Johnny Isakson

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I was absent for rollcall votes 148 and 149. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on both.

Mr. ISAKSON

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

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

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

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Madam Speaker, my thanks to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), the chairman of committee, and on behalf of really all of us in the Congress of the United States, today to pay tribute to the 19 airmen who 5 years ago today sacrificed their lives in behalf of the people of the United States of America. Madam Speaker, I thought when I was drafting this resolution, it is kind of ironic that if you think about today, just a month ago we celebrated Memorial Day, where we honored the men and women who have died in the pursuit, and subsequently the defense, of freedom in wars, domestic and foreign, since the founding of our country. Five months from now we will celebrate Veterans' Day, where we pay tribute to every man and every woman who has ever worn a uniform on behalf of this great Nation. In 11 days, on the 4th of July, we celebrate the founding of America; we celebrate our birthday. We celebrate our Declaration of Independence, upon which our Founding Fathers pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. Today, we honor 19 airmen who gave their lives, the supreme sacrifice, at the hands of terrorists 20 miles away from Dhahran in Saudi Arabia. Today I join with all of this Congress in paying tribute to those men, who were Master Sergeant Kendall K. Kitson, Jr.; Tech Sergeant Daniel B. Cafourek; Tech Sergeant Patrick P. Fennig; Tech Sergeant Thanh Van Nguyen; Senior Airman Earl F. Cartrette, Jr.; Senior Airman Jeremy A. Taylor; Sergeant Millard D. Campbell; Airman First Class Brent E. Marthaler; Airman First Class Brian W. McVeigh; Airman First Class Peter J. Morgera; Airman First Class Joseph E. Rimkus; Airman First Class Joshua E. Woody; Captain Christopher J. Adams; Captain Leland T. Haun; Master Sergeant Michael G. Heiser; Staff Sergeant Kevin J. Johnson; Airman First Class Justin R. Wood; Staff Sergeant Ronald L. King; and Airman First Class Christopher Lester. As we celebrate our 4th of July or Memorial Day or Veterans' Day on their designated day, for me this day will be a constant reminder of the sacrifice of these men; and it is my hope that all of America pause on this day today and each year thereafter to give thanks for their sacrifice and also be reminded of the threats of terrorism as they exist, both domestic and abroad. Today, in Washington D.C. the parents and loved ones of many of these who sacrificed their lives are the guests of the FBI in our city, and at this time I want to personally pay tribute to director Louis Freeh. Within hours after the announcement of this attack and this tragedy in Dhahran, Director Freeh boarded an aircraft, assembled 125 members of the FBI, and personally directed the beginning of the investigation in Saudi Arabia, which has led to the indictment last Thursday of 14 accused of conspiring in this great tragedy. As Director Freeh announced his retirement last week, I am pleased today on the floor of this House on behalf of the many loved ones of these soldiers to express their grateful appreciation to his commitment to the very end of his tenure to attempting to bring to justice those who took the lives of our Nation's sons in defense of freedom. Today is a day for us to give thanks for the men who died on our behalf on that tragic evening. Madam Speaker, I ask the Members of this House to join in bipartisan and unanimous support in tribute for those brave 19, and to remind all Americans that we should continue to be ever vigilant of the terrors of terrorists and their danger, and ever thankful for the men and women that serve in our Armed Forces, keep us safe and keep us free.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Internet Equity and Education Act of 2001. The Web-Based Education Commission, on which I served as Vice Chairman, set out to discovery how the Internet was being used to enhance learning opportunities for all learners regardless of age. We heard testimony from many experts and witnessed many demonstrations of how successfully to use technology in education. Last fall, the Web- Based Education Commission issued its report, ``The Power of the Internet for Learning.'' Throughout the report, the Commission makes several recommendations for improving and expanding the use of the Internet so that all learners may have greater access to educational opportunities. One specific recommendation made by the Commission was to ``[r]evise outdated regulations that impede innovation and replace them with approaches that embrace anytime, anywhere, any pace learning.'' The bill I am introducing today addresses this recommendation as it applies to postsecondary education. The Commission identified specific areas that should be addressed immediately if we truly are to embrace anytime, anywhere and any pace learning. The bill I am introducing today provides a limited expansion of internet-based educational opportunities for students. By the next reauthorization of the Higher Education Act we will know if our efforts at expansion were successful and if greater expansions are warranted. The first provision addressed in this legislation deals with on-line education programs. As a result of past concerns regarding correspondence education, the Higher Education Act limits the number of courses an institution may offer and the number of students an institution may enroll in such courses and remain eligible to participate in the title IV student aid programs. In addition, the Higher Education Act limits the amount of aid a student enrolled in distance education courses delivered via telecommunications may receive if the institution offers half or more of its courses by correspondence or telecommunications. These provisions hinder innovation and do nothing to promote the concept of anytime, anywhere, any pace learning. However, with modest changes to the law, we can lift these rules and allow greater innovation and flexibility that will undoubtedly expand educational opportunities for all learners, without increasing risks to program integrity. Under the bill I am introducing, postsecondary institutions that are already participating in the federal student loan programs with student loan default rates under 10 percent over the three most recent years would face no limit to the number of The second provision addressed in this legislation is the repeal of a regulation known as the 12-hour rule with respect to non-standard term programs. This rule governs the amount of ``seat-time'' students must spend in class per week, and hinders innovation and flexibility in the offering of academic programs as a result of the enormous and expensive administrative burdens it imposes on colleges and universities. In the case of one university offering a nontraditional, non-standard term program, this rule translates into 370,000 reports each year that must be prepared, approved by faculty and stored in a way that they are available for inspection. These reports fill 20 four-drawer file cabinets every year. Who is going to review and read these mind-numbing reports? My guess is that no one is going to actually review or read these mind-numbing reports? My guess is that no one is going to actually review or read these reports, but the government continues to require that the reports be written and retained. Under these circumstances, why would any college try to offer innovative and flexible academic programs specifically designed to expand educational opportunities? This regulation clearly fits the Commission's call for revising outdated regulations that impede innovation. It need to be repealed. The bill I am introducing today repeals this outdated regulation and simply treats non-standard term programs the same as standard term programs with respect to the definition of a week of instruction. The final provision addressed by the legislation would clarify the incentive compensation requirements currently found in the law. This provision would return to postsecondary institutions the ability to reward employees appropriately for their job performance, as long as they are not directly recruiting students. This legislation provides much needed changes to the Higher Education Act that will allow all learners to take the fullest advantage of what the newest technologies can provide for their education. I thank the Chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. McKeon, and Ranking Minority Member of the subcommittee, Ms. Mink, for their help in crafting this legislation, and I urge the support of all the members of this body.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, as we are poised to make a substantial improvement in public education, let us not end by making a hollow promise to public education. The gentlemen are correct that their proposal represents but a fraction, and I mean a fraction, of the need. But if the Congress of the United States ever sent the message to the public we will take care of that construction, we will do more damage to public education. Voters will not pass bond referendums. Local options, sale taxes will not be passed, and the capital investments will not be made by the local schools. Let us leave no child behind. Let us make sure that the poorest and the most disadvantaged have the advantage of this bill. Let us reject the motion to recommit. Instead of making this hollow promise, let us make a promise to the children of America and improve their education forever. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss). (Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), a member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the gentleman who replaced the former chairman of that committee, Mr. Goodling. (Mr. PLATTS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson). (Mr. HUTCHINSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform and a tireless worker on behalf of President Bush's desire to leave no child behind.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me this time, and I rise for three reasons: As a former board chairman for the State of Georgia, who implemented mandatory testing for diagnosis purposes, and saw the ability to raise expectations of all children, I oppose this amendment and support the President's plan. As one who believes that if we do the same thing over and over and over again, it is unrealistic to expect any other result, I show my colleagues this graph. This is $120 billion in 35 years doing the same thing in title I over and over again. And average reading scores of title I students remain today where they were years ago, at the lowest 35th percentile. Do not be fooled by those who oppose this amendment. The heart of the President's proposal is to hold us accountable for the investment of our taxpayers' dollars and the achievement of our children. If this amendment fails, the President's proposal will have failed and we will continue to do what we have always done and have less than satisfactory results. I encourage my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi) for bringing this amendment to the floor. I rise in support of it because I recognize there are unique circumstances where this type of flexibility ought to be available to our systems. Rather than making a general speech, I would like to use two specific examples, the city of Dalton public schools in Georgia and the city of Gainesville public schools in Georgia. Ten years ago, both these systems had a Hispanic population that was less than a fraction of a percent. Today, in the city of Dalton, the percentage of Hispanic students is almost 60 percent, as it is in the city of Gainesville. This amendment recognizes that there are certain circumstances where the uniqueness of challenges that confront a system are overriding. To let my colleagues know how pressing that is, in the city of Dalton, a gentleman by the name of Erwin Mitchell, 7 years ago, started something called the Georgia Project, a project that exchanges teachers from Georgia with the University of Monterey in Mexico to teach Hispanic-speaking teachers English and English-speaking teachers Spanish so when they exchange those students, and they come to Georgia, that we have the ability to train children from their primary language of Spanish to the language of English in a rapid period of time. This type of a circumstance directly addresses the gentleman's amendment. Those two systems could apply to the Secretary and say we have unique circumstances to which we aspire to perform. But we must and need to move resources earmarked for one program into our programs to speakers of other languages other than English. It is a 5-year agreement. It is performance based. It allows a system that has very unique circumstances, but circumstances that are entirely troubling, to address them and confront them and use Federal funds to do so. So I think the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) have recognized that there are places and there are times and there are circumstances where maximum flexibility should and ought to be granted. It should be based on the Department's willingness to approve the application of the local system and a contract between the two parties to address specifically the problem that they are confronted with. I think the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi) and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) have recognized we have unique circumstances, that this local flexibility allows us to address those; and I commend the amendment to the body.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), a distinguished member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me this time. I am delighted to rise today in support of the number one campaign issue of President George Bush, the number one focus of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, and a bill to which any number of Members of this House have contributed tremendous time and effort in the interest of improving the education of all America's children, but in particular our most disadvantaged. I want to particularly thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) for his tireless work over the last 4 months and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), ranking member for his tireless effort as well. The results of the working group and the House Committee on Education and the Workforce is a bipartisan bill that ensures this country has accountability in the expenditure of title I funds, I might add for the first time. It ensures more flexibility than has ever been allowed with Federal funds to every single one of the 6,000 public school systems in the United States of America. Most importantly of all, it informs parents and children on an individual basis of their progress, how their schools are doing, and it provides work and money to allow schools that are failing to come up in their performance and ultimately to meet the success that schools that are succeeding are in fact doing. I want to particularly address myself to the accountability portion this morning, which in later amendments will receive a good certain amount of debate. Since the inception of title I, there has not been a mechanism for accountability of the progress of America's most disadvantaged students. For the benefit of this Chamber, it is important to understand that title I students are America's poorest students, those on free and reduced lunch, those who most likely have come from an environment that is less than conducive to learning, and those, that after they enter the public school system, more often than other students, that will find themselves dropping out before they ever get a high school diploma. The important part of the President's initiative is as follows: First we will have an early reading first program that ensures that children will learn to read and comprehend to the third grade level by the time they reach that level. Second, it ensures that, in reading and in arithmetic, children will be tested annually by the local system and by the State on a test approved by the State to ensure that they are progressing at normal levels. In addition, there is a $675 million increase to a total of $975 million to ensure that reading instruction is the very first and most important and paramount instruction that every child gets. There are options in this bill, options for the children for the first time and their parents. If a title I child attends a public school that is ranked as failing, then where consistent with State law, that child will have the opportunity to transfer to a public school that is succeeding. For the first time, title I funds will be used to allow transportation of that student to ensure their biggest problem, which is mobility, is overcome; and they can attend the school that is public that is best performing to meet their needs. In addition, this program focuses on flexibility. Historically, for years, flexibility has been something local systems have not had. As this debate goes on, we will learn local systems will now have up to 50 percent of their own flexibility, flexibility at their own volition.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Select Education.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema). (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks and include extraneous material.)

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the principal author of the mentoring provisions of H.R. 1. (Mr. OSBORNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I commend the Committee on Rules for a fair rule. I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner), and the members of our committee for a fair and open debate and a bipartisan bill. However, Mr. Speaker, as we close this debate, if we think about our red or green vote, I want Members to look at what we are really talking about. To my left is a chart which shows that over the history of funding for public education in Title I, while the gold bars which represent money have gone up astronomically, today, the same as it was 25 years ago, reading proficiency remains at the bottom. It is time for true reform. On the issue of building schools, they will not tell us that America's unmet need at the local level, and it is their responsibility, is $300 billion. They also will not tell us that represents 2.5 times more money than has been spent on Title I since it began. This is not about building buildings, this is about building and changing the lives of America's most disadvantaged children. It has been said that our children are a message we send to a time we shall never see. I am proud we have a committee and I am proud we have a President that has laid it on the line. When Members get ready to vote red, I want Members to look in the eyes of a disadvantaged poor child in Members' rural or urban districts and ask what kind of message they want to send to a time they will not see. As a politician, I want Members to think about how much they would respect a President who brings a bill forward with accountability that will allow us to measure our progress within his term of office. Mr. Speaker, this bill is not a promise, it is a hope. It is a hope for the future, not of buildings and inanimate objects, but of the sacred treasure of the lives of America's youngest and most disadvantaged children. The Committee on Rules will allow competitive debate over controversial issues, and in the end I hope Members' green vote on this rule results in a green vote on this bill that leaves no child behind, and sends a message to our future that we would love for our future to see.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the joint resolution (House Joint Resolution 127) making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2001, and for other purposes; that the joint resolution be considered as read for amendment; that the joint resolution be debatable for one hour, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.