Johnny Isakson

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns).

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. The difference in the charts are the assumptions. In the chart in question, we met with FHWA this morning. They assume the same basis in allocating the charts. Therefore, the numbers change. Numbers are moving all around but 90.5 percent of 93 percent still beats the basis in TEA LU. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the committee chairman, and the ranking member for their cooperation in allowing this amendment to come to the floor today. My colleagues are getting ready to hear a lot of numbers. They are getting ready to see a lot of charts; but in the end, facts are stubborn things. The current base bill, as presented, if passing the way it does, will reduce the minimum guarantee in the States from 90.5 percent to a scope of 84 percent. The amendment presented today by me and a bipartisan group ensures that the minimum guarantee will remain at 90.5 percent of 93 percent, as it was allocated on scope under TEA 21. Those are the facts. That is what everybody needs to understand. Do not let any chart with any separate group of assumptions lead my colleagues astray. They cannot make 90.5 percent of 84 percent more than 90.5 percent of 93 percent. Secondly, some will say it is a donor/donee issue, and to an extent it is; but if the base bill passes as it is, it exacerbates the donor States. All the donor States are asking in this is to maintain where they were under the last highway reauthorization bill. I hope my colleagues keep those facts in mind. Facts are stubborn things. This is about equity to our States. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), a distinguished member of the committee and a good friend on this issue.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to all of our men and women in harm's way in Iraq and our Operation Iraqi Freedom, but in particular to focus on the Grey Berets Special Operation Forces Weathermen. Although the war had not commenced as of this date a year ago, already for weeks on the ground many brave soldiers from these forces had infiltrated Iraq, had set up meteorological operations and were communicating to our pilots, to our Air Force, to our Navy, our Marines and Army the critical weather information necessary for a safe, a death-free, as much as possible, and a successful invasion of Iraq and the liberation of the Iraqi people. Tonight, the Weather Channel Network will feature a 1-hour special on these brave men and women who went into harm's way before battle began, who hid, who worked, who got the data, and made sure our pilots, our Navy, our Marines, and Air Force had the information they needed. I commend these brave Grey Berets. I commend the Weather Channel Network for paying special tribute to them on this day.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Violence with the intent of injuring or killing a woman or any person is wrong and deserves the most severe penalty. Such an act of violence against a pregnant woman is an act against two lives and should be punishable as separate offenses. We need only look to the Lacy Peterson case in California for clear and compelling evidence for the justification of two separate offenses. Any person intent in causing harm or death through violence and crime against any life must be held accountable for every life.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from California has proposed a solution to a problem we do not have. When you walked here today, there was not a single person stopping you saying, you know, the 1964 Civil Rights Act was wrong and section 702 ought not apply under Community Services Block Grants. When you go back to your e-mail, because we are not getting any mail right now, you do not have anybody writing you that they have been harmed because of a practice of 40 years of the Civil Rights Act of the United States of America. When you read the news tonight or when you read it last night and you look at television tonight, you look at all of the problems in the world, there is not a single person complaining about community service block grants or about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. My dear friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) referred to the courts have not yet been challenged on this particular issue. Well, I will tell my colleagues one thing, and this is a guess and I stand to be corrected if anybody knows I am wrong, but since 1964, in the last 40 years, no act of Congress has ever been ruled on more frequently or more often or been challenged before the Supreme Court of the United States more than the Civil Rights Act. If what we were talking about repealing was so wrong and evil and punitive, then it would have long since been decided. But the biggest tragedy of all, and I love the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), he is a wonderful human being. And he and I are about the same age, and I have worked over the last 30 years on many charitable organizations and faith-based projects, and he has too, but he made a statement that kind of twisted the facts. He said this has not been a problem for 30 years; and he is right, it has not been. But if the substitute is adopted today, we have a big problem, because we are saying to a huge resource of individuals who, for 3 decades when they have been allowed to, have provided meaningful efforts, like the YMCA of Atlanta that delivers the Head Start program for our area; we have said to them, you know, your exemption of the Civil Rights Act no longer applies. You cannot participate unless you change. And who gets hurt? The 350 kids in Head Start get hurt. Now, we are going to vote on this in a little bit, and I hope we will defeat the substitute, but I want to ask my colleagues to count something. On the way back to your office, count how many people you encounter who bring up the fact that there has ever been a problem with this act or who say thank you one way or another for voting for a substitute that is dead flat wrong.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for yielding me this time. I, having been a minority leader in the Georgia legislature for a long time, understand that role. But I have to clarify the opening remarks that were made by the leader from my perspective about the time, about the hours of the night and about the comment; and I think I have got it about right, that in the dark of night we passed legislation that benefited a few, referring, I think, to the tax legislation in the past. Mr. Speaker, at 12:12, 12:15, 2:45, 3 a.m., and 6:45 in the morning, any morning, fishermen leave the wharves of San Francisco, California, to go fish for a living and pay taxes. In the district of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), in the garment district they work in those hours for the prime time of the evening to feed their families and pay taxes. In every one of our districts in those hours of the dark of night, Americans who finance this country and run it work doing an important job. I will submit to you, if you ask them, reforming a Medicare system is important. I think if you asked them if dealing with prescription drugs for their parents and their seniors is important, they would tell you. I do not think any one of us on the campaign trail would ever belittle a fisherman at 6:45 on San Francisco's wharf or someone in the garment district of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). We can have our partisan arguments over procedure, but let us not ever belittle hard work for a good purpose because it is the American people that do that on the night shift every night that finance this country and allow you and I to be here. I am proud to have stood up to cut their taxes and provide benefits to their parents.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained yesterday and missed the votes. Had I been present I would have voted as follows: Rollcall number 620--``yes''; rollcall number 621--``yes''; rollcall number 622--``yes''; and rollcall number 623--``yes.''

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose a motion offered by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson to instruct the House conferees on H.R. 6, The Energy Policy Act of 2003. This motion would strike language in the energy conference draft that would prevent areas of the country from having to bear the economic burden of transported air emissions from other areas. In 1998 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed a policy that allowed the EPA to extend the attainment date for moderate or serious ozone non-attainment areas that were affected by transported pollution. That policy was successfully challenged in court in several regions of the country, where courts ruled that the EPA did not have the authority to extend the ozone attainment dates for those areas. The proposal in the energy bill is a good proposal that would simply codify a 5-year old policy designed to prevent an unjust result. I think we can all agree that downwind areas not attaining ozone standards should not be penalized for pollution they do not generate. An area that is ``bumped up'' to a higher non-attainment classification automatically forces a region into a more stringent and expensive regulatory regimen through no fault of their own. The codification of the 1998 policy allows the EPA flexibility in remedying this situation but does not let downwind areas off the hook for attainment of the ozone standards. In order to qualify, an area must be a victim of pollution transported from another area that significantly contributes to non-attainment in the downwind area. The EPA must approve a plan that complies with all requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) that are currently applicable to the areas, as well as includes any additional measures needed to reach attainment by the date for the upwind area. Finally, the extension of any date must provide for attainment of CAA standards ``as expeditiously as practicable'' but in no case later than the time in which upwind controls are in place. In my State of Georgia and, more specifically, the metro Atlanta area, we have been working hard to improve our air quality and I am pleased to report that based upon the last 3 years of air quality data, we are almost in attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard. In fact, one bad air day, at one monitoring station has kept Atlanta from attaining the one-hour standard. As you know to be in compliance, each monitor must not have more than 3 ``exceedances'' over a 3-year period. The Conyers station reported 4 ``exceedances'' between 2001 and 2002. Striking the language in H.R. 6 will roll back years of progress that we have made in the Atlanta region, while at the same time forcing us to adopt a regimen that will only serve to hurt business, commerce, and government through more regulation. The Senate and House energy conferees are working hard to achieve a balanced, long-term energy bill that provides adequate energy supplies at affordable prices. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Eddie Bernice Johnson motion to instruct and to give the EPA the flexibility it needs in implementing its ozone policy.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and chairman of our subcommittee for yielding me this time. I rise to pay tribute, first of all, to our committee chairman and for his willingness to recommit this bill and deal with the issue, part of which is being discussed today. Secondly, I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) for his willingness to support this bill and addressing the fact that the committee, after the difficulties we had with the first report, addressed the concerns that were expressed. I want to now express my opinion for a second. I have heard far too often statements made that directly or indirectly seemed to accuse Members of this House of quibbling with the security of the American flying, traveling public. I know that is not really intended, because this bill and this conference report is all about the safety and security of the American traveling public. I respect differences on the tower issue. I respect that. But I know our President and I know no member of our subcommittee and I know every Member of this House is committed to seeing that air travel in this country is safe, which is why the issues that are never talked about in this debate are so important for me to bring out. The fact that we have codified and put into statute with this law the reimbursement to our airports and our airlines for the mandated security that is the responsibility to be put in, to see to it that the money is spent, the security is there. We no longer deal with situations like last year where we have emergency supplementals with billions of dollars and people arguing about who should have really paid what. We have issued deadlines for installation of security, for baggage inspection, for all the other things that we are doing. And now through this bill, we are providing the mechanisms and ensuring the framework in which that takes place. So while I respect the differences that are debated and understand the points on both sides with regard to the towers, you should not throw the baby out with the bath water. This bill is about the safety of the American people and the flying public. This bill is about codifying that which since 9/11 we have grappled with regarding airport security and the installation of additional security. This is about the AIP. This is about the safety of the flying public. This is about an industry that is essential to the economy of the United States of America. I, like the gentleman from Ohio, will vote for this in its final passage because it is about the safety and security of the Americans and the Georgians that I represent flying safely in and out of one of the largest airports in the world, Hartsfield International.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), and I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz- Balart), and I thank the members of the conference committee, and I particularly thank the chairman. There were some difficulties following the conference committee meeting when I was there and others were there. There was a conference committee meeting and there was some argument over the 69 towers, and the bill before us today corrects that argument. Now, what I would like to correct for a second are two facts or two statements that I have just heard. First of all, this bill is about the safety of the American people and a failure to adopt this conference committee would be turning the back on the safety of the American people. That is number one. Number two is about if you represent a major airport in this country, an airport that is gone through the trauma of the post 9/11 period, an airport that is now working with the CX 9000 equipment and the other equipment we are mandating. This bill puts into statute the conference committee report, the reimbursements in law that those airports will receive. It removes us from last-minute supplemental appropriations with cries for needs of money from airports and the moving of the shell game. This conference committee report addresses the rural and smaller airports in this country. This conference committee report is all about safety, notwithstanding what one's policy may have been on the issue that took us to the controversy that caused the bringing back of this conference report and for it to be rewritten. The fact of the matter is it is obfuscation if someone stands here in this House and says that this bill continues what has been corrected. This bill corrects the deficiency. This bill is an investment in the safety of the American people that fly; and a vote against this rule or against this bill would be a vote against their safety. So I commend the chairman. I commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), and I commend all the Members of this House who care about the safety of the American people, the safety and security of our airports, and the continued great aviation industry we have. I urge Members to vote for the rule and for the final report.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, due to an illness yesterday I was unable to vote for the following rollcall votes and I have listed how I would have voted on them if I had been present. Rollcall 569: ``Yes;'' rollcall 570: ``yes;'' rollcall 571: ``no;'' rollcall 572: ``no;'' and rollcall 573: ``no.''

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my support for the Pence amendment to H.R. 3289, the Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 2004. Representative Pence's amendment would make the first 50 percent of Iraq Reconstruction funding available immediately as a grant, and would prioritize that money for the emergency purposes of security, electric sector infrastructure, oil infrastructure, public works, water resources, and transportation and telecommunication infrastructures. The balance of the funding would be made available in the form of loans from the United States Government, under terms determined by the President, once a democratically elected government has been established in Iraq and certified by the Administration. I support the goals of Mr. Pence's amendment, and am disappointed that it will not be ruled in order. Point of Order

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time, and I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member, for the outstanding work they have done on a bill that is critical to American business and enterprise and American consumers. I want to particularly thank the chairman for incorporating within the manager's amendment a provision that directs the FTC and the Treasury to promulgate rules and regulations for an orderly implementation and transition to the free credit reports called for in section 501. Mr. Chairman, the Fair Credit Reporting Act is critical to business in America. Identity theft and the protection of consumers from identity theft is critical, but time is also critical. By allowing the provision of free credit reports without an orderly transition for their seeking and a safe way for them to be sought could spike demand on the crediting reporting agencies and delay the reports of credit on those consumers seeking credit. For example, 2 weeks ago when home loans spiked in one day by a half a percent, a delay in the receipt of a credit report by a prospective home buyer seeking a mortgage could have cost them 10, 20, $50,000 over the life of the loan. I encourage the chairman to continue work with the Members and then later as this is implemented with the FTC to ensure that we have a safe way for the free credit report to be sought specifically either by the Internet or in writing, and secondly, for us to manage the flow so that the spikes in those requests do not damage the timeliness with which paying customers seeking credit in this country can receive an orderly report on their credit. The committee is doing America's consumers and the consistency of credit reporting in this country a great service by the bill. I commend the chairman for the manager's amendment, and I intend to support the bill fully.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for his work as a governor and as a leader, for his work on this committee and for his hard work on this bill. When I was a little boy, and I heard something that I was not quite sure was correct, I used to always go to my daddy and I would say, Pop, is this right? Being the kind of guy that wanted me to learn how to find out for myself, he would say, Son, why do you not go look it up? So tonight I have heard that we are going to serve less people with demonstration grants, that the standards are not being held to as in title I. I heard there were not any new things. I heard it was an experiment. So I decided to go look it up, and just for a second, please indulge me. I want to read on page 66, subparagraph (g), the required services of the block grant. With the funds under this section, the States shall provide services described in Section 641(a) which is every required service, standard and audit of title I, and at least as extensive as were provided previously and to at least as many low-income children, families in each fiscal year. And then, further, it adds a page of new requirements and new standards which I guess are the experiments. I do not think a 4-year-old pre-kindergartener is an experiment. I do not think physical development, health and nutrition is an experiment, and I do not think social development is an experiment. I do not think parental engagement and involvement is an experiment. I think what we need to look at here tonight is what is really trying to be done. Title II allows States, on their own volition, to apply for grants in such cases only when they already offer a 4-year-old pre-kindergarten program and other services. It requires them to invest more money, not less; serve at least as many children, not less; and meet every standard that existed under 641(a). That is what it says. I looked it up in the book. Let me tell my colleagues what else it does. Out in America today somewhere there are 3-year-olds soon to be eligible or currently eligible for Head Start named Jose and Maria, Willy and Bob. There is probably a little Johnny who cannot read somewhere out there, and if they could write, which they cannot because they are three and they are impoverished, or if they could call you, but they really cannot because their parents do not have the money for a phone, I will tell you what they would tell us. They would say, gosh, if you could, take all the benefits of Head Start in title I and add to it a dimension of things like Even Start, where my mom and I can learn to read together, and a 4-year-old prekindergarten program that has, as this bill requires, an early reading, early cognitive skill, and early language development requirement aligned with the State requirements for criteria and for curriculum in grades K through 12. Now, it is not a block grant because it does not waive the standards of 641(a), which is what is required on title I. If that is true, then title I is a block grant. It is not an experiment. Education is not an experiment. It is the great enabler. It is the great empowerer. Yes, I do know that all those children that it needs to serve are those who started out with a disadvantage far worse than the ones that I did. But the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) in his original remarks said that this bill turned back the clock. Well, if it turned back the clock, that means it went to the year preceding Head Start, which was 1964, where there were very few publicly funded kindergartens much less prekindergartens, where nutrition programs were just beginning to develop, where in my part of the country Brown v. Board of Education and its promise of equal access to education had just really begun. This bill does not turn back the clock. It addresses the challenges of the 21st century. It is permissive for challenging our States to reach for the stars, to help those most impoverished to do better, and to see to it that we take a program that has proven it can do well and give States that want a chance to improve it through academic enrichment and collaboration. I close with this. My State developed a 4-year-old prekindergarten 10 years ago under Governor Zel Miller. Today, 600,000 4-year-olds have gone through that program, and 68,000 will enter this August. We have an Office of School Readiness where we collaborate with the Atlanta Symphony that has an inner-city and minority classical musical program for 3- and 4-year-olds based on the scientifically based brain research to enrich the cognitive skills of children. Should we not say to those States that want that opportunity that they have the chance, just as long as they spend more money, meet every standard as required in 641(a), serve every child, or at least every one they did before? I think we want to say that. And I say we say ``no'' to the substitute and ``yes'' to the bill.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise quickly to make a couple of points. Sometimes we change legislation through impassioned speeches on the floor of this House. Sometimes, in the quiet of committees, members offer amendments that make substantial changes in law. Sometimes you can make substantial change in our practices through change in the way we do business. Yesterday, I introduced a change to the rules of House as a bill introduced in this House, which I would like to ask everybody to be a part of, that simply says this: Whenever a conference committee appropriates new moneys, expands a program or adds a program that was not incorporated within the House and Senate bills as they went through their normal procedure in this House, that those programs be delineated on the surface of that conference report, and that that conference report lie on the Members' desks for 24 hours before its vote. When the sun shines in on the knowledge of last-minute appropriations and deals that are made, then we in Congress will make more intelligent votes on the bills that come before us than the late night and late hours of the conference committee reports and votes.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1472.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, due to thunderstorms in Atlanta yesterday my plane was delayed and I missed the following votes: Roll call no. 354, roll call no. 355, roll call no. 356, and roll call no. 357. Had I been present I would have voted no on all of these votes.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for their hard work on this legislation. I came to the floor, though, because of some comments I heard in other speeches. I think there is unanimity that this is a great bill. There are some people who talk of its inadequacies and how it could do more, and there have been some who say we are not doing enough because we have given tax breaks to rich people and we have not prioritized education, and I have to address that briefly. Public education in America is paid for in my State and in most States, about 67 percent of the property tax bill that is paid in my State goes to education. About two-thirds of every dime that taxpayers pay goes to public education. Our State's budget for public education is $6 billion. The Federal Government in IDEA and title I puts about 7 percent in, and all those monies come from these taxpayers. The fact that we gave a tax break to create jobs, growth and opportunity in this country inures itself to the benefit of education as much or more than what we are doing in this legislation because those taxpayers are school teachers. The tax break for a family of two or four making $44,000 a year, which ends up being $11,000 a year, can go to help pay that student loan off rather than send it to the government. The corporation that takes benefits for expenses or takes benefits for advanced depreciation that is a partner in education is also somebody that is employing someone else who can buy a home and pay taxes to finance the schools. So I understand the argument, but to me it hurts that we take a bill that is quality and that is good and that everybody here would like to make a little better, and all of a sudden blame the very people who are funding education, who are paying for our teachers, who make it possible for us to have a nationwide public education system, end up being criticized that we cannot broaden the scope of the benefit we are offering in the forgiveness of the first $17,500 of those who go into 40 percent title I schools and teach math or science or special education. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to come to the floor to say the American taxpayer is the reason we have quality public schools. America's school teachers are taxpayers, and the fact that our tax policy is for them to keep more of their money is just as much of an incentive to help them in the job that they perform to pay the taxes they pay as the forgiveness of a loan might have been. I enjoy working with every member of our committee, and I am proud to join with the other Members here today to see that we focus on our title I schools, we focus on quality teachers, and we focus on leaving no child behind.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely correct, and if I may take the remainder of the time to tell the gentleman that in that exact scenario, since I could not offer those benefits because they were independent contractors, but because I cared very deeply about my independent contractors and the quality of life they had, I tried to scratch and find those. What this bill does, it opens up an opportunity for employers who have independent contractors as their employees, to take the benefits of pooling and provide for those independent contractors the benefit that ERISA guarantees the opportunity to provide in terms of the employees that company has. This is an important step forward for 41 million Americans.