Johnny Isakson

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I have not had any time to make any phone calls. I did not read the think tank studies. I did, however, for 22 years prior to coming to Congress, manage a company. When we left, we had 220 employees covered by an ERISA-qualified group medical insurance coverage. And their salaries was paid and my salary was paid by the proceeds of sales made by independent contractors of which 90 percent were women. Under the independent contractor law and IRS requirements, we could not offer them group medical insurance and they had no ERISA protection. They were at the mercy of what was available. Now, those 220 for whom we provided group medical insurance, I would have to resent the fact that the illusion was made that an employer who had that many women as a percentage of their workforce would not provide gynecological benefits and other reproductive benefits available to women. Of course you would. Now what this bill does it does not preclude a mandated 48-hour stay any more than it precludes any other benefit. It offers the employer the option of offering it. It is true there is an exemption from the State requirement. It is untrue that it necessarily, on its face, takes that benefit away from a company. Who in here would believe for a moment that an employer who wants to offer a benefit to his employees would take away the very benefit that is most important to those employees? Facts are stubborn things. The fact of the matter is, 41 million Americans do not have health insurance. Now there are contributing reasons to that. But one of the main contributing reasons are those independent contractors, small business people, laborers, people who make the money that pay the taxes who have no accessibility to health insurance. Now, I have lobbied on both sides about this and I care about this very deeply. I have a campaign staff right now and I am providing insurance to those few individuals I have employed because I know how important it is to have it, and I know how expensive it is to go out and get it on an individual basis, even though they are basically young. But understand this, this bill does not preclude a health care benefit for women that is mandated in State law from being offered. It gives the choice for companies to put together a cafeteria-type of plan which may or may not include it, but do not sell those employers short that they would not offer a benefit that the very basis of their employees have to have. Secondly, as I understand it, the cost of this is about $354 million in terms of CBO's estimate of H.R. 660 and $50 billion in terms of the substitute. I would say this, if we can make an investment that is $49,442,000,000 less expensive to offer insurance to 41 million Americans or a lot of them, we estimate 8 to 10, to provide benefits to give them health care that they do not have, then we should vote for the underlying bill. We should reject the substitute, and we should reject any false perception that this is taking away the integrity of a business in offering a qualified plan to their qualified employees.

Mr. ISAKSON. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge Lake Allatoona Awareness Week as proclaimed by Governor Sonny Perdue of Georgia. Lake Allatoona is located in the foothills of north Georgia. The lake provides drinking water for over 500,000 Georgians and recreation activities for millions, and its watershed provides habitat for a number of endangered species, including the American Bald Eagle. The counties of Cobb, Bartow, and Cherokee that surround the lake are some of the fastest growing in the country--making the preservation and restoration of this vital resource extremely important. In 1999, the Lake Allatoona Preservation Authority was formed to provide stewardship and education to the surrounding communities about the Lake Allatoona Watershed. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize this week of May 12, 2003, as Lake Allatoona Awareness Week to acknowledge the ongoing efforts to keep Lake Allatoona stable and healthy so that Georgians may enjoy its beauty for many, many generations to come.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Rabbi Shalom Lewis on his 25th Anniversary at Congregation Etz Chaim in Cobb County. Rabbi Lewis was installed as the first full-time Rabbi of Congregation Etz Chaim in September of 1978, and during his years of service has grown the membership to more than 800 families. Rabbi Lewis has served not only his Synagogue and Congregation with distinction, but also the entire Cobb County Community. It has been my personal privilege to participate with Rabbi Lewis at numerous Baccalaureate Services for the graduating seniors of Cobb County High Schools. He is a positive influence on the youth of our county. The Churches and Synagogues of Cobb County contribute to the fabric of our community, and the quality of life of all our citizens. To that end, no one offers more personal enthusiasm and spiritual leadership than Rabbi Lewis. It is my pleasure to recognize Rabbi Shalom Lewis on this the 25th year of his service to Congregation Etz Chaim and the Cobb County Community.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Let me answer that part, too. If the employer provides the advice, the adviser is liable. They are liable under the Boehner bill and the one that came out of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. If the employer provides it, they are liable. If that had been true under Enron's case, if it had been true under WorldCom's case, I doubt we would be sitting here today. We would be reading stories about those advisers who were in jail. Secondly, if the employee chooses not to want the advice of the adviser that is liable from the company, then they are free to choose their professional adviser and use the cost as a legitimate deduction on their taxes. The point I want to make is we can argue about executive compensation. We can argue about health plans, which are not even in this legislation. We can argue about anything, but the fact of the matter is with the passage of this bill, an individual is encouraged to seek independent advice. If it is not independent advice, the dependent adviser is liable to them if they do anything not in the interest of the employee, and if they seek advice independent, they are allowed to use as a legitimate deduction the cost of that individual they choose for the advice they got. I would submit to my colleague it would not have taken a whistle- blower at Enron to blow it sky high. Under this bill we would have had an employee getting legitimate advice who would have understood long before that there was a problem, and millions of dollars would have been saved in the pensions of employees.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Texas for yielding me the time. I want to clear something up, and I would appreciate if the ranking member, the distinguished gentleman from California, would look this way. In rising to take my 2 minutes, I want to clear something up. I am on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and I have great regard for the gentleman's work in the Committee on Ways and Means, but is it not true that the legislation includes both the Boehner and the Portman provision that allows an individual employee to choose their professional adviser and to deduct as a deduction the cost of that advice on their tax forms? Is that not true?

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

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Chairman McKeon) for introducing me, but also in particular for his leadership and work on this legislation, as well as the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner). I am particularly pleased to rise in support of H.R. 1261 because of the great additional support it gives to the youth of America. This bill provides a targeted approach to serving America's youth. Specifically, it emphasizes the need to provide WIA youth funds for out-of-school young adults. Under current law, funds for the WIA youth program are spread too thinly. Out-of-school youth are currently underserved and face significant challenges to successful employment and careers. This bill addresses the problem and provides adequate funding to alleviate the problem. Furthermore, this bill provides that youth eligible for services under State and local programs must be of the ages between 16 and 21. A focus on this age group will provide States with the flexibility to address both in- and out-of-school youth, as well as promote dropout prevention for our Nation's youth. However, services for in-school youth must be provided during nonschool hours, which may include before and after school programs. This bill promotes more productive development programs, while ensuring these training and employment programs are not substituted for school curriculum. The purpose is to enhance and supplement education, in addition to traditional schooling, to better prepare them for the jobs of the future. Additionally, the bill makes Youth Councils optional rather than mandatory. In many areas, local Youth Councils have proven to be inefficient or ineffective in enhancing the local system's efforts to provide programs and services that successfully address youth issues. However, local boards retain the authority to create such councils if they are needed and prove effective in this area. Finally, this important legislation provides challenge grants to cities and rural areas that have effective partnerships with education, business, and community organizations in providing youth programs and services. These areas will have the ability to compete for challenge grant targeted funding, which will further result in greater and more effective services for our youth population. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1261, the Workforce Reinvestment Act and Adult Education Act of 2003, is crucial to a successful and productive workforce and especially crucial to the youth of America. I am pleased to rise in support, and I encourage this House to adopt the legislation.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, it may have been about choice the other day, it may have been about options the other day; it is about children today. No lesser authority than the United States Supreme Court has authorized the portability of Federal funds for students with special education needs. There is not a Member of this body that does not represent a State that does not have students whose tuition to private schools is paid in full under their eligibility because of IDEA and because the State determines that it cannot meet the needs of those children. This is not about mandating choice to a parent. This is about giving the option of portability to a public school system that determines that might be necessary in a special ed case; for example, a student with severe hearing disability who goes on to an audio trainer in a rural system who might be able to serve a semester or a year in another institution to learn how to use that audio trainer; or a cerebral palsy student profoundly disabled and handicapped who, through assistive technology, may have the ability to learn how to function in the public school classroom. Should we say no if a State makes that determination, and a parent chooses, to send most of the money which is theirs, the State's, to follow that student? I think not. I understand the legitimate debate, and I understand the smokescreens; but I married a special education teacher. I worked all my life with handicapped children. I am not for blind programs that seem to fix things that do not; but I am 100 percent for the flexibility to address the uniquely specified needs, sometimes only temporarily, on behalf of a child who deserves the opportunity to enjoy the richness of life that every one of us without those disabilities enjoys right now in this House. It is an effort to make a start. It is not a mandate; it is permissive. It is about children and their parents and a better life for both of them.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and his great work on this bill. I have heard from a lot of Members about their concerns about the alignment of No Child Left Behind in IDEA. If there is ever a child that should not be left behind, it is a child with disabilities. We are ensuring through this legislation and No Child Left Behind that goals are aligned, that we have meaningful goals and standards for children with disabilities, and that we give them meaningful assessments to determine whether schools need improvement. And then if that determination is made, we provide additional funds through subgrants so local education agencies can fund professional and staff development for special education and regular teachers alike who teach our children with disabilities. If Members are for children with disabilities and the improvement of their education, if Members are for lifting their sights and raising standards, if Members are for funding professional and necessary staff development, Members should be for this bill, and I urge all Members to vote in favor of it.

Mr. ISAKSON

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

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, earlier in the evening the distinguished ranking member read accurately from the Atlanta Journal Constitution a news article regarding the actions of the board of directors of Delta Airlines. The ranking member also accurately reflected his disappointment and disappointment shared by others in that action. What was not entered into the Record were the actions of the CEO of Delta Airlines, and I will not read it all, but I would like to read the following things: . . . who affirmatively, instead of accepting the compensation reduced his compensation by 25 percent, will not accept an annual incentive pay included in his contract for the year 2003, rescinded any retention award payment he might be eligible for 2004 and 2005, and affirmatively rescinded his contractual stock option agreements totaling $5.5 million. Mr. Chairman, corporations are persons under the laws, and sometimes they do not have hearts. CEOs are individuals who have souls, and when corporate CEOs take appropriate actions, and I think consistent with the times which we are in, that should also be in the Record. Delta, April 3, 2003. To: All Delta Employees From: Leo F. Mullin, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Subject: Executive Compensation Following the release of Delta's proxy statement at the end of March, much attention by the media and within the company has been focused on the subject of executive compensation. Today, I would like to address this issue with you directly, beginning with the context in which the Board of Directors made the decisions described in the proxy statement, over the course of 2002. I would also like to share with you the actions I have taken in regard to my own compensation, given the dramatic ways in which that context has now changed. Let me begin by noting that Delta's proxy statement, which outlines the Board's executive compensation decisions during 2002, was issued on March 25, 2003. The date of issue was set in order to comply with Security and Exchange Commission requirements for distribution prior to our April 25 annual shareholders meeting. However, the actions described in the proxy statement occurred over the full course of 2002, with many of those actions rooted in the events and the aftermath of September 11. As the Board explains in the proxy statement, a key priority in response to the national and industry crisis following 9/11 was to maintain a management team ``capable of responding effectively to the extraordinary challenges,'' including programs that would retain and motivate the team members. Among other actions, the Board established demanding performance goals for Delta's executive team, placing primary emphasis on ensuring adequate liquidity and drastically reducing the daily ``burn'' of cash (generally defined as the amount by which costs exceed revenue). The Delta team succeeded on both counts. Consequently, Delta is the best positioned hub-and-spoke carrier in the industry, a view supported by reports from many Wall Street analysis. Because the key goals were met, the Board, in January 2003, approved the final 2002 incentive awards, as the proxy statement details. Also as part of its effort to retain Delta's management team during the extraordinary challenges ahead, the Board in January 2002 established a Special Retention Program, as discussed in the proxy statement. This program provides potential cash awards in 2004 and 2005 for Delta executives, tied to both retention and performance goals. In these and every other executive compensation program outlined in the proxy statement, the Board has consistently acted in the best interest of Delta Air Lines, meeting all legal and ethical requirements and expectations at every point. The decisions in regard to executive compensation were fully appropriate in the context of the time in which they were made. However, the reality of the airline industry is that the context changes rapidly. Concerns we are now facing were not part of the environment when those earlier decisions were made, or their importance has been magnified, including issues related to: Impact of the War in Iraq. Continuing, deeper than expected plunge in revenue and traffic. Increased competitive concerns as United and US Airways restructure under bankruptcy protection. Further competitive pressure as American Airlines manages to reorganize outside of bankruptcy--and as others (most recently Air Canada) declare Chapter 11. Need for immediate action in Washington to provide federal relief from post-9/11 security costs and tax burdens. Competitive requirement that Delta's labor costs be brought in line with that of the restructuring carriers. With this said, I understand the concerns that have been raised in the current context. Most importantly, I want to provide a basis for moving forward so that we can resume our focus on the crucial core business and strategic issues we face. Hence, I have chosen to take the following steps: Reduce my salary rate by 25 percent (to $596,250), down from the beginning of year salary rate ($795,000); this reduction includes the 10 percent salary rate reduction taken earlier this year. Not accept any Annual Incentive Pay that might be awarded to me for 2003 performance. Rescind any Retention Award payment I might be eligible for in 2004 and 2005. Rescind the stock-based awards associated with the renewal of my five-year contract (signed November 29, 2002), with a minimum estimated Black-Scholes value of $5.5 million. As Delta's CEO, I believe it is appropriate for me to take these steps. Also as Delta's CEO, I believe it is absolutely essential for the welfare of our company that I continue to meet the requirement, using a competitive compensation program, to attract and retain a highly motivated executive team. I am enormously proud of the team we have assembled, and fully confident of their ability to meet the challenges ahead. Most recently, they have confirmed their commitment to shared sacrifice with the salary reductions announced earlier this year. As with the entire Delta team, their continued support is absolutely invaluable to me and to the company as we move forward through the demanding days ahead. In closing, let me say that while the specifics of this decision required careful thought and consideration, what became clear as I worked through the process was that there was no absolutely correct approach or set of actions. But, in the current circumstances, the steps I am taking feel right to me. I hope you will agree. Leo Mullin.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) for introducing this important piece of legislation. Last Friday in Atlanta, Georgia, at our State Capitol, and along with the gentlemen from Georgia, Mr. Gingrey and Mr. Linder, and our Governor, I signed a proclamation commending the employers of our men and women who have been called up to active duty from the Reserves, to commend them for the sacrifice those companies are giving, and to commend them on their commitment to reemploy and keep those jobs for those troops when they come home. It is only appropriate that we in Congress today do exactly what we are doing with regard to student loans. I support the HEROES Act of 2003, which gives the Secretary the authority under title IV of the Higher Education Act to make those waivers and deferrals that are necessary to ensure that our troops whose lives have been disrupted suddenly, and now serve us in the Middle East and in Iraq, to make sure that their families are not harassed by collectors and that their loan payments are deferred until they return; and also encourage those institutions of higher learning that have accepted tuition for semesters or quarters that now cannot be fulfilled because that Reservist has been activated to refund the tuition back to those Reservists. So when they return home they can enjoy a full quarter or semester, and they can get every dollar that they have invested in every bit of education they have paid for. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) is doing what all of us in Congress want to do: showing in every way and every facet every appreciation for those brave men and women who serve in our Reserves, and at a moment's notice, go in harm's way on behalf of the defense of everything we do in this country. I commend the gentleman for his introduction, and I urge every Member of the House to support the HEROES Act of 2003.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, as I listen to the constant references to ``tax breaks for the rich'' and ``big business'' in the speeches of those that oppose the President's Economic Growth Package, I can't help but think of my constituent Leon Bridges. Leon is not rich and his business is not big, but like millions of hard working Americans he is the heart and soul of the American Economy. Leon Bridges is a homebuilder and developer who employs carpenters, mason, and laborers to build homes that shelter families in my district. He borrows money to build from our community banks, and guarantees its repayment through the long hours he works. When his houses and lots sell and he makes a profit, he pays the taxes that fund the government we in this House oversee. Leon Bridges and the millions of taxpayers like him deserve the President's Economic Growth Package and the tax reductions it includes. While some choose to demonize those who work hard, take risks, and provide jobs, I believe we should reward them--for it is they that make America prosper.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding the time, and I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the vice chairman, and the Members from both sides for the work that they are doing. Let us face it. Every one of us can come here and every one of us would do it differently, but I would like to address something that has been talked about quite a bit and lend some perspective. There was a movie known as the American President, and in it Michael Douglas played the American President, and in it there is a great line. Michael Douglas was being attacked for a very difficult decision he had made as President of the United States. He called a press conference, he stood before the media, and he says, ``America has serious problems, and we need serious people to solve them.'' So for one second I would like to be a serious person and talk about the fundamental foundation of the beginning of what we must do; that is, the reconciliation language regarding waste, fraud, and abuse. We have to in America prioritize our spending and slow the growth in that spending, or we are going to spend ourselves into a position that we cannot afford, either our citizens or ourselves. And it is an appropriate first step, as this budget recognizes, to go through these agencies and look for the reduction in the rate of growth, it is a reduction in the rate of growth, and find that funding wherever possible where there has been waste, where there has been fraud, or where there has been abuse. And we in this Congress already have set one precedent. There is a program that is off limits, so to speak, in this budget called Medicaid, but when we established the Medicaid program and experienced waste and fraud and abuse in that program, particularly fraud, this Congress, years ago, established that we would offset from the Federal 65 percent match, the amount of money that was found to have been fraudulently spent by the State that administers the program. From the time that was implemented, the rate of fraud went down, which ensured that the money going into Medicaid was going where it should be, and that is to benefit those most in need. We need to establish the same mechanism in every department of the Federal Government. If there is an accountability for the allowance of waste, for the allowance of fraud, or for abuse, with no consequence in the future, then it will continue. I commend the committee, and I commend the chairman.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member. I appreciate this opportunity, and I rise really for two specific reasons. First, on behalf of those I represent in the Sixth Congressional District of Georgia, I want to rise to express my appreciation and my support for this resolution, the men and women whom it honors, the parents who raised them, and the Commander in Chief who today leads them. And, secondly, I rise to pay tribute in memory of my best friend, Captain Jackson Elliot Cox, who died in 1967 in Vietnam. He died at a time when America's Congress was divided over another conflict at another time. He died and gave the last full measure of his life on behalf of this country so this body could do its work just as those men and women are doing today in the sands of Iraq and in the Middle East. So before at this early stage we divide ourselves over words, I hope we will unite ourselves over the praise of these young men, these young women, their families that raised them, and the President that leads them. This resolution is important to all in America, but it is most important to those who tonight serve us while we have the freedom to debate, to vote, and to participate in the greatest democracy in the history of the world, the United States of America.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the chairman and commend him on all the efforts last year and the hearings and the investigations and the promotion that he did to bring us to this point today, and I rise in support of H.R. 4 and in opposition to the Kucinich substitute. I want to make my comparison as simple as I can. H.R. 4 extends a program that raised expectations and turned a safety net into a springboard to independence. The unintended consequence of the substitute of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) is to turn a safety net into a dependency trap. Mr. Chairman, if we listen to those arguing against the underlying bill, H.R. 4, one would think there is no money for child care and no money for health care, that in fact it is a cutback. In fact, this bill recognizes that those that remain on welfare will be the hardest to train and harder to employ, that their difficulties are they have young children at home, that they need health care, that they need transportation. And on each and every point: H.R. 4 provides child care, a transition in terms of medical help when they go from going off of Medicaid and on to work for a transition period of 1 year, encourages education and counts education and other programs toward the employment period work requirements. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple proposition. Congress passed an overwhelming success in 1996. It changed the lives of millions of Americans who had no expectations. For us to take a success and turn it into a failure by verbally abusing that which has really worked would be a shame. The consequences would be a dependency trap for millions of Americans who now will have hope because of this extension to realize the benefits of independence, of work, of employment and, most important of all, of the high expectations that this great country offers to every one of its citizens.

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

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. We are investing in their education and urging them to raise the funds to support their athletics, men and women. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will just take a minute and close, if I can. The original purpose of this resolution is to commend an outstanding university in the Pacific Northwest. It is the women's soccer team that won the NCAA Division I championship, and I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for that, and I support it. I also realize it is an opportunity to pontificate on title IX, and I am very proud of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and others who have acknowledged the achievements of this body long before I got here in providing access and opportunity to collegiate athletics to women at a time in which those were deprived. I think it is unfortunate to take a positive resolution like this, however, and speculate that a review 30 years later of title IX is an attack. In fact, if anything, because of the richness that title IX has brought to intercollegiate athletics, the benefits it has brought to athletics for women, the opportunities, as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) says, it was given to Olympic sports to raise America's participation and success in the Olympics is a foundation for it to be perfected and improved for the future, not attacked or demeaned. So I am not suspect of any commission reviewing any operation that after 30 years has proven to be successful and carried out its intended progress, and I am very happy to have had an opportunity to commend a group of young women who reached the highest achievement in their field in the United States of America, the Portland Pilots. I commend them, Clive Charles, their coach, my colleagues, and title IX.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, there was no State funding. That is the point I want to clarify. I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, it is unconstitutional and illegal in the State of Georgia for the State to spend any tax money on athletic facilities. Those all have to be done either privately by booster clubs in the secondary schools, and in post-secondary schools by the foundations of the universities. But we cannot in the State of the Georgia spend any public money on athletic facilities. I just wanted to make that clarification.

Mr. ISAKSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.