health care, for transportation projects, as my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Duke Cunningham) just talked about. But the bill that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) and my friends and others are putting up would not accomplish the goals they seek to accomplish. If we allow local governments to work with the Census Bureau, if we follow them, the Maloney model, that is consistent with what these guys want to do. Do the right thing, allow the money to get to Members districts, my district, all of our districts.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Spratt substitute, and in strong opposition to this unfair procedure and this sham Republican budget. It is unfair that the majority is only permitting 40 minutes of debate on viable budget alternatives; why are we telling the American people that this important resolution deserves such limited debate? The Republican budget resolution fails in many important areas: it fails to protect Social Security; unrealistically slashes domestic spending; and contains huge tax cuts that will be targeted towards the wealthy and will explode in future years. I am supportive of the Spratt Alternative for a number of reasons: First, it saves 100% of the Social Security surplus while extending the solvency of the program; it also extends the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund until 2020. Finally, it provides increases to programs that are a prirotiy for me: class size reduction, child care, Welfare-to- Work, and Urban Empowerment Zones. The Spratt Alternative also pays down $146 billion more in public debt over 10 years than the Republican resolution. Let's put this in real terms: Paying down the debt is the best way to put more money in our taxpayer's pockets. If we pay down the debt, interest rates drop. What does this mean? A 2% dip in interest rates drops the mortgage payment on a $115,000 home from $844 to $689--a decrease of $155 each month! For a small business that takes out a five-year, $200,000 loan would save $2,256 per year, and $11,280 over the life of the loan. This, my friends, is REAL monty and will make a difference to each of our constituents. In 1998, we spent 14% of our budget on interest payments on our national debt. That money could instead be used to cut taxes, or invest in education. Let's continue to do the hard work now to secure our future. Vote ``no'' on the Republican budget, and support the Spratt alternative.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a constituent, friend and esteemed member of the clergy from Tennessee's Ninth District, Reverend Bill Adkins. On Wednesday, March 15, Reverend Adkins announced an ambitious project in Memphis that will bring together people of faith from across the city, from all dominations, to address our community's most pressing needs. Entitled ``Project 2000,'' the initiative would begin on Easter Sunday and continue throughout the year. Participating churches would set aside the receipt from one Sunday's collection for a special community project. Reverend Adkins described this initiative best when he urged his fellow clergy to join him in his cause: ``We pray about poverty, housing, incarceration, illnesses and the lack of jobs, and we should. But what are the churches doing? Why can't we take one Sunday out of 52 and do something together for the betterment of the community? One hundred churches alone in Memphis could generate several million dollars.'' (Source: The Commercial Appeal, March 16, 1999) ``Project 2000'' exemplifies the American ideals of community and mutual responsibility. As Americans, we should not live as individuals in isolation, but as members of a community, working together to solve our common problems. In our labors, we should draw on the spiritual, moral, intellectual and financial strength of our church community. There is no limit to what we can accomplish when we marshal the good will and resources of the more than 150 million people of faith who attend weekly services in over 300,000 congregations in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join me today in honoring Reverend Adkins and ``Project 2000.'' But more than that, Mr. Speaker, I believe the best tribute to Reverend Adkins and ``Project 2000'' would be for all of my colleagues in the House of Representatives to introduce this unique initiative to their constituents. I have included a copy of a recent news article describing this initiative and ask that it be included in the Record. [From The Commercial Appeal, Mar. 16, 1999] Churches Asked To Donate A Sunday (By David Waters) Monday, he was on the radio rallying citizens to do something positive for the oft-maligned neighborhood of Whitehaven. Tuesday, he was at the City Council meeting, lobbying council members to do something to fix a voting plan he thinks is unfair. Wednesday, he held a press conference and challenged his congregation and others to do something collectively to help the community. ``We pray about poverty, housing, incarceration, illness and the lack of jobs, and we should,'' Rev. Bill Adkins, pastor of Greater Imani Church, said as he presented his idea for Project 2000. ``But what are the churches doing?'' Adkins suggested that, starting next year, all local churches contribute one Sunday's receipts to a special community project. The first Project 2000 Sunday could be Jan. 30, 2000, the fifth Sunday of that month. ``Most churches consider fifth Sundays as gravy,'' Adkins said. ``Why can't we take one Sunday out of 52 and do something together for the betterment of the community?'' Adkins would like to get representatives from each participating congregation to form a board to choose a Project 2000 recipient. ``One hundred churches alone in Memphis could generate several million dollars,'' he said. ``The church, especially the traditional black church, has the might to bring resurrection power to this community.'' Adkins said Project 2000 will begin on Easter Sunday. Easter this year falls on April 4 for the first time since Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was killed on that date in Memphis in 1968. To commemorate that date, Adkins said Greater Imani will celebrate Easter at the Mid-South Coliseum this year. The service will begin at 9 a.m.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to thirty extraordinarily gifted young men and women from Tennessee's Ninth Congressional District who are in Washington this week to display their talents before the nation. Under the leadership of Mr. Reginald Gaston, the Hamilton High School Choir has become one of the best concert and gospel choirs in the State of Tennessee. Dedicated to the pursuit of excellence, the Hamilton Choir has earned national recognition for their superior ratings in the recent Mid-America Choral Festival in Orlando, Florida. It gives me great honor, Mr. Speaker, to present the names of these thirty fine young representatives Tennessee's Ninth District: Marlon Mitchell, Mario Albright, Jason Mitchell, Jacinth Ragland, Jattir Ragland, Phillip Britteum, Jonathan Anderson, Burl Toler, Jared Bledsoe, Tre' Canady, Royry Walker, Rickeya Townes, Felecia Wiggins, Sally Ousley, Yamina Tunstall, Sekida Norwood, Tawanda Dean, Sukeeya Haley, April Johnson, Christian Kirk, Sharonda, Walker, Ranata Adams, Thais Polk, Jovannii Ayers, LaDaris Spearman, Paige Brown, Yolanda Bolton, Ashley Wheeler, Monique Joiner, Tinisha Daniels, and Ms. Adrianne Strong. The hard work of these young people defies the inaccurate notion of an ``uncommitted generation.'' The young people of this nation possess an overwhelming level of dedication and aptitude, and the students of the Hamilton High School Choir serve as a testimony to that. We must continue to encourage the young people of this nation. We must continue to remind them of their potential. Moreover, we must congratulate them when they reach their goals and fulfill their potential. In that spirit, it gives me great pleasure to present this inspirational group of young men and women to official Washington, to my colleagues and to the hundreds of Americans who will be touring the people's capitol. May their voices ring from the steps of the capitol and echo the dedication and commitment of their generation.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Bipartisan Steel Recovery Act of 1999. I believe this initiative provides a comprehensive approach to enforcing trade laws by stating clearly and forcefully that the United States does not and will not tolerate violations of trade laws by foreign corporations. As we enter a new millennium, we must face and embrace globalism by ensuring that all our citizens have the skills required to compete in the international economy. Export-driven job growth ensures that our communities' living standards continue to rise. The primary forces shaping our economy--globalization, digitalization, deregulation, and diversity--require that we consider a broader array of international trade and investment opportunities. The city of Memphis is considered America's Distribution Center, and trade liberalization will help us become the World's Distribution Center. But, while I support free trade, I also support fair trade. When other countries employ unfair trading practices, we must respond in kind. The rules of the international trading system, as laid out in the World Trade Organization, are predicated upon fair trade. If a country violates these rules, the system itself suffers. That is why we must respond forcefully when foreign firms are dumping their products in the United States at prices under the fair market value. That is why we must respond forcefully when huge import surges threaten American jobs. This bipartisan measure demonstrates to the rest of the world that there is a right way and a wrong way to pursue globalization. The plight of Birmingham Steel, which operates a mini-mill in the Ninth District of Tennessee, is an example of how the current crisis is affecting working families in our country. In Memphis, Birmingham Steel employees manufacture steel that is eventually fashioned into wire rods. Since 1993, wire rod imports from non-NAFTA nations have increased 60 percent, and in the past 18 months these imports have increased by 16 percent. Surely, we need to rectify this situation. We also need to be wary of the macroeconomic effects of the surge in imports. A recent Business Week article noted that the merchandise trade deficit widened by 25 percent in 1998, to a record $248 billion. Most of this can be attributed to surging imports, such as the steel surges from Brazil, Russia, and Japan. Economists agree that while the U.S. economy continues to prosper and grow, a ballooning current account deficit could prompt a correction in stock prices, a weaker dollar, and possibly even a recession. In other words, our unprecedented record of high growth--while keeping inflation and unemployment low--is jeopardized by import surges. About two decades ago, the U.S. steel industry was widely criticized for lagging competitiveness, excessively high prices, and low labor productivity. Both management and labor realized that they had to reinvent the way steel was produced in the United States. They did so through reinvestment, streamlining, and hard work. The steel industry has since turned itself into one of the most admired, productive sectors of U.S. business. Now, as world trading rules are being flaunted, it is time for us to come to the aid of this proud industry, an industry that is crucial to our national defense and our American heritage. Our steel workers deserve better. The world trading system deserves better. For these reasons, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Bipartisan Steel Recovery Act of 1999.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today out of concern that the majority is not allowing amendments on this important legislation. Yesterday the Administration and the Senate were able to compromise on a similar measure, simply because the Senate Majority Leader provided the room to compromise. Unfortunately, such leadership is absent today in the House. I don't have to remind my colleagues of the importance of this decision today. As most of you know, I am the youngest member of the House. Many people have tried to find a name for my generation, because in earlier times there was the World War I generation, the World War II generation, and the Vietnam Generation. There are no wars to name us by. Why is that? Because we have learned how to work with other nations to reduce the threat of armed conflict between the great powers. We have learned that effective diplomacy, backed by the threat of the use of force, can help defuse this threat among members of the international community. Of course, the threats posed by rogue states such as Iraq and North Korea--who have been ostracized by the international community--have dramatically changed the rules. I believe that we need to prepare for the asymmetric threats posed by nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. However, we should not act impetuously. The Administration has requested that we amend H.R. 4 in order to make clear that the decision to deploy a missile defense system is contingent on a variety of factors, including an assessment of the costs and feasibility of the project. The rule, however, prevents us from taking this sensible step. Instead, it asks that the House make the decision for the President after 2 hours of debate, without any consideration of what such a project entails. The rule also prevents us from reaffirming our commitment to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. It jeopardizes the adoption of the START II treaty by the Duma in Moscow. Indeed, the Russian parliament is also addressing concerns over weapons of mass destruction. To show our support for strategic arms reduction, we ought to demonstrate our commitment, yet we are unable to do so because of this rule. As the legislative branch, we have a right to be involved in foreign policy decisions. Yet we need to use this right responsibly. We learned in the 1980s that relentlessly pursuing the goal of a national missile defense system without any realistic assessment of the costs involved is a bad way to make foreign policy. By not allowing amendments, the majority is again acting in their own political interests, not the interests of sensible, prudent policy. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Gejdenson Amendment to H. Con. Res. 42. Three months before he died, in his fourth inaugural address, President Franklin Roosevelt expressed his hope for a ``just, honorable, and durable'' settlement to World War II. But he cautioned against acting impetuously to bring about this settlement, knowing that ``peace could not be achieved immediately.'' President Roosevelt was aware that peace-making is a delicate process. We have learned, as a country and as a people, that peace is a difficult goal to achieve. Peace takes engagement. Most of all, peace takes time. As most of you know, I am the youngest member of the House. Many people have tried to find a name for my generation, because in earlier times there was the World War I generation, the World War II generation, and the Vietnam Generation. There are no wars to name us by. Why is that? Because we have learned that U.S. forces should only be used when there is a clear goal and U.S. interests are threatened. And even then, we must use force judiciously and effectively. I myself have some concerns on the extent of our commitment, our exit strategy, and our rules of engagement. But how can we dictate the terms of our involvement when a settlement has not yet been reached? Unfortunately, the majority has brought this resolution to the floor at this time, against the blatant wishes of all those involved in the process, from Senator Dole to the President to the Kosovars to the Serbs. This is an obstruction of the peace process. I support this amendment because I support the Administration's efforts to secure a just peace. At the same time, we must play our constitutional role responsibly. Let the Administration continue its efforts toward reaching a settlement. As Speaker Hastert himself said two weeks ago, let's give them the ``room to negotiate.'' I would be surprised to learn that Speaker Hastert considers two weeks enough time to resolve a conflict that spans centuries. The President should continue taking steps to bring the parties to a fair and just agreement. If and when such an agreement is reached, we should give our full support for the deployment of U.S. troops. For these reason, I support the Gejdenson Amendment to H. Con. Res. 42.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), and the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling). This is a solid bill. I rise in support of the Roemer-Castle Ed-Flex bill. I think the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Tim Roemer) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) have done a great job in pulling together members on this committee as well as Members throughout this House in support of an effort that empowers local school districts to really make the education reforms that we here in the Congress believe need to be made, and certainly those at the local level, who are closer to these issues and closest to the children and the problem, know need to be made at the local level. But I also rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), which really calls upon States to really produce some sort of concrete and tangible and meaningful assessment plan for parents and for local educators and for those of us at the Federal level to assess what our States are doing and how close they are coming to closing some of the achievement gaps that exist between certain bodies of students. I have heard some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle complain about a national role or a Federal role in education. I would remind my colleagues, and particularly those on the Republican side, that less than 7 percent of all the dollars and really no policy-making authority with regard to what is taught, when it is taught or how it is taught in our local school districts are made here at the Federal level. We should all leave the rhetorical bombs and inflammatory language we use about the Federal role in education at home and really deal with the facts. The reality is that we need to build new classrooms. We can debate about how it is to be funded, but the reality is we need to build new classrooms. The other reality is that we need more teachers in our classroom. We can debate how it is going to be funded, but the reality is we have this problem. Children, parents and educators certainly are amused by and fascinated by this wonderful debate we have here at this Federal level about who ought to pay for it, but the real losers are children. As one of the youngest Members of this House, Mr. Chairman, and one who will have to live with these and their children, I hope that we can come to some agreement on what the President has called for in building new schools and hiring new teachers. Whether we want to call it giving all the authority to the States or local school districts or making decisions here at the Federal level, I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if we can find the courage to use Federal dollars to build prisons, to build roads, and to build highways, we ought to be able to find the courage and the resources and the capacity to build new schools and hire new teachers and give the States and the local school districts to do just that.

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

Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) I believe that my good friend's amendment, Mr. Holt, if I am not mistaken, does give control of how the funds are used completely to the States and local schools. It does not pull the Eisenhower program out of Ed-Flex, it does not prevent local schools from using Eisenhower funds for teacher training and other subjects, and it does not add burdensome paperwork requirements to the waiver process. I have great respect for the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) but even if it did cause a little extra paperwork to ensure that our math and science teachers are trained to ensure that our kids are being trained for the global marketplace that awaits, and I would hope that my friends on the other side would be sensitive to the children in this debate and not to perhaps the ideology that all of us are espousing here.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kildee-Miller amendment and rise in support of this legislation. I think we all can agree that local educators and parents are closest to our children and are closest to the impact that our policies are having in the elementary and secondary setting. But here is another reality. When one goes to a bank to borrow money, particularly when one looks like me, the bank asks for a business plan or some other sources of income to determine if one can pay the loan back. Provided one puts forth a good plan, they will loan one the money. Business people, when they own businesses and ask for money from shareholders and ask for investors to invest, they have to present a plan. If they are able to make a reasonable return on the person's investment or the investor's investment, they will continue to have folks invest in their plan. What we are asking for here is even less. We are just asking for States to put up a plan. It does not have to necessarily be a cogent plan. But give us some sense of how they are going to go, what goals they are trying to achieve, some sense of how they are going to evaluate, how far they are coming, and where they would like to go. That is all the Kildee-Miller amendment seeks to do. No new regulations, I say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), my good friend. It does not strengthen the unions, I say to my good friends on the other side. It does not line the pockets of trial lawyers. I have searched and searched and searched in the legislation for the last half an hour to an hour to find out how this legislation could line the pockets of trial lawyers, but I have yet to find out. But I am open to a conversation if some of my friends on that side can identify that. We have paid a lot of lip service today to this notion of local control. We have paid a lot of lip service to this motion that the Federal Government somehow or another has come in and intruded and trampled and usurped the powers of our local school boards and local officials. Let us stop deluding ourselves. We have heard speaker after speaker. The other side gets up and has speaker after speaker. Virtually all of the education policy setting authority in America rests with local authorities. One cannot deny it. It is a fact. Ninety-four cents of every dollar raised and spent on local education on education is raised and spent at the local level. When one criticizes the Federal Government, and my good friend, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), and I respect his comments about the New York Times, they do not read them in Memphis either, they read the Commercial Appeal, sometimes I wish they read the New York Times, but my friends in Memphis, those folks that are graduating, those seniors that are graduating who might have participated or benefitted from Title I funds, Mr. Chairman, what about the 94 cents that were spent on those children throughout their time in elementary and secondary schools. We have to blame everybody if we are going to begin to point fingers. What Ed-Flex seeks to do is to give States the flexibility to make these decisions. But I think it is rational, I think it is sensible to ask them just to provide a plan as to how they are going to spend this money. If the local authorities and local school boards had all the answers, why are our schools falling down? Why are our kids dropping out of school? Why do the international math and science tests over and over and over again demonstrate our kids are failing? We can argue all day, Democrat, Republican, unions, no unions, lawyers, no lawyers, but the people that are losing are our children. Sure, local educators and parents, give them the authority, but like my colleagues, when I go home, what my parents and teachers and local educators are saying we need to build new schools. We can debate how we are going to do it. Let local authorities decide that. Let us provide incentives for them to do it. My colleagues cannot deny what this President has done, saying we will end social promotion, we will provide monies to school districts to hire new teachers and build new schools; if they close or address under-performing schools, more money to build new schools. That is what they do in the business community. That is what the Republican Party has been yelling year after year after year. I am only in my second term, 28 years old. I watched the Republicans growing up. This is what the Republican Party has been talking about. This is the Republican mantra. Why abandon it now? All we ask for is that these school districts be held accountable. If they do a good job, give them more money, I would say to my good friends, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman. But if they do not, close them. That is what taxpayers want, that is what shareholders want, that is what we all expect. All this partisan rancor, unions, lawyers, State authority, local authority, Federal authority. The national government has a role in how kids are being educated. These are our future workers, these are our future congresspeople, our future pastors, our future teachers. We have an obligation to ensure that kids are educated in Kentucky and Tennessee and New York and Delaware, I would say to the former governor, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle). All we want on this side, I think all we want in this body, is to ensure that Delaware is doing a good job, that Tennessee is doing a good job, Nevada, Texas, California, Michigan, New York. All we would like to do is see a plan. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) are absolutely right. This is not about black kids, white kids, or Hispanic kids. This is about children. This is about a new generation of Americans. We have an opportunity in this House to do something truly historic; reform Title I in a way that gives States that flexibility. But understand, Ed-Flex is not going to solve all of our problems. We in this Congress must have the courage to do the right thing, and I hope Democrat and Republican can find common ground.

Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I would only hope we would do the right thing in this Congress. We have our differences. I heard someone stand up and say they want to support this bill because the President supports it. There was something the President supported a few months ago that the other side did not support, but I am glad to see we are on the same page on this one. So let us do what is right for the kids.

Mr. FORD. I yield to the gentleman from Delaware.

Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, my reading of it does not suggest that.

Mr. FORD. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. FORD. I yield to the gentleman from Delaware.

Mr. FORD. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. FORD. I yield to the gentleman from Delaware.