Johnny Isakson

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it has been said that Joe Paterno has few peers. That is an accurate statement. We are very fortunate to have in this House one of those peers, the former coach of the Nebraska Cornhuskers, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne). Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), the author of this legislation.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to stand in this House tonight and commend the resolution to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, commending Coach Joe Paterno, the coach of the Nittany Lions at Penn State University, who, on October 27, in Happy Valley, Beaver Stadium, before 106,000 people, the Penn State Nittany Lions defeated the Ohio State Buckeyes by a score of 29 to 27. That victory, the 324th in the career of Joe Paterno, established him as the winningest coach in the history of NCAA Division I college football. But for those who know Coach Paterno the best, this is but a small part of his legacy that he has left to American athletics and American academics. When Coach Paterno was hired in February of 1966 to become the head coach of the Nittany Lions, he pronounced that he was going to attempt what he called ``The Great Experiment.'' He believed it was possible to establish excellence in university athletics and in collegiate athletics while, at the same time, having academic excellence and excellence in community service. In the 35 years since his being hired as head coach of Penn State University, he has done exactly that: two national championships; four times Coach of the Year in the NCAA, unprecedented. A tremendous number of All-Americans who were academic All-Americans; NCAA postgraduate fellows, and the litany goes on and on. He, his wife, together, in one event, contributed $3.5 million to Penn State University for academic excellence and the pursuit of better academics for that great university. He is steadfast in his promotion of and giving to the library at Penn State University. Coach Paterno's success on the athletic field as a coach is unprecedented in our country. His example as a role model to all of those that lead student athletes is equally unprecedented. Coach Paterno was recruited at Brown University to be a quarterback, one of the few colleges in America to recruit this gentleman. In one of his great seasons at Brown University, he finished a record of eight wins and one loss. Following their last victory in that season, proclaiming his excellence, a sports writer wrote, ``Paterno is indeed unusual. He can't pass. He can't run. He just thinks and wins.'' Coach Joe Paterno thought enough of America's youth and the power of athletics to join in together with the power of academics and learning, to produce the highest ratio of student athletes graduating from their institution of any university in Division I in the NCAA. I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to be a part of this commendation today to Joseph Vincent Paterno, the head coach of Penn State University, the winningest coach in Division I NCAA history. 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 H.Res. 276.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 276) praising Joseph Vincent Paterno for his steadfast commitment to academics, service, and citizenship, and congratulating Joseph Vincent Paterno for his many coaching accomplishments, including his 324th career coaching victory.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this resolution encourages and does not require the schools of America to set aside a sufficient period of time for children in America to pray for or reflect on our Nation in this time of battle and tribulation because of the terrorist acts. Mr. Speaker, I am confident that there will be those who express concern that prayer and schools might be mentioned in the same resolution, but at the outset of this debate it should be quite clear that this is clearly an option and not a mandate. A lot of things have become quite clear in the United States of America since September 11. It has become politically correct to sing God Bless America rather than fight songs at athletic events. All of us have reflected passionately and quietly and, many times, sadly on the blessings we have individually received and the blessings of this Nation. But we should be vigilant, even in the most terrible trying times possible, to recognize and preserve the constitutional freedoms that make this country great. Our Constitution prohibits us in this government from establishing religion, but it preserves forever the right of Americans to practice their religion. Mr. Speaker, there have been many great enemies to the citizens of America in our history. From 1950 through the early 1990s the Soviet Union was one. That was a government that believed that prayer and religion should be nonexistent, and it was basically a cornerstone of that nation. They built an Iron Curtain in Eastern Europe. They preserved themselves for 40 years or a little over, but eventually they died. On the other extreme there is America's enemy today, the Taliban, that not only establish a religion but force its practice, and only its practice, with the most horrible of retribution to anybody that thinks or meditates differently. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) has brought to this House a resolution which falls clearly in between those two extremes and precisely why the United States of America was founded in the first place. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) has asked and is asking this house to adopt a resolution that says to our schools, it is appropriate if you choose to establish a period of time, if you will, for those who would pray for our Nation in this time of trouble, to do so in the way they see fit, voluntarily, and for others to reflect on this Nation in our time of peril and distress. It mandates nothing. It requires nothing. But it recognizes as the motto above the chair of the Speaker which states that in the America we founded, we place the trust in our people, that they could freely worship in the way they saw fit, pay tribute to the God of their choice, and enjoy living in a nation where they had sufficient time to practice their faith their way. Mr. Speaker, I encourage the Members of this House to adopt this concurrent 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 Concurrent Resolution 239.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, as the House and Senate conferees work to complete the job of the President's number one domestic issue, No Child Left Behind and the reform of education, I think it is appropriate that we pay tribute to those that every day teach our children, America's teachers. In particular, to one particular teacher in Georgia, Mr. Brad Cohen, a man who suffers from what many call an affliction, Tourette's syndrome. People would never think Brad Cohen would be a teacher. Instead, Brad Cohen calls Tourette's his friend, not his enemy. He has been recognized as Teacher of the Year, he teaches elementary at- risk children to read. He has changed their lives and taught them to appreciate that one's disability can be one's advantage with the right attitude. Mr. Speaker, I pay tribute to Brad Cohen and all of America's teachers.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 417, Adoption of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Conference Report, I am not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Madam Speaker, I would like to put into a simple context both this 12-hour rule and the incentive compensation, which are the main focus points of the substitute offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink). First of all, on the incentive compensation, the bill, which I have before me, and the provisions of incentive compensation still prohibit, as it did before, paying commissions or inducements tied to a student loan being procured. That is still not allowed, but three exceptions are created. I would like to point out what those exceptions are. Exception number one is that the prohibition cannot be construed to apply to an institution contracting with a third-party vendor to disseminate information upon which they receive payment, as long as that payment is not tied to the application or the approval of any student loan. When a layman reads that language, it sounds kind of funny, but it is there specifically because under the current rules application, a university cannot contract with a third-party website provider to disseminate information on available curriculum for distance learning and pay them without being in violation of incentive compensation, because website managers are compensated basically on hits, which is construed by the current interpretation to be a commission. That is a very technical and narrow change which in no way brings about any type of fraud. Secondly and most importantly, it ensures that the unintended consequence of denying an employee in the student aid office of a university from getting a normal salary raise, that that does not happen. As many members of the committee are aware, the Department of Education, as it should have, in its aggressive attack against institutions that appeared to be violating the spirit of the laws passed by the gentlewoman in 1992 and by others, aggressively construed the application of incentive compensation in a case to where it actually applied to the raise of an employee in the office who had no responsibility for approval or application or anything else. That was an unintended consequence. Certainly if one is approving and recruiting and wanting distance learning to be part of our process, as everyone has said, the last thing we want to do is penalize universities from being able to use websites to disseminate information on their courses. Now, with regard to the 12-hour rule, I used to get real confused by the term ``seat time.'' The distinguished gentleman from New Jersey, being a distinguished professor, knows all about that. When I took over the Georgia Board of Education, I started dealing with all these 50 minutes for that and 40 minutes for that, and block schedulings, 90 minutes for this, alternate block schedulings for that, and 12-hour rules. I got confused. Then I all of a sudden realized that those rules were all passed in a time where all of us thought it was important that the student be in the class and there participating in the activity as some barometer of a responsible educational environment. However, today in the digital world to apply that absolutely inhibits many students, nontraditional, who would never have access to education otherwise, from getting it, because it disallows distance learning. Seat time was just the only way of measurement in the old days. I used to suggest that we ought to have professor seat time. Most university professors use graduate assistants, and I would like to see us have some rules for how many hours the real professor is in the real class. But we do not, because we trust the institution for the quality of their education. So why should we not trust those same institutions for the delivery of distance learning? My last point on this, Madam Speaker, the IG has been mentioned two or three times. Some of the specific references, directly or indirectly, were to one particular investigation which ended up vindicating an institution that was alleged to have violated the 12- hour rule. To satisfy the investigation, they produced reams of paperwork that said a student was in a classroom environment, and it was basically attendance rolls. We must understand the IG's job is now much easier under distance learning than it ever was under correspondence or alternative type of courses, because distance learning allows those inspectors the access to the same course the students take, so the quality of instruction and the amount of use that student engaged in that instruction gets is monitored by the very Internet upon which it is delivered. So while I respect the gentlewoman's concern, I want to point out to all Members that we are not opening the door for fraud in commissions, we are just making sure that the unintended consequences of past actions are corrected so the Internet itself can be used. In terms of the 12-hour rule, we are saying we are not going to confuse time with accomplishment. Instead, we are going to monitor education best on what a student achieves, not just how much time they might have sat in a seat.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the Record a letter from the Secretary of Education dated July 31, 2001, and a letter from the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators dated September 28, 2001.

Mr. ISAKSON. Madam Speaker, as we close the debate I want to first of all acknowledge my thanks for the work of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the subcommittee chairman, the tremendous work by the members of the staffs in this legislation and acknowledge the hard work before the Web-based Education Commission. In addition, I want to pay particular thanks to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member, and to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). Their thoughtful consideration of the work that went into the effort behind this bill and the parameters narrowly drawn that we have placed into this legislation allow us to move forward in a digital world and deliver education to those who in the past might not ever have gotten it, while still assuring the taxpayer and those in the educational world that we will not accept fraud. We will not accept abuse. We will merely accept an expansion of opportunity for children and young adults all over America. Madam Speaker, I thank the Members for the spirited debate. I thank the chairman for the time he has allowed me. I urge my colleagues to reject the substitute and vote for final passage of H.R. 1992.

Mr. ISAKSON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I include for the Record pages 90 through 94 of the Web- based Education Commission. Madam Speaker, it has been referenced that the Web-based Education Commission was the genesis for the review of these rules and regulations, and that is exactly correct. It has been alleged that the commission made no recommendations, and that is incorrect. On those pages, the 50 percent, the 12-hour rule, and the incentive compensation are discussed. The gentleman from New Jersey is correct, the recommendation was for the Congress to review and recommend the changes in those regulations to facilitate distance learning; and that is what the subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), did which became the genesis of this act which has been renewed significantly. Let me get away from the technical 50 percent, 12-hour, and incentive compensation debate and talk in real terms. In real terms, the 1992 restrictions, many of which these three rules came out of, dealt more with correspondence courses and less with telecommunications. In the 10 years since that time, universities all over this country have dramatically expanded the delivery of educational content over the Internet. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) asked what our citizens might think if we said only logging on 1 day a week would constitute a full-time education. I ask what would our constituents think if we told them that Georgia Tech, MIT, and Stanford offer master's degrees in electrical engineering totally over the Web without visiting the campus. The fact of the matter is, education is far ahead of us, and who is left behind are those who are economically disadvantaged, yet academically qualified to attend higher institutions all over the country. Students, who because of distance or economics, cannot visit these distinguished campuses and study are prohibited from getting student loans. Therefore, those who have the wealth to do it can get an education; but those who do not have the wealth but have the ability are barred by the use of the Internet and the Web. This is a very narrowly drawn bill. It only allows approved courses to be offered from institutions that qualify under title IV. It restricts any student loan being made to a student institution that has a default rate of higher than 10 percent, and it authorizes the Department to monitor it. My last point deals with incentive compensation. The gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) is exactly correct. There were abuses of incentive compensation. The Department of Education did exactly what it should do to restrict incentive compensation, and it did so in an environment where the delivery of knowledge and availability of course work was not the same as it is today. The unintended consequence of that rule as it exists prohibits information from getting to students via the Internet and Web sites based on interpretations of the compensation of those individuals. This repeal of incentive compensation only says that an employee of an organization who does not themselves directly make the loan may receive a raise as long as it is not tied to the offering of any student loan because the department head construed the previous prohibition against incentive compensation to prohibit even a salary increase. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to read the four pages that I have submitted, to follow the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and Senator Kerry, who was the chairman of this commission, and let us move education forward so those who have the least available to them may enjoy the benefits of those who otherwise can economically afford it. The referenced material is as follows: Some state requirements are mutually exclusive, making it potentially impossible or impractical to create and adjust web-based programs that meet varying state requirements. A program may be forced to meet the lowest common denominator to achieve homogeneity requirements. Institutions in one state may refuse to accept credentials awarded by institutions in other states. Student aid eligibility may be limited for some students involved in technology-mediated learning. These issues were raised many times by witnesses testifying at our hearings and through e-Testimony submissions to the Commission. For instance, some states require no approval process for establishing online programs; others require a simple letter explaining their program. Yet another was reported to require an institution to provide an all-expense paid visit to its main location and honoraria to its staff. Fees, reporting requirements, and time required for approval also varied from immediate permission, to a two-year backlog of applications followed by a two-year waiting period. Beyond these intitutional concerns, there are additional barriers for learners. The Internet now makes it possible for a student to purchase a course from his or her local university around the corner, or an institution half a world away. But the same course can be priced very differently. ``In-state versus out-of-state tuition rates, non-profit designation, non-profits spinning out for-profits, and for- profit companies create a web of cost structures and tuition regulations that prevent students from choosing the curriculum and price that best meet their needs.'' This same maze makes it difficult for students to transfer credits from one institution to another and to create the personalized programs that also best meet their needs. The Internet allows for a learner-centered environment, but our legal and regulatory framework has not adjusted to these changes. ``Law is by its nature a slow and deliberative process,, and the closer its orbit comes to the development and use of technologies that are changing rapidly, the more likely its impact will be unintended.'' federal statutory and regulatory barriers The federal government has struggled to establish within statute and regulations a framework that accommodates the promise of the Internet for postsecondary education while promoting access and ensuring accountability. The effort has had mixed results. Three specific federal issues were brought to the Commission's attention: the ``12-hour rule,'' the ``50 percent rule,'' and the federal prohibition on providing incentive compensation in college admissions. the 12-hour rule When Congress amended the Higher Education Act in 1992, it added a specific definition of an academic year that prescribed at least 30 weeks of instructional time. Full-time undergraduate students in traditional academic programs are expected to complete at least 24 semester hours or trimester hours (or 36 quarter hours, or 900 clock hours) in that time period to be eligible for the maximum amount of financial aid under the Title IV program. However, the law was silent on establishing an academic workload requirement for students enrolled in Title IV eligible programs offered in a nontraditional time segment. To deal with this, the U.S. Department of Education developed regulations to implement the statutory definition of an academic year, including establishing full-time workload requirements for students enrolled in programs offered in nontraditional time segments. In 1994, the Department issued formal regulations defining a week of instructional time to mean 12 hours of ``regularly scheduled instructions, examinations, or preparation for examination'' for programs that are not offered in standard terms. the 50 percent rule Likewise, the ``50 percent rule'' requires Title IV- eligible institutions to offer at least 50 percent of their instruction in a classroom-based environment. The basis of this rule is to assure that a student is physically participating in an academic course of study for which he or she is receiving federal student financial assistance. In enacting this provision in the 1992 Higher Education Amendments, Congress sought to address concerns about fraud and abuse within the correspondence school industry. While understanding that physical seat time may not be an appropriate measure of quality for the increasing proliferation of online distance learning programs, the Department views these two rules as important measures of accountability that should not be eliminated or replaced unless there is a viable alternative. In recent months, public, independent, and proprietary colleges and universities have called for the elimination of the 12-hour rule and the 50 percent rule or, at minimum, a moratorium on their enforcement. These institutions argue that the rules simply don't make sense in light of online distance education and the growing use of the Internet for instructional delivery. As one witness put it: ``If we are to be required to assess educational quality and learning by virtue of how long a student sits in a seat, we have focused on the wrong end of the student. Far from creating incentives for students and institutions to experiment with new distance education methodologies offered anytime, anyplace, and at any pace, the current student financial aid regulations discourage innovation. If a student cannot travel to an institution and participate in face-to-face instruction, that student may only qualify for reduced financial aid. The practical impact is a system of federal student financial assistance that gives substantial preference to the mainstream educational experience. In seeking correctly to halt abuse in the student financial aid program, these rules may, in fact, have the unintended effect of curtailing educational opportunity among thousands who seek financial aid for college, but who do not otherwise fit into the mainstream definition of a college student. Consider these statistics: The span from 1970 to 1993 saw a 235 percent growth in students over age 40. Over the same time period, the traditional college student cohort (age 18-24) increased by 35 percent. Forty percent of these students received financial aid, as opposed to only 17 percent of undergraduates over the age of 40. The U.S. Department of Education is beginning to identify potential alternatives to providing student aid to those enrolled in online programs. In October 2000, it convened dozens of representatives of traditional and nontraditional postsecondary institutions, higher education associations, and the student financial aid sector to address alternatives to the 12-hour rule. The Department's position has been that a wholesale elimination of these rules would leave the door wide open for abuse--and the history of the Title IV program has been marked with such episodes. Instead, the Department is seeking to identify alternatives to current regulation, and assess whether or not they may be more appropriate than current seat-time measures. The Department holds strongly to the belief, however, that rules of some kind are necessary under any circumstance. Institutions take a different position. Many question the need for the Department to be involved on the regulatory side at all since these institutions already are subject to two sets of quality controls: approval for participation in the Title IV program and accreditation and licensure. They argue that if the problem is with accrediting agencies that are not organized to assess quality effectively in an online learning setting, the answer is to reform the accreditation process, not add another enforcement layer upon postsecondary institutions. The University of Phoenix, among the nation's oldest distance learning proprietary institutions, offered the following recommendations in support of this view: Rely on the accrediting bodies to make determinations about the quality of online distance learning programs and encourage that they hold such programs and providers to the same set of standards that are expected of face-to-face instruction. No less should be expected from these programs, but indeed no more should be expected. If there are flaws in the system of accreditation, then the Department should be directed to review those entities, rather than duplicate the efforts of accreditation. Re-evaluate the criteria for accreditation. By statute, accrediting bodies are required to evaluate certain elements of an institution in making accreditation decisions. Most of these factors are input-based and have little demonstrated relationship to student learning. Accrediting bodies should be required to focus on outcomes and it is only in this way that any meaningful evaluation of web-based education can be made. The Department is hosting several working groups with the higher education community to focus on student aid funding for online programs, alternative input and output measures of online quality, and the role of accreditation in assuring academic integrity in the Title IV program. A result could be a statement of the problem and potential alternatives to be considered by Congress and/or Department regulators. Additionally, the Department will analyze the results of the Distance Education Demonstration Program authorized by the Higher Education Act Amendments of 1998. This program exempts 15 institutions and consortia of institutions from the different rules and regulations limiting student financial aid for online postsecondary learners. The goal is to encourage distance education providers to experiment with alternative measurements of online quality and gather data on the success of these alternatives. The results will be presented to Congress along with any proposed changes the Department recommends in this area. ban on incentive compensation plans In 1992, Congress prohibited colleges and universities that participate in the federal student financial aid program from paying any commission, bonus, or other incentive payments to third party entities based directly or indirectly on their success in helping to secure enrollment of students. The provision was enacted to protect students against abusive recruiting tactics, although the law is now being interpreted to apply to the enrollment of students via ``Web portals.'' These online ``Yellow Pages'' are commonly financed through the use of referral fees and tuition-sharing agreements. Although not the original intent, the language of this restriction effectively bars higher education institutions that participate in Title IV from using third- party Web portals to provide prospective students with access to information about many institutions or provide the same services as institutions offer on their own Web sites--that is, information and application processing. Current federal regulations permit an institution to use its own Web site to recruit students. However, if the institution pays a Web portal to provide the same passive, asynchronous service, and that payment is based on the number of prospective students visiting the site who ultimately apply or enroll, the institution is at risk of losing its Title IV eligibility. Higher education groups have asked the Department to consider changing regulatory language, reflecting the growing reliance of higher education consumers on Web portals. However, the Department has concluded that this provision could only be changed through new legislation. copyright protection: horse and buggies on the information superhighway ``The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labour of authors, but [t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts. To this end, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work. This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate. It is the means by which copyright advances the progress of science and art.'' ``In a digital age, the organization of data and editorial function of summarizing, hyperlinking, and relating diverse sources of data to meet specific ad hoc needs adds value to content, and represents an emerging class of intellectual capital that goes beyond the concept of `derivative works' or similar earlier classifications . . . The Internet turns `consumption' of electronic media into a Breeder Reactor scenario for knowledge building. Effective use of these materials results in additional fuel to power learning in the classroom.''

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, comments have been made by my dear friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), and my dear friend, the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), with regard to this legislation that I would like to just clarify for the record. The letter mentioned before, dated July 31, 2001, is the letter from Secretary Paige to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness, which endorses House Bill 1992 and all of its provisions as they were written then and substantially remain the same today. Secondly, there have been some comments that we are moving too fast. First of all, I suspect that Thomas Jefferson was told that when Lewis and Clark were authorized to see if there was anything west of the Mississippi River. I am sure President Kennedy was told that and advised against moving too fast in sending men to the Moon, and I am sure President Bush has been given a lot of information or advice recently about not moving too fast. History has proven that all those greater leaders, by moving expeditiously in times of opportunity, have moved our country forward. The truth of the matter is we are not moving too fast. We are way behind. The Web-based Education Committee, funded by this Congress to the tune of $625,000, did a 1-year comprehensive study which I was pleased to be the vice-chairman of while Senator Bob Kerrey was the chairman. We produced a bipartisan report which precisely recommended changes in the 50 percent rule, the 12-hour rule, and the incentive-compensation rule. That was done over a year ago. The committee, at the request of the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), has held hearings. We held a full and open debate in the committee, considered many amendments, and the bill was passed with a bipartisan vote in the committee. I would submit the time is now, and the most pressing evidence of all that the time is now is the fact that the United States Army, after the completion of our report, created a worldwide digital school system for the post-secondary and advanced education of our men and women in the military and all of their dependents, totally delivered over the Web. Mr. Speaker, I would submit that this rule is fair. I respect the consideration of this substitute from the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), but I urge my fellow Members of Congress to support this rule and in turn to support the bill in its final passage.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of this rule, the subsequent rule, and the final bill. As a member of the Subcommittee on Aviation and as a Member that has answered numerous questions over the last 2 days, and in light of some of the things that have been said, I think it is important that we be very honest and very candid in our debate today. Mr. Speaker, safety was considered first priority to this bill, and any reference to the contrary is incorrect. In fact, the $5 billion infusion is in part because the FAA shut down the American airlines, all of them, until such time as new security procedures were put in place, which, in fact, have resulted in the arrest and capture and now the jailing of certain suspects against the United States of America. Secondly, it should be known that sky marshals are already on United States aircraft and additional marshals are already in training. For someone to send the signal to America that we have not paid attention to safety is wrong. For someone to say that executive compensation or management compensation, one must be considered over the other, I ask a simple question to those who object. There will be no compensation to anyone if America's airlines fail and are grounded. For those that worry about the travel agent and the hotel and Disneyland, in my city, my district, tourism is number two. There are no safe airlines flying. There is no safe financial underfooting on those airlines, there is no other ancillary business. I respect genuine debate, but America needs to know this Congress dealt with safety first. Second, its interest is for all workers, management or otherwise; and third, to ensure the dominos do not fall, we must stabilize the lead domino in a principle industry of American commerce that carries 40 percent of all U.S. exports today. So I conclude, I am prejudiced. I am for this. I ran a business for 33 years. I watched America save the jobs of Chrysler's workers by this Congress underwriting loan guarantees for a period of time for them to recover. I watched them save the city of New York, the one we all cry for today, for that same reason, and Lockheed Aircraft that builds the planes that are about to go and fly. Now for us to quibble over perceptions or send a mixed signal that safety is not first or that we have not given this deliberation is, I would submit, incorrect and unfair.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, the book of Ecclesiastes tells us that for everything there is a time; a time for love, a time for hate. On Tuesday morning, an expression of hate, unbelievable and unparalleled in all of our lifetimes, took place as Americans were used as instruments against Americans in a horrible toll of life and tragedy. On behalf of the sixth district of the State of Georgia and the United States of America, I rise in support of a resolution to give our President the full authority to respond and act to this act of hate and violence. Mr. Speaker, the last thing I did before I walked to this Chamber was to call Brandi Unger, 13 years old, in Roswell, Georgia, to thank her for the letter she sent to me and the President and the handful of dollars she raised this past week to help America to fight this evil. Mr. Speaker, when my father's generation, America's greatest generation, fought and defeated the evil of the 1940s, they did it for us; and we have enjoyed peace and prosperity. Today, we do it for the Brandi Ungers of the next generation, for a free, a safe America.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, September 11th was a tragic day in America's history, and a defining day in the lives of all Americans and all civilization. My prayers go out to all those who's loved ones were lost or injured. As we reflect on the horror of the terrorist attack we must all, individually and collectively as a nation, resolve to support our President, military and law enforcement in their pursuit, capture and conviction of those responsible for carrying out this act of terror. The intent of terrorism is to strike fear in the hearts of people, and to cause people to cower and retreat. We must all demonstrate as a nation and as individuals that terrorism has failed in its intent. Our history demonstrates that America has risen to meet and defeat every attempt to shake our dedication to peace and liberty. Now will be no exception. Freedom and hope in the world rest today, as it has for over two centuries, on the shoulders of Americans. May our response against those who attacked America be swift and decisive, and our resolve to never allow this to happen again ever vigilant. God has blessed America, and I pray God's healing hand touch all Americans whose families suffered loss and injury yesterday.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning hour debates.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise on behalf of those 43 million people who are America's salesmen, America's independent contractors, America's retail clerks, America's small businessmen and women, and I would ask each of those who oppose this to ask yourself this question before they vote: Why should we deny 43 million Americans the patients' rights, that those we are fighting for already enjoy, by not giving them better access to health care coverage which would otherwise not be available?

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, our State's motto is ``Wisdom, Justice and Moderation.'' A favorite son of ours today, Dr. Charles Norwood, exhibited those three qualities and those three characteristics absolutely. I do not think a thing in the world I am going to do is going to change a mind in here, what I say; but I hope maybe we will get back and change our hearts for just a second. My granddaddy had a saying in south Georgia when he got into a confusing controversy. He said, ``You know, if you want to get the mud out of the water, you've got to get the hogs out of the spring.'' We are at a point in this debate where the focus on self-interest of all the diverse interests on this bill is clouding the water. We have made steps forward in patients' rights. We have made steps forward in the amount that can be received in noneconomic and punitive damages. We have made steps forward in protecting the fact that Americans are still going to have insurance and joint and several liability will not sweep through American business. Some can poke fun at the gentleman from Georgia if they like, and you can ask me hard questions I cannot answer; but successful legislation in America on behalf of the people we are here to represent who are our citizens, are going to be the patients, are better than the muddy water interests of any lawyer, any business employer, any physician, any HMO or any insurance company. There comes a time and a place for a man to do what is right. Dr. Charles Norwood has done what is right. You may disagree, but we are light years ahead of where we have ever been; and we owe this debate better than some of the things that have been said. I urge your support for the Norwood amendment.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to welcome the First Baptist Church of Atlanta, Celebration Student Choir to our Nation's Capital. Tomorrow, in the Cannon caucus room, the choir will perform for the House of Representatives Bipartisan Prayer Breakfast. The Celebration Student Choir consists of one hundred members, ranging in age from 13 to 18. The student choir is under the directorship of Reverend Chester Whisonant. The First Baptist Church of Atlanta has enjoyed the teaching and leadership of its current pastor Dr. Charles Stanley for 32 years. Dr. Stanley's TV ministry, ``In Touch'' can be seen in virtually every country of the world. We are indeed honored to have this renowned choir perform for the members of the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, last night about 10 hours ago this Congress passed the VA-HUD appropriations bill for the year 2002. In so doing, we have appropriated billions of dollars to assist low- and moderate- income Americans in the purchase or rental of their housing. Mr. Speaker, 13 years ago when George Herbert Walker Bush, the former President of this country, made his acceptance speech, he made a speech about the ``Thousand Points of Light,'' those Americans who go unnoticed every day but do so much good for their fellow man without credit or without compensation. Today in Washington, D.C., a point of light will shine brightly. Under the auspices of a not-for-profit playground construction company known as KaBOOM! In the Jetu Washington apartment complex where over 500 children reside, a new playground will be dedicated to improve the quality of life and the environment for those children, a safe, attractive and accessible playground. The KaBOOM! Corporation, over the course of many years, has built 270 playgrounds in America for disadvantaged children and assisted in the renovation of 1,200 such playgrounds. They do so by partnering with the private sector to provide the manpower, the resources and the funding. I am pleased today to acknowledge the Home Depot Corporation and NASCAR, who have partnered to provide the manpower, the funding and the resources for the playground that will be built today. I particularly want to pay tribute to the Home Depot Corporation. Its founders, Bernie Marcus and Arthur Blank, when they started their company not too many years ago in their first store, insisted on community participation on behalf of their employees, and themselves were philanthropic in the gifts of their money to support good causes. Last year alone the Home Depot Foundation donated $75 million in America for our at-risk youth, for their recreation and their quality of life, and for their health care. They truly are points of light that make our community better. So as last night we celebrated the expenditure of billions of dollars in taxpayer money to assist Americans, let us also pay tribute today to the untold billions of dollars in manpower, man-hours and actual money donated by those points of light in America who for no reason but the goodness of their hearts make the quality of life for the less fortunate better. Today in Washington, D.C. that will happen at the Jetu Apartment complex thanks to the not-for-profit company, KaBOOM!, the for-profit companies of NASCAR and Home Depot, two points of light that will make a difference in the lives of hundreds of children.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding time to me. I want to acknowledge three people. First would be the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman, whose inspired leadership really allowed this bill to come to the floor in a bipartisan way, and the guidance he has given. Second, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), who has unalterably opposed the status quo and on this bill has very eloquently stood for the accountability to the American public for education needs of the American people. Last but not least, I thank the President of the United States, who really believes that we should leave no child behind. Mr. Speaker, Robert Browning was once asked, the great philosopher and writer, what his definition of education was and what it meant to a human being. His answer was very simple: education makes a people easy to lead, difficult to drive; easy to govern and impossible to enslave. Mr. Speaker, the poor and most disadvantaged children in America's public schools are in fact enslaved today by ignorance. Title I was intended, at its beginning 33 years ago and subsequently with an investment of $125 billion, to break those shackles of ignorance and to break the slavery that, in fact, exists when people leave school or drop out without the equipment that they need. President Bush, this committee, and, in the end, this conference will I am sure ensure that the three cornerstones that are essential to the education of a child become the measurable reality of American public education of our most disadvantaged students: First, reading. This bill puts $600 million more into reading annually, and focuses on K through 2 in the Early Reading First initiative. It increases the resources to teachers, and it gives children in those most formative years of education the opportunity to learn to read and to comprehend. Second, that comprehension, that ability, will be monitored and assessed annually from grades three through eight, so by the time that child reaches the ninth grade, where most of them drop out, instead of dropping out they will be dropping in on a high school education. Lastly and most importantly, it gives flexibility to local school systems. In the school systems in California or Georgia, Indiana or Wisconsin, our students are different: different in ethnicity, different in race, different in economics. School systems deserve the right and the flexibility to choose what is best so as they educate children and are measured on their progress, they are able to make the determination that they believe is best, not what a bureaucrat or a politician in Washington thinks is best. There are differences between the House and Senate. There are differences in the amount of money, and there is a little difference in the amount of flexibility. I believe we will work those differences out. We have seen that no amount of money, even $125 billion over 33 years, has changed or lessened the achievement gap. Hopefully now the amount of money we ultimately invest, with accountability on public education and resources for our most poor and disadvantaged students, will not only close the achievement gap, but enlighten and enrich every child in the United States of America so that truly no one ever again in this country leaves a public school enslaved by lack of experience and a lack of education. I look forward to the conference. I look forward to the House position. I look forward to maintaining the accountability in the reading levels of all our children.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for their hard work and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for his hard work on this bill. Mr. Speaker, this is the people's House, and I would like to answer the question asked in the limited objection to this bill: Did Paul Coverdell possess the greatness to receive this honor? Mr. Speaker, if I ask any woman in America what is great about a man, they would say one that is a man of fidelity and lives true to his values and his marriage throughout his career, and Paul did that to Nancy. Mr. Speaker, if I ask a bureaucrat what is great about an American, they would say give me a director who not only talks the talk but walks the walk; and Paul Coverdell walked Eastern Europe, he walked battlefields, he walked back jungles. If I ask a legislator what is greatness, they would say someone who is willing to reform and stand against great odds. Mr. Speaker, Paul Coverdell was the minority leader of the Georgia House when the odds politically were 11-1. He passed drunk driving laws and tolerance laws that brought about reform in our State, saving of lives and addressing the appropriate way one should behave. Mr. Speaker, if I ask a man or woman in the U.S. military what is greatness, they would say give me a politician who served his country and risked his life; and Paul Coverdell served with distinction as an officer in the United States military. Mr. Speaker, in this day and time when the failures of a few elected politicians become fodder for nightly television and coffee-table discussions, it is appropriate that S. 360 recognizes one of us whose life was an example of greatness, a man who dispelled all of those images some like to portray of us. Mr. Speaker, Paul Coverdell did it with an articulate voice, with hard work and dedication and with commitment. Personally, I am sorry we are here today for this because I wish Paul Coverdell was alive. I wish he was right here. God took him far too soon. But I am pleased we honor him with this recognition of the Peace Corps building, and I am pleased we honor him with this great building at the University of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to commend my friend, a great person, Paul Coverdell.