Johnny Isakson

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 585, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the former governor of Delaware and now standing Congressman, for yielding me this time. I too share the same passion the gentleman from North Carolina does about education. He was an elected superintendent; I was a State board chairman in neighboring States in the South. I respect the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and his comments about helping public schools, and I am sure the comments that are to come. I am not amused in one way, but I share amusement in another way with the chairman, because we are repeating a debate we did Saturday afternoon. But just for the sake of facts, I want to take the comments we have heard from the other side so far and place them in perspective. First of all, the conferees have agreed on $1.3 billion. The disagreement is over whether it is done one way or another way, and I will get into that in a minute. On Saturday when we had the debate, everyone agreed the unfunded school construction in the United States of America is $303 billion. The public should listen to this, that if we do $1.3 billion a year, then in 300 years we would have solved the problem. Well, that is not going to happen and that is ridiculous. As the gentleman from North Carolina said, we cannot do it all, but we can help, and therein is why everybody needs to understand the basic agreement that exists between the parties today is to do exactly that. Mr. Speaker, $1.3 billion, in which school systems can make the decision as to where best within certain parameters the Federal Government can help. Maybe it is asbestos removal, maybe it is ADA improvements, maybe it is the satisfaction of any number of Federal mandates. But we must be clear. We cannot mislead the American people to believe that there is enough money in Washington to build the schools needed in the United States of America. The unfunded need in American schools today exceeds the budget surplus projected for the next year. So should we spend it all and not save Social Security and not save Medicare which are our responsibilities? No. Although I would love to do anything I could to relieve the property tax in my home district, the fact of the matter is that the United States of America, the dedicated tax for public education is the property tax in our local areas, because people get to vote on it. Therefore, they can have schools that are accountable. Therefore, they can spend the money wisely. If there was a pot in Washington and the belief that we would build all of their schools, New Jersey would never pass a new bond referendum to build schools; and we would have failed on a false promise, because we do not have the money. Mr. Speaker, I respect every Member of this House, and I love children; and I support public education with all of my heart. But I do not believe, and we are on the momentary cusp of settling what is already settled in making a $1.3 billion contribution to local schools, Democrats and Republicans alike. We should not leave Washington or leave this House with the misperception that there is enough money for us to build the schools that are needed in America, that Congress can reduce local property taxes for schools. If we do that, we have offered false hope and false promise. Instead, what we should say is we are willing to do our part on that which we have mandated; we are willing to give local schools flexibility, and we have joined together in a bipartisan effort to do that. But to leave any other false promise out there is wrong for children, it is wrong for America, and it is wrong for public education.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I do not know who is enlightening whom, but I would like to say a few things. This motion, while superfluous really, and I think the gentleman really knows that, and based on some of his own statements I think he realizes it is, it does give me a chance to come down and jog everyone's memory. Because of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of your committee and mine, last year, when the President's plan for 100,000 teachers was the focal point of the debate on the budget, it was our chairman who convinced the President that there are not 100,000 certified in-field teachers who are not working, and that if we gave the option to certify some of those that were already teaching and were not certified by use of some of the funds, and the flexibility to do it, then we could not only reduce classroom size, but we could also enlighten students by having better qualified existing teachers. Last week, in our hearing in the Committee on Education and the Workforce when asked the question, are there 100,000 certified in-field teachers to be hired, Secretary Riley said, no, there are not. Because he knows that as well, and he acknowledged the need for training. Another enlightening statement, and it has not been mentioned yet, and we all deserve credit. Let us get out of this finger-pointing. This one issue we pretty much agree on except when facts are manufactured. But the fact of the matter is that under title I of this year, 66,002 title I teachers are being hired with Federal money, and 107,000 paraprofessionals, that is notwithstanding the 100,000 teachers and class size reduction. For someone to say that our Congress is a fiasco, that our leadership is not responding, I do not see it. In fact, the truth of the matter is, and I know the gentleman's intentions are well intended, and I know the gentleman cares, and I know in his opening statement he said Oregon has already benefited, Oregon has already benefited because last year this Chairman and your President agreed we ought to train them and hire them and they did in Oregon get more teachers. And this year, it has already been agreed to, though yet to be signed, a portion that deals with classroom size reduction is better in money, as the gentleman said, than last year's. The truth of the matter is, the unintended consequence of this resolution would be less qualified teachers in America's public schools, because it would take the flexibility to use 25 percent of the money to train noncertified teachers who are already in the classroom, and I know the gentleman does not mean that to happen, and I would never accuse him of intending for it to happen. But, Mr. Speaker, why do we not for once agree that we have made major steps in education. We have followed a leader. We have responded to a President. And in the end, America's classrooms are less crowded in K through 3. Teachers who were not certified are being certified and/or gone and Georgia and Pennsylvania are better off for it.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's work and I associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), our education chairman. I have the greatest respect for the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and for the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), and I want to take two comments they made and try and bring this to fact and reality. First of all, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) said that the children of America are listening. Well, I doubt if many of them are right now, but I hope they all are and I hope their parents are as well because Mrs. Lowey made one statement of fact that is absolutely correct and then bundled around it the delusions that many are trying to portray on this floor as a lack of commitment on one side or the other to education when, in fact, I would submit to my colleagues that both sides are committed to it. The gentlewoman's fact that was correct was that there is an unfunded need in America of $303 billion for classroom construction; that is absolutely the exact number published in the report she cited. What she did not tell my colleagues is that the President's proposal to solve that is $1.3 million in the appropriations act, which is three-tenths of 1 percent and would take 35 years of annual appropriations just to meet today's need, if there was no other need in the future. The fact of the matter is, our difference is let us do something that is meaningful and within our scope. Let us not try and lead an illusion that we are going to fix every stairwell or replace every school. The negotiators right now have said, let us agree on school construction, let us agree on it to do those Federally mandated things, such as IDEA, asbestos removal, health safety and welfare of our children. That is what they are negotiating right there. We are not talking about building and replacing every school in America. We are talking about an illusion in this motion that we would do that when we cannot. The reason I say illusion is because the distinguished lady from New York (Mrs. Lowey) said this would give property tax relief to her constituents. Property taxes are what schools are built upon in the local level. If we ever pass the false hope that we can build the schools America needs, the demand of which is greater than our surplus today, then there would never be a local bond issue passed, and American education would be a travesty. Secondly, on school size and classroom size. Last year, the Republicans and the Democrats agreed on classroom size reduction. It is in the budget now. It just simply says that we must also have trained teachers in the classroom, not just teachers in the classroom. On this Wednesday, Secretary Riley and our committee and many Members on the floor on the other side heard it. When asked the question, are there 100,000 trained and certified unemployed teachers to be hired; well, no, there are not. There are many that need training to be brought up to date, which is why last year's agreement was to be able to use the funds to hire new teachers or to train teachers that exist at the local level who are not certified. We are on the cusp, the negotiators are right now. We are on the cusp right now. We agreed basically on classroom size reduction that was done last year and redone this year. We are now about to agree on what is meaningful in construction but also doable in construction. If the children are listening and the parents are listening, Democrats and Republicans are this close to making a real solution and a meaningful contribution to education. But this motion portends that we can do what they know we cannot, that we would make a false promise to the American people; and that would be wrong for us to do in a motion, just as well as it would be wrong for us lead people to believe we could do it in a budget. Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and commend him on this important issue, as well as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) and his support. Madam Speaker, the transfer of blood-borne pathogens in this country is a problem in our hospitals and facilities, and it does threaten our health care leaders. Our chairman and author of this bill, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), has done a great job in holding hearings to bring about that information. I associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), and others who have understood the leadership that has been shown in this by not issuing a franchise to one single producer of a product that destroys needles, but rather, to acknowledge that every hospital and health care facility should select those products that are best for them, to have a clear and direct policy to minimize and we hope eliminate needle stick injuries and the transfer of possible dangerous germs and disease in their facility. The leadership the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger) has shown Americans and assured health care workers that the hospitals and medical workplaces of America will be safer. It has also ensured that incentive remains for the private sector to produce new and modern products that are safer and more efficient than those in the past, so hospitals can develop the very best possible policy to meet OSHA's, what I would add, very thoughtful rule in terms of developing these plans for every hospital in America.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief in order to leave enough time for the chairman himself to speak, by simply saying this, most politicians put their careers first. Bill Goodling has put children first. Most politicians will compromise at a time to move an inch. Bill Goodling is patient, but he is always persistent. He believes in quality education for our children, trained teachers for our children, and local control. America is better off and her children far better off for the service of Bill Goodling.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I was detained in my district due to inclement weather yesterday and was not able to vote on rollcall No. 487. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on this vote.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I particularly thank him for the education he has given a new Member in a short period of time on this process. Mr. Speaker, I respect both the gentlemen and the debate they are having today. But to be honest, hearing politicians argue about how they have revised history makes little difference at all in the 9th inning of any baseball game. And with all due respect, my interest and my knowledge in this budget process is pretty much limited to education, which has taken a beating from the minority side today. So I want to forget about history, forget about who introduced what, forget about who created what program. I think it is fair for us to know what the tentative agreement on the Labor-HHS budget, for this year in this Congress today, is in the United States of America. It is not a cut, but it is a $562 million increase over President Clinton's budget. And that is a fact. It is not a cut, but it is a $1 billion increase in special education over the President's recommendation. And amazingly, it is a $3.1 billion title VI improvement offering the opportunity for flexibility for school construction at the local level. We would never know in a million years, by listening to the other side, that everything priority-wise that they debated for local schools to have the opportunity to do within good fiscal sound policy exists. Sure, other recommendations were made in the past, but the past is history. I appreciate the gentleman's mentioning my predecessor, Mr. Gingrich. The only history I remember that is lasting is that we as a majority are, fortunately, because of him, debating from a position of balanced budgets today and not deficits. A lot of people deserve credit for it, but he certainly deserves a lot. Mr. Speaker, it is not right for the American people on September 26, 2000, to believe that this Congress is doing anything other than the following: increasing education by $562 million; special education by $1 billion; and offering local schools the opportunity for school construction and other programs at their choice. And stating anything else to the contrary is wrong.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois not only for the time he has given me but also for the great work he and the ranking member have done in providing more funds for education in this year's budget. But I rise specifically to answer rhetorical questions that have been asked and gone unanswered. My good friend from Wisconsin, with whom we both share a mutual excellent friend and our chancellor at our university system in Georgia, being the man that I know he is, wants answers to those questions. I want him to listen closely. When you say that we cut money out of teacher training, the truth of the matter is that last year's settlement of the 100,000 teachers was our recommendation. Yes, we will hire 100,000 teachers if they are certified; and if they are not, local systems have the ability to use the money to train teachers that are already teaching and are not certified. That is the problem in America. But the political promise that we were going to hire 100,000 teachers, which sounds good, is not a promise on which can be delivered. So we turned that money into workable money to train teachers. The second question, I too am a coauthor of that bill on school construction. And so everyone knows the clear difference in our proposal and that which is proposed by the President, our proposal was to use a fixed amount of money to fund the unfunded mandates of the Federal Government in asbestos removal, IDA classroom conformity and things like that which is a finite number. The President's $1.3 billion proposal is less than .3 percent of the unmet need in classrooms in the United States of America. It exceeds the surplus in the fiscal year 2000 budget. And worst of all, it is a promise to the American people we cannot keep. It was the President himself who in 1994 and 1995, and I am sorry I do not have my notes in front of me, struck $200 million in classroom construction because he said we could never start funding classrooms in this country. You pass a bill with the promise that you are going to build schools in local districts, and you will never pass another bond issue; and you will never pass another local sales tax, and America's needs for schools will skyrocket. The gentleman from Maryland talked about wanting to build schools back home. His State's unfunded school construction locally exceeds the amount of money that the President wants to put in for the entire United States of America. We Republicans and the Democrats are for our children. We want them to have the best of everything. But what we need to do is recognize where our priorities are, and ours should be in flexibility at the local level. It should be in accountability, and it should be giving credit where credit is due. I give the gentleman from Wisconsin his credit. He has done a lot towards education in this country. But so too has the gentleman from Illinois and those others of us who are working to enrich our children without offering a false political promise that we could never meet. The good appropriator that he is would never want to promise spending more money than the surplus we have just to make people think we are going to build the schools America needs. Americans are through local bond issues, through local referendums and through commitment. We do not have enough money to do it, and I believe the gentleman knows it.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. I thank the chairman for his introduction of me tonight and I thank the Speaker for allowing me to take a few minutes to talk about what has been a true renaissance in the approach to education at the Federal level and due in large measure to the leadership of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the approach that he has taken. I want to address three specific areas of the reform and enhancement that has been done over the last 2 years by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce and try and delineate specifically why accountability and why flexibility, more parental involvement are so important in the improvement of education and how the laws that have been enacted by this House in education will go a long way towards bringing about true improvement and in particular the closure of the gap between those that perform so well and those that underperform. Thirty years ago, the United States Congress decided to get in the business of assisting public education and entered that in what was known as the title I program to begin funding programs for our most disadvantaged students. Unfortunately, in 30 years, we have realized little or no improvement and, in fact, in some cases a decline. But during those 30 years, we have seen the Federal Government enter into many other programs in public education. So this year, the committee took a different approach. Why redo over and over again what for 30 years has not worked? Instead, let us do some new things. Number one, the straight A's bill. Under the leadership of the chairman, we passed in the House the straight A's bill which takes on this approach: instead of Washington being the CEO of your local school district, it ought to be the investor in your local school district. A CEO gives orders. An investor looks for results, which is the gentleman from Pennsylvania's approach to accountability. Under the straight A's bill, we allow a State to enter into a contract with the U.S. Department of Education. That contract is a 5-year agreement, and the premise of that contract is that State will lower the gap between the best students and the lowest-performing students. In return for that agreement, that State receives a great deal of flexibility in the use of Federal funds directed towards the area it believes is best to address the problems of its lowest performing students. The straight A's bill demands accountability, it demands a contract, and it demands a return on the investment which our taxpayers deserve to have. The straight A's bill, in my opinion, is the inception this year of what will spread across this country in terms of the Federal Government's involvement. A lot of people do not realize this about Federal involvement in public education. It is mountains of paperwork, but it is small molehills of money. I was chairman of the State board of education in Georgia before being elected to the Congress. Seven percent of Georgia's funds for public education come from the Federal Government. Ninety-three percent come from the State government and the local government. Yet more often than not, the paperwork comes from the Federal Government. In fact, I used to use an analogy. In Georgia, the average kindergarten kid is 36 inches tall when they enter kindergarten and that teacher fills out 42 inches of paperwork before that child leaves kindergarten. All to say, we spent the money the way Washington said we should. Instead, straight A's takes the approach, we want the accountability of results. We want to make an investment in our children's future. We trust the local boards, and we trust the State system to make the right decision in the use of those funds. Secondly, for just a minute in the spirit of flexibility, which was addressed so well by the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), I want to talk about transferability. For those States that elect not to participate in straight A's, but would like the flexibility in Federal funds to make a meaningful difference, we approved the ability for Federal funds to be transferred in a way that was directed best by the local board of education towards the improvement of students. Transferability just simply takes this premise, and I will use my State of Georgia. In rural Georgia, in an area where many migrant workers speaking many different languages, their primary language other than English, enter and pass through the public schools and that is the major crisis in the achievement gap, does it not make sense for that local system to be able to move money to the speakers of other languages to bring about better literacy of those immigrants so as to address the ability of them to improve their achievement compared to those who speak English as their primary language? And is it not in the metropolitan Atlanta area where you have a disparity of affluent and inner city systems for their needs to be markedly different and for the money to be transferred in such a way to address the need of the specific constituency in that school system? But being the responsible leader that the gentleman from Pennsylvania is, he also remembered that the way the Federal Government and the reason it entered public education was for title I and for our most disadvantaged kids. So the one restriction in transferability was, you could not transfer any money out of title I, but you could transfer Federal money into title I. When you take a school or a school system that in some cases can approach three-quarters free and reduced lunch, three-quarters level of poverty students, then it may be that every other dollar in Federal money designed for other programs that comes should be transferred into title I to even further enhance the Federal Government's investment in schools. Flexibility and transferability are absolutely essential. Many times in Georgia when we approved the State budget, when it came to the Federal portion, we could not approve a single change of a comma, a semicolon or even the tense of a sentence all because the Federal Government with the money sent the regulations and the rules and the restrictions on its use to the extent that in some cases you turned it down because you could not use it where you really needed it. Lastly for just a second, I want to talk about technology. There is a graph which I would like for the staff to put up so the people of this country can see. You hear a lot of times that Republicans do not make an investment in education. You hear a lot of times that our interest is not in education. The gentleman from Pennsylvania's leadership has demonstrated that that is not true. But if you look at that graph, that shows the investment in technology made by the Congress of the United States and its increase from 1993 to the fiscal year 2001 budget. It is a 1,761 percent increase in Federal funding in 8 years, an increase in what I believe will be the solution to some of America's greatest problems in the delivery of quality public education. First of all, under the chairman's leadership, we decided that it is wrong to say the Federal Department of Education controls 40 percent of the technology money and directs it when it is going to be used at the local level. So we said, 95 percent goes to the local level. The U.S. Department of Education controls 5. Secondly, we had a myriad of technology programs all designed for a narrow focus on technology, all well intended but just enough money to start something, not enough money to finish it. So we rolled all those programs into one $760 million grant program, a competitive grant program to develop the best practices for the delivery of education through the use of technology, the Internet, and the World Wide Web. By way of example, this past June I attended the National Education Computing Conference in Atlanta where public schools from around the country that have received technology grants in Federal programs are beginning to demonstrate how technology can be used to solve what we believe to be the insoluble. Just two quick examples. First, it is difficult in rural America to get advanced placement teachers for our brightest children but by use of the Internet and the World Wide Web, the increases in broad-band delivery and the merger of audio, telephony, and digital all to the school, we can now take the Nation's best AP teachers and get them in the Nation's poorest most rural systems via the Internet and its use to bring advanced placement education to any American child regardless of the resources of their system. The Institute for a Sustainable Future in Massachusetts had a grant that was awarded to a Cobb County school system, my home, where they have embedded in the curriculum K-12 many basic principles in terms of sustaining our future economically and environmentally and real-life practices through the use of technology to demonstrate those models to teachers throughout that school system. What we will do with this $760 million over the next few years is find the best practices that work in classrooms, distribute them around the country and use the modern marvel, the Internet, to break through barriers we thought were insoluble. In essence, I close, Mr. Speaker, by saying really three things. My dad always wanted me to make straight A's, and I think I did one year in third grade; and that was about the only year I made straight A's. But my dad always gave me the flexibility to try harder, and I did the best I could, and he challenged me. He challenged me to do my best. Through the gentleman from Pennsylvania's leadership, we are now for the first time in 30 years allowing local school systems to do their best. We are trusting them to say, if you will sign a contract that says you will lower the gap and close the gap, then we will give you the flexibility to use the money to do that intended purpose. A rising tide lifts all boats, and we owe it to every child in America regardless of their circumstance, regardless of their poverty, to be uplifted, and flexibility does that. Transferability allows us to direct funds and target them in an area that has a specific need. Never to the expense of title I, but even to its enhancement should the local system decide to do that. Finally, there is no one in this country that knows more than those of us here in this Congress how technology has revolutionized the production of the American worker and expanded our great recovery economically in this country. It will do the same in public education. And because of your leadership and because this Republican Congress made a 1,761 percent increased investment over 8 years in the use of technology, then our children will be better off, our school systems will have more flexibility, more responsibility and more accountability, and our children will be better educated. The last 2 years for me, my first 2 years in Congress, have been very rewarding because what I came from with frustration, and that was public education that was constrained by Federal bureaucracy, has now been unleashed through your leadership to respond as it thought it was intending to 30 years ago; and the end result is going to be improved achievement, closing of the gap between our best and our poorest students, and a renaissance in public education in the United States of America. I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to speak tonight.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for yielding the time to me, and I associate myself with all the positive remarks that have been made about his service. I would observe that in most cases in the twilight of a politician's career, they search desperately for a legacy that is a testimony to that which they have done. Some find it in an edifice or a building, some find it in a last minute grant. But today we memorialize a legacy that walks all over America and is a tribute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. It is young adults and children since 1988 who have learned together the fundamental key to success in life, which is the ability to read. This program supplies materials, sound fundamentals, and breaks the cycle and the stigma that is the biggest problem in adult literacy. We have learned in education that an adult who otherwise would be stigmatized and not go to learn will relish the opportunity to learn with their child. That is the legacy of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and today's increase in that legacy is a testimony to what he has done. There are schools all over this country, but there is one in my State called Pitts Elementary, Mr. Chairman, 100 percent poverty, 100 percent free and reduced lunch in the middle of a public housing project. Because of Even Start and the materials, the techniques and using the resources of a community, in Pitts Elementary children without hope and hopeless parents learn to read. The generational cycle of literacy can only be broken when the child and the parent learn together, thanks to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling). Mrs. McCARTHY on New York. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) for her tremendous work on this legislation and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) the ranking member of the subcommittee. Mr. Speaker, on a warm summer evening in 1996, in my home of Atlanta, Georgia, my daughter Julie and her friend from Washington, D.C., attended the Olympic Festival with tens of thousands of Americans and foreign visitors from all over the world. On the same night, a terrorist bomb blew up, a U.S. citizen from Albany, Georgia, a foreign correspondent from Turkey were killed, and hundreds of Atlantans and others were injured. The story the next day was more about the chaos of coordination, or lack thereof; and the Federal Government and all our resources, as well as State and local, were there. Because of Oklahoma City, because of the trade center in New York, because of the subway in Tokyo, and because of my hometown of Atlanta, we know that terrorism and its attacks are a reality. And because of the hearings that the gentlewoman from Florida held and the ranking member held, we also came, I came, to a reasonable conclusion: those with the evil in their heart prepared to execute a terrorist act probably are better prepared to execute than we are to respond. This bill changes that matrix. It coordinates the multiplicity and multiple levels of authority. It pulls us together with a common goal to be ready to respond and in fact ready to retard a terroristic act on the soil of our country and an international terroristic act beyond. We have no higher priority in the 21st century than the protection of our citizens, than to give them the coordination to protect them against the most dangerous and threatening threat of the 21st century. I commend the gentlewoman.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) for bringing this resolution to the floor today. Mr. Speaker, I thank each of my colleagues from Georgia for paying tribute today to our dear friend, and I hope everyone in this room and I hope everyone listening recognizes that 11 Georgians, Democrat and Republican alike, sit today under this symbol and in this room and pay tribute to a man who transcends politics and who in our State, as we have heard from each speaker, through example after example, changed lives and made them better. Mr. Speaker, rather than repeat everything that has been said, I would just say this to those of us who are not from Georgia; if you have ever flown through Hartsfield International Airport, Paul Coverdell touched your life. If you ever came into Atlanta and rode on its rapid transit, Paul Coverdell touched your life. If you are a Georgia citizen whose life or the life of a loved one was saved because of a seat belt, Paul Coverdell touched your life. While so many politicians talk a good game, Paul Coverdell lived one; but, you know, at a time like this when a contemporary of all of ours dies, it puts life into perspective. It makes us think for just a minute what if I die. But for those of you who did not know him, let me just tell you this, Paul did it all. He did it with dignity and with grace. He did it with passion and with understanding, and he did it with not a single evil touch to anything he ever did. He did it for the best of the United States of America and for the people of Georgia. In my Sunday school class, in Marietta, Georgia in the Methodist church, we have a little book called Leaves of Gold, and in it there is a poem, and I cannot remember, but twice before that poem has been recalled to me in paying tribute to an individual, but it just seems to fit the life and the legacy and the lasting memory of Paul Coverdell. I hope I can get through it, but it goes a little bit like this: I would rather see a good person than hear about one any day. And I would rather have a good person walk with me than merely point the way. For my eyes are better pupils and more willing than my ear, and fine counsel is confusing but examples crystal clear. And the best of all the people are the ones that live their creeds, for to see the good in action is what everybody needs. Oh, I will be very glad to do it if you let me see it done, but your tongue too fast sometimes may run. And the lectures you deliver may be very wise and very true, but I would rather get my lecture by observing what you do. For I may misunderstand you and the high advice you give, but I will never misunderstand the way you act and the way you live. Mr. Speaker, I associate myself with all of my colleagues to pay tribute to a man who acted and lived a life exemplary of the finest in public service, the finest in commitment to his wife and to his family and in the finest tradition of public service.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his expressions for Paul and Nancy. I, too, have known Paul Coverdell for the past 25 years, and no one in our State has contributed more. The people of the Sixth District will join me, I am sure, in their prayers and thoughts over the next few days for a speedy recovery for Paul. As the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) so eloquently said, his State needs him, his country needs him, and we need him in the Congress of the United States of America. He has our thoughts and our prayers today as he meets his challenges ahead.

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

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 373, I would have voted ``no'', on rollcall No. 374, I would have voted ``no'', on rollcall No. 375, I would have voted ``yes'', on rollcall No. 376, I would have voted ``no'', on rollcall No. 377, I would have voted ``yes'', and on rollcall No. 378, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join Chairman Goodling as a co-sponsor the Classroom Modernization Act of 2000 to pay for federally mandated construction cost and start-up costs for charter school construction. For years, the Federal Government has passed construction-related mandates on to local school boards for everything from asbestos removal and handicap access, to special education classrooms and IDEA related cost. Each requirement has failed to include a single dollar of federal money. Our proposal will fund these unfunded mandates and free up local dollars for school improvement. The $150 Million dollars for start-up charter school related construction cost would be meaningful in expanding new charter school applications, and for more private sector and parental involvement in local schools. Both the White House and the Congress have verbally promoted the public charter school movement, and now we are making a meaningful financial commitment to charter schools.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time. I was not going to speak until I heard a speech a minute ago from the other side, and I just wanted to make a point as simply as I could as to why this is such an important law for all Americans. There was a comment made about this bill being a legacy for the rich. Let me just, by using this piece of paper, give my colleagues an example. When a first generation American small business owner or family farmer passes to the second generation what he has, the United States gets this, and the family gets this. When the second generation dies, to pass to the third, this is what the government gets, and this is what the family has. If we do the math, we expect an American family who works and toils and hires and pays taxes to grow a business eight times its original worth on the death of the first owner in order for the third family generation, 40 years later, to have the same thing, while the United States Government has received 150 percent of the production of that business.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise for just a brief period of time to remind all of us that last year the former chairman and ranking member and the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) placed the F-22 under the most scrutiny of any procurement and testing in the defense authorization, in the defense budget, much less anything else. The reference was made they had hit a stone wall, and I guess that alluded to a lot of political pressure. But the truth of the matter is one who learned a little bit about this process last year, because I was new, and one that does have an interest because the production of this airplane is almost in my district and a lot of its workers live there, I watched the diligence that the former chairman and the ranking member and the chairman placed the airplane, the engineers, and the company, not to mention the military, under to see if it was worth the investment of this Congress. The answer was ultimately yes. The stone wall was not a stone wall of politics and lobbying, although that component always exists. It was the promise that that aircraft, its design, and its predictable avionics would deliver, which now, in initial testing, are being borne out. So I would ask all of us to remember that it was a year ago we placed this very program under the most scrutiny of any program in the DoD budget period, and it passed. It passed the scrutiny of two of the most distinguished gentlemen in this House. It passed the scrutiny of those who think America needs to be prepared to defend ourselves and our young men and women in the 21st century. I rise to oppose the amendment and to thank both these fine gentlemen in the committee for last year allowing that aircraft to pass the test which will deliver for our country in the years ahead.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) for the introduction and for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I am particularly honored to stand as a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger) for bringing this measure to floor and thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for his better than two decades' commitment to America's teachers, America's children and most recently his successful guidance to the passage of our commitment with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. And I associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) and my sincere hope in addition to our verbal tribute that we pay tribute to education by finally passing the reauthorization to ESEA in a bipartisan fashion in the interest of all children. But if we read House Resolution 492, it has two parts. First to thank all teachers and then second to take a moment, every American, to thank a teacher for the commitment that they make. In my remaining time, I would like to do just that by paying tribute to Ms. Linda Morrison, an advanced placement history, government and international affairs teacher at North Cobb High School in Acworth, Georgia, a woman who for better than two decades has brought government and history alive to children of great diversity, not of great economic prosperity. She has made our history and this government real. Year in and year out, her students go to New York and win or place in Model U.N. and throughout public service in our State today, many of her students serve their fellow man because of the inspiration of Linda Morrison. But like most and like all of us, she has achieved this through her difficulties. In the last 2 years, the greatest 2 years of her career, she has inspired children, led them to entering and winning the Model U.N., been a model teacher in Georgia and fought breast cancer successfully. Through chemotherapy and all its terrors, day in and day out remaining in the classroom to teach our children. I want to take my responsibility in this resolution to thank that teacher, Ms. Linda Morrison, who to me exemplifies the countless thousands of teachers in Georgia and in America who teach and educate our children.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, May 7, a celebration of sort, a commemoration of sort, took place in all 50 States in this country as we commemorated the 25th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War. Between 1958 and 1975, over 8 million Americans, 228,000 of whom were Georgians, fought in Southeast Asia on behalf of freedom against communism and totalitarianism. That was the war of my generation. It was the legacy that I remember. America was divided throughout that war and remains, in some cases, divided today over whether we should have been there and our resolve was never what it should have been. But tonight, I rise not to debate that, but to commemorate the men and women who fought and died on behalf of the United States of America, 58,000 of them, 2,042 who remaining missing in action today. While we debate the positive nature of issues we believe in and condemn others today in contemporary times, we must continue to pause and reflect on the sacrifice made on behalf of all of us. To that end, I want to commend five individuals from Georgia, Susie Ragan, who founded the MIA/POW force in Georgia and now has moved to Maryland and is doing the same thing so we do not forget those 2,042; Tommy Clack, a triple amputee who returned to a divided America and has committed the rest of his life to see to it that Vietnam veterans get the attention and services that they deserve and their Government promised; Ron Miller, who served as the former executive director of the Georgian Veterans Leadership Program; and Colonel Ben Purcell of Georgia, a member of the Georgia legislature, but 25 years ago a man who ended more than 8 years as a prisoner of war, over 5 in solitary confinement. We must never forget the sacrifice made by those men and women for our Nation and for our country and the duty and honor and commitment they made to this country and to their God. And that fifth person to me is a person by the name of Jack Elliott Cox. Jack died in Vietnam in 1968. But Jack was a volunteer. He volunteered when we graduated from college to go to OSC. And like 70 percent of those who died in Vietnam, he was not drafted, he was a volunteer. In fact, what is so often not talked about is that 25 percent of those who fought were drafted, 75 percent were people who volunteered for the service in a divided war and a divided time. But they were committed to their country. Let us not forget the Jack Coxes, the Susie Ragans, the Tommy Clacks, the Ron Millers, and the Ben Purcells, those who fought and live today to fight on for the veterans of that war, and those who died for you and I. As Members of this Congress, when we go to the 26th anniversary next year, may it be a time that we continue our commitment to the veterans of the United States of America and the men and women who, regardless of conflicts at home, fought and served and, in some cases, died for their country, for our Nation, and for those of us here tonight.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) for his commitment to Georgia's children and America's children. Twenty-five years ago, this Congress made a promise with the passage of 42-194 and established public education, a mandate to teach all children regardless of their disability, physical or otherwise. Today, millions of American children, because of special education improvements, now live far more productive lives. I want to talk about two citizens in my district Jonathon Hughes, a young man wheelchair bound, a young man with learning disabilities, a young man who, at the age of 23, graduated from public high school. It took him 9 years to do it, but because of special education and IDEA, he did it. Had he been born 20 years sooner, he would have been in a baby-sitting service and never lived the productive life he will now. Paul Cobb, a foster child, who, without special education, would not have graduated, but today is a productive worker in our society as a professional photographer. Thousands of stories all over America are true all because of IDEA, but today the promise made 25 years ago is now a promise kept because we in this Congress are saying to America's public schools, we are sending along with a mandate the funds; and with those funds, we will alleviate local pressures, enhance the education of children with special needs. This Congress will have done what it should have done a long time ago; and that is, made an investment in those American children most in need of our attention, most in need of our love, and most in need of this funding.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman very much. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I am aware that the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations has raised a point of order. I respect that, and in just a minute I will have a unanimous consent motion. However, I would like to ask the chairman to consider, as this bill goes through the conference process and to the Senate, that there is a major issue that this amendment deals with. It is a small amount of money, but a major issue. This would add money to the congressionally created Web Base Commission which was created for the purpose of recommending to this Congress by the end of this calendar year what road map we are going to take in terms of dealing with the digital divide, dealing with technology, and dealing with the role of the Federal Government as it relates to public education. I understand the point of order is because of a lack of authorization, although the time was expended, and I respect that. But I sincerely hope the chairman will work during the process to see if there is any way to add the additional funding so that the complete work of this commission may be done by the end of this calendar year.

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