Johnny Isakson

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, would the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) wait for just a minute? I want to make a clarification. Mr. Speaker, I think I heard that in the State of Georgia 85 percent of the money appropriated by the legislature went to men's athletic facilities.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think it is only appropriate, particularly in light of the remarks of the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), for us to acknowledge at this time that after the tragic passing of our colleague Patsy Mink, Title IX was named after Patsy Mink and will forever carry that name. Secondly, I think it is important to understand that the opportunities provided by Title IX were the underpinning which allowed teams like the Portland Pilots Women's Soccer Team to reach the heights of achievement in NCAA collegiate athletics. All of us in this House are proud of the achievements of women's teams at the collegiate level and are committed to the continuing excellence of women's athletics and men's athletics at the collegiate level, without the exclusion of anyone. And I feel honored to have been one to have known Mrs. Mink, and I am honored today to acknowledge that Title IX has been named after Mrs. Mink. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of House Resolution 41. This resolution recognizes and honors the talent and accomplishments of the University of Portland women's soccer team. In December, the Pilots won their first-ever national title in a 2- to-1 win over Santa Clara University at the 2002 NCAA Women'S College Cup. The Pilots ended their season with an impressive 20 win, 4 loss, 1 tie record. The Pilots' victory exemplifies the determination and dedication that is a hallmark of collegiate athletic programs. A national championship is an accomplishment that will characterize the University of Portland's women's soccer team as a viable competitor for years to come. Congratulations are in order to Head Coach Clive Charles and the entire women's soccer team at the University of Portland. I am happy to join the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) in honoring this extraordinary team in all of its accomplishments, and I wish all involved a very successful future. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 41.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 41) congratulating the University of Portland women's soccer team for winning the 2002 NCAA Division I national championship.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the distinguished ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations, the chart is small. I cannot see it. In fact, I have my glasses off, and I can hardly see the gentleman right now. I would ask the gentleman, is it not true that the chart that he showed was the level of authorizations for education over the next 5 years?

Mr. ISAKSON. Again, without getting into detail, I am talking about overall, not in a program like bilingual or anything else, but I am talking about overall appropriation, in the aggregate, not by program.

Mr. ISAKSON. Reclaiming my time, and I am sorry to interrupt, but I do not want to take any more time than I should, this continuing resolution continues to fund education at the level in the aggregate, and I am not going to yield any more time, you will have plenty more, that we passed in the 2002 budget. The authorization levels, I will admit, are higher. I also know the 5-year plan, and I do not have the quote in hand, the authorization of the President is a substantial increase over that period of time. But that is a time out in the future. The only point I am trying to make for the benefit of the people in the United States of America that may be listening is that by continuing the appropriations that we made last year this year, until we resolve this budget, we are not reducing the amount of money that we are investing in education. You were making a point that by doing it and by not funding it at either the authorization level or by taking certain programs in it, we are reducing it. That is the only point I want to make. I appreciate the gentleman's time. I continue to support the resolution because I know the sincere interest this Congress has, Republican and Democrat alike, in seeing to it that America's most disadvantaged children get the very best shake they have ever had. No Child Left Behind did it. And last year we made the most significant increase in education funding, which is being continued through this CR, this Congress has ever made.

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

Mr. ISAKSON. I want to agree with about three-fourths of what the gentleman said. The increase has been 13 percent over the last 5 years. The gentleman is absolutely correct. The continuing resolution continues those increases until we pass a Labor-HHS budget. My point is, it is unfair to say that until we have passed that that anybody has cut anything. And the gentleman actually verifies the point I have been making in terms of the substantial investment this Congress has made in improving education which is being continued.

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

Mr. ISAKSON. I ask the gentleman, what did he show?

Mr. ISAKSON. The last 5 years?

Mr. ISAKSON. I do not want to put any words in the distinguished gentleman's mouth, but I kept hearing the word ``cut.''

Mr. ISAKSON. Reclaiming my time, and hoping for a brief response, would the gentleman agree with me that in real dollars between the 2002 budget and the operation of a continuing resolution in 2003, there is not a cut in expenditures this year versus last year?

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise because there have been references already made to education. I know in previous CRs there have been comments about education. I want to commend our chairman, and I want to tell the Members why I am supporting this. I am not at the pay grade to answer some of the questions that have been raised by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and others, but I am at the pay grade end of the knowledge to know that this Congress increased education funding in the 2002 budget by 18 percent. Every nickel of that under a CR is being forwarded and appropriated again in this continuing resolution, the largest increase in investment America has made in its poorest and most deserving students in decades. For 35 years, we spent $125 billion on Title I, and our lowest- performing students did not move up a percentile in improvement. But in No Child Left Behind, 373 Democrats and Republicans, including great leadership from the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), forged through No Child Left Behind. This gentleman forged through the largest increase in education spending and funded the President's program. This continuing resolution brings forward every single improvement that we made, 1 billion new dollars for Reading First, Early Reading First; money for the testing we now require to show that we have accountability for the performance we seek; and the $1 billion increase we put in the supplemental just last year in Pell grants. So while there may be arguments over leadership and timing and what we are and are not doing, no one should tell us that we are not making the investment in our children and that this CR somehow cuts that investment. It brings forward the largest single increase in education funding this Congress has made with the accountability the American people sought and desired and wanted. Today, in the classrooms of America, under a continuing resolution, children are learning to read, schools are being held accountable, performance will begin improving. When we reach a final determination on the next budget, we will continue to do what this Congress has done, Republicans and Democrats alike, and that is improve the lives of our children.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H.J. Res. 114. My support comes after many hours of personal consideration of the facts that are clear, as well as what may be the consequences of military action against Saddam Hussein. I have concluded that clear and present threat of military force is the only way to forge both a meaningful and enforceable resolution in the United Nations Security Council and hopefully a peaceful disarmament and destruction of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq. If the U.N. falters or Hussein continues his deception, then the United States must act. President Bush has made a clear case against Iraq, and last night he answered the questions that all of us have heard from our citizens in our districts. I respect and understand the concerns that some of those in this Chamber have regarding preemption and a military strike. I understand those who speculate on the consequences of military action against Iraq. In my mind I fear the consequences of a failure to preempt the use of weapons of mass destruction far more. On September 11, 2001, terrorists made an unprovoked attack using airplanes as weapons of mass destruction and killed over 3,000 innocent men, women, and children in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. Saddam Hussein praised them. In the Middle East, the families of suicide bombers are rewarded with cash by Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein considers mass murder an acceptable practice. If there were ever a case for preemption to be made, Saddam Hussein has made it himself. Twice before in my lifetime two great American Presidents, John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, used the American military and the fear of its use to peacefully resolve two of the world's greatest threats: the Cuban missile crisis and the Cold War. They were right then, and President Bush is right now. Our country and the world deserve a united Congress behind the President of the United States.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 113) recognizing the contributions of Patsy T. Mink, as amended.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I would just close by acknowledging all of the accomplishments as were cited by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), and on behalf of all the colleagues in the Congress of the United States, our deep sympathy to the family of Patsy Mink and to the people of Hawaii, but the great joy all of us should have in recognizing her accomplishments on behalf of her State, on behalf of all women in America, and on behalf of this Congress. I urge all my colleagues to vote unanimously for this resolution commending a great woman and a great Member of Congress.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Joint Resolution 113.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 113 to recognize the many contributions of Patsy Mink. Patsy Mink provided a great service to Congress and the Nation as a whole; and she always represented her constituents with grace, commitment, and absolutely with determination. Patsy Mink was a trailblazer as the first woman of color to win national office. She was truly a person of honor. Patsy Mink stood by her word and did not step away from controversial or difficult issues. She never made decisions based on what was politically easy; she made decisions based on what was right. I am honored to have worked with her and to have had the opportunity to know the drive, dedication, and devotion to her home State and to her constituents. A tribute to our former colleague and the legacy she leaves behind is most appropriate. Patsy Mink's passing is a significant loss to all of us, and I offer my heartfelt condolences to her family and to her constituents. On a personal note, Mr. Speaker, I first met Patsy Mink 4 years ago when I was elected to the Congress of the United States. She had served many years before I came and her career before my election was far more important than any election of me. She had broken the glass ceiling for women in Hawaii. She had been an outspoken leader. Patsy and I were of a different sex, a different ethnicity, a different generation, and a different political party. But as goes so often unreported in this body but is so often reality, those of us regardless of our differences come together for what is right and what is best for the American people. It should not go unnoted on this evening that it was Patsy Mink as a member of the working group of H.R. 1, No Child Left Behind, who articulated and fought for her beliefs, found common ground, and allowed this Congress and this country to address the needs of America's most needy and deserving students. While it is easy for all of us to find fault from time to time about what we in this House have not done, we must always recognize that which on countless, thankless hours has been accomplished by dedicated leaders of commitment and perseverance. Patsy Mink was a lady. She was a friend, she was a Member of this Congress, and she will be missed. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, the American economy is sluggish, the Stock Market is at a six year low, and consumer confidence is declining. All this is happening in an environment of low inflation, historically low interest rates, and unemployment rate under six percent. What is wrong? Our problem is capital held hostage by oppressive and unrealistic capital gains taxes. Today in America billions of dollars sit idle that would be otherwise available for investment were it not for capital gains taxes. Average Americans have mature stock, bond or real estate investments they would love to sell and reinvest their gain. This reinvestment would stimulate the economy, improve the stock market, and create jobs. We should join the rest of the world and reduce or eliminate capital gains taxes. Such a suggestion raises the ire of many liberals who immediately would say such a cut would only help the rich, raise the deficit, and hurt the poor. I don't believe that for a moment. The facts are that 70 percent of the American people are investors not just the rich. Deficit increases would be minimal since current revenue projections from capital gains are low due to the economy. The poor would benefit because the economy would improve and job growth would begin. Mr. Speaker, let us free the capital held hostage by capital gains taxes. I am so confident that a repeal of the capital gains tax would immediately stimulate the economy, create jobs and restore consumer confidence, I would be willing the sunset the repeal in three years. Why, because I believe the success would be so dramatic, Congress would never allow the capital gains tax to return.

Mr. ISAKSON

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