Johnny Isakson

Mr. ISAKSON

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

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 2 and 3, I was unavoidably detained due to inclement weather. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on both bills.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time to me, and I commend him for his hard work on this legislation, as well as the subcommittee chairman. Mr. Chairman, I want to raise two points. I think at this time it is fortunate that we are dealing with legislation to expand welfare-to- work and to truly reach those that we have failed to reach as of yet. Secondly, I want to point out, in reply to the comment of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) a few minutes ago with regard to whether or not it was the Federal Government's role to deal with the fatherhood programs, when welfare started, the Federal government determined that aid to families of dependent children was predicated upon a single mother and dependent children. Fatherhood was not even an issue. Today we want to promote families and fathers, and to expand in title III the accessibility to reach out in terms of eligibility for welfare- to-work programs. It means that this Congress and this country are addressing now those that are the most disadvantaged and those that are the last to not realize the success of welfare-to-work as passed by this Congress a number of years ago. It is only right and proper that the Federal government recognize in this program fatherhood and the promotion of it. It is only right in this program we expand eligibility so as to reach all Americans who deserve the opportunity for the education, the training, and the background, so they can truly become employed and be a contributing member of this society. I commend my chairman, I commend the committee, and I rise in full support of the bill.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise for a couple of reasons. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) made some very great statements, and he referred to the resolve clauses, but he neglected to refer to the amendment which appears at the end of that page which, in my judgment is effective, as one who is a big advocate for children, because it amends the whole code, which says that phonics is one of the necessary components. The truth of the matter for any of us who have been in education, this debate today is like many debates that go on in America between whole language advocates and phonics advocates. I will tell the Members, both of them are right. Both of them should be included. This says our teachers do have the choice, and it is very important. I rise today because I want to pay tribute to the United States Department of Education for providing us in Georgia with a Goals 2000 grant which allowed us to develop the phonics-based Reading First program in Georgia under Dr. Cindy Cupp, which enabled our Title I schools, after its implementation, to raise our children across the board by higher than the 25th percentile in each and every category. Phonics is one, but not the only one. It should be included and not excluded. With the amendment, this resolution ensures that we recognize it as a methodology, it is not a curriculum, and we encourage schools to use all the best methods to teach our children. I commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh). Most importantly of all, I commend this Congress for focusing on America's number one problem in public education. That is, the poor reading performance of our children as they leave the third grade. We should give our teachers every resource to meet the needs of every child, whether it be whole language or whether it be phonics-based.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today not as a partisan Republican or Democrat but as one that is very partisan to our children and their education. I rise to take issue, not to make an argument, to make a point, on two comments that have been made, one by the majority and one by the minority. One comment was that this was a cheap trick, designed to create 30-second soundbites. Well, it is not cheap. It is 13 to 14 billion Federal dollars that are invested in these 14 programs and our children. The majority said that it is time that we take a chance. You are never taking a chance when you invest dollars in children. I do not think everyone that has talked about this bill has read the 23 pages that are in it. And so for just a second, I want to give a perspective to all of us. This bill is really not about block grants. If you read it, it is a request for proposal. It says that up to 10 governors, Democrat or Republican, it does not matter, whichever governors come first, up to 10 governors can apply to have the flexibility to use the money in 14 programs across their school district in return for improving performance. And then you need to read the performance measures that it asks for, because here is where it targets the disadvantaged and the most needy. If you read the description for the performance, it says, first of all, every system must rate their children at basic, at proficient and at advanced and then on an annual basis, grade to grade, must compare the improvement. That is part of the 5-year contract. That is part of the 3-year measurement where they can lose the funds if they decline. And then, secondly, it provides rewards. It provides rewards for those systems that close the gap by greater than 25 percent from their least proficient to their most proficient students. I just left Governor Hunt of North Carolina who was referred to a minute earlier. I left him where he received accolades because he put a reward system in his State for those teachers who became certified and improved themselves and saw measurable improvement in their children. That is no difference than what this particular bill does. To close the achievement gap, you do not do it by raising the top advanced students. You do it by raising the bottom. To take the hypothesis that this does not address the most needy children is to presume a public school system would meet performance by lowering its best rather than uplifting its worst. That on the face of it is an insult to local educators. I do understand the fear of change. But change is not taking a chance. There are three groups of people in this Congress: There are those that would tear this down, tear it down because it is a change. There are those that would tear down the Federal Department of Education because they do not like it and I do not agree with them, either. And then there is a third group, which is really all of us, that care about kids and do not want to tear anything down. And so at the risk of going past my time, I want to close with a poem and challenge both sides to decide which they want to be: I saw a bunch of men tearing a building down. With a heave and a ho and a yes, yes, well, They swung a beam and a side wall fell. And I asked the foreman: Are these men as skilled As the ones you would hire if you had to build? He said, oh, no, not these. The most common of labor is all I need. For I can destroy in a day or two What it takes a builder 10 years to do. And so I ask myself as I walk my way Which of these roles am I going to play? Am I going to go around and build On firm and solid ground, Or am I going to be the one that tears down? I submit we build with H.R. 2300.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, due to attendance at a funeral in Atlanta this morning I missed two rollcall votes, rollcall No. 520 and 522. Had I been in attendance I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall 520 and ``yes'' on rollcall 521.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. Madam Chairman, I would like to also address this House on a point, as a new Member, which I would like to make from the outset. I want to thank the chairman for his time and his dedication to allow all sides to have their way in committee and have their say. I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) for the amount of time that he put in and the amount that he afforded to all of us, and the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the subcommittee chairman, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) as well. My purpose in rising to speak on this is because I have had the unique opportunity during the past 2 years in Georgia before I came to Congress to be the recipient of Title I funds as chairman of the State Board of Education to see actually what happened with Title I funds and to see actually what the effect of Federal regulations and lack of flexibility in some cases or lack of direction in others or in some cases too much direction really did. All of us have been frustrated that this program, which is targeted to the most needy in our country, never seemed to bring about the results that we had hoped for. I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania's efforts and the efforts of the committee in this bill, which I sincerely hope this House will pass in an overwhelming and bipartisan fashion, will bring about results, and I do so for four specific reasons: Number one, for the first time these funds go to systems and accountability is required in return. For the first time we are going to measure the response of systems in terms of the effectiveness of the use of this money in Title I, our most disadvantaged students. Number two, one of the most difficult problems in public education in dealing with Title I students is having the transportation necessary sometimes to move those students to the best possible school. Under the leadership of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the school choice in this bill within the school district itself allows local superintendents to use Title I funds for the transportation of a Title I student out of one school to any other school regardless of the percentage of Title I students in that school. Environment oftentimes can be the main change in a child's attitude and in a child's learning ability, and the leadership of the gentleman from Pennsylvania in providing this is essential. Third, the reduction from the 50 percent requirement to the 40 percent requirement in terms of percentage of Title I students in order to use funds for a schoolwide project is essential. I found in committee there was a little bit of a lack of understanding about what a schoolwide project is. A schoolwide project is the ability to take Title I funds, merge them with other funds, State, local and in some cases Federal, and use them in a broad-based program in the school that benefits all students. The reason this is important to Title I is as follows, and I want to use some very specific examples. In our youngest children, in kindergarten and in first grade, basic things like eye-hand coordination and team building programs necessary in the building blocks of learning are essential to involve not only children who are disadvantaged but children who may not fall in that category, because kids learn by example. And a schoolwide program allows money to be merged, money to be enhanced and kids to be put together in that learning experience. A second example is reading. To assume that all money should be targeted in Title I outside of a schoolwide project or with an overwhelmingly high requirement means that you lose the ability to merge those disadvantaged children with more advantaged children in the process of reading. In kindergarten through third grade, the most essential thing we can do in America's schools is improve the reading ability and reading comprehension of our children. This move by widening the ability to use funds and merge them for schoolwide programs and by lowering the threshold from 50 percent to 40 percent is going to ensure that those children most in need of better education also are exposed more to programs that involve those children who are already performing. I rise to support the chairman, the ranking member and the committee and urge this House to pass the reauthorization of ESEA.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, in 1990 during my race for Governor of Georgia I had the privilege to meet and get to know Heath Garrett, then a student at the University of Georgia. In the years since, Heath became my campaign manager, my Chief of Staff, and always my friend. As our friendship grew, I came to know Heath's father, Bill. On the evening of October sixteenth, Bill Garrett passed away, the victim of a heart attack and a lifetime battle with diabetes. I rise today, to pay tribute to the life of Bill Garrett. During the past year, Bill volunteered in my Congressional District Office 4 hours a day answering the phone and greeting constituents. He always answered the phone the same way, ``Johnny Isakson's office, Bill Garrett how may I help you.'' Bill Garrett's voice was always pleasant, and his ``how may I help you'' assured the caller he really wanted to help. As I came to know Bill, I learned of his battle with diabetes. For over 50 years Bill dealt with the daily blood sugar test, the rigid and limiting diet, and the inevitable complication of the disease that strikes thousands of Americans every year. Like so many Americans with diabetes, Bill Garrett did not complain and led a productive life. As we pause to pay tribute to Bill Garrett, each of us in Congress should renew our effort to commit the funds for the research to find a cure for diabetes. There are thousands of Americans like Bill Garrett, and many in every Congressional district in this country. Let us work together to make tributes like this less frequent, and the occurrence of diabetes less frequent in America. Let us do it for Bill Garrett.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I am honored today to join my Georgia colleagues but really join all of this Congress in paying tribute to Henry Aaron. Hank Aaron is no mystery to anybody in this room. He broke Babe Ruth's record and 25 years ago today hit his 715th home run. He was a distinguished player in the Southern League, throughout the South, then to Milwaukee and finally to Atlanta. He is known for his home runs, but there is so much more. Hank Aaron was a leader who played with determination, whether the team was good or the team was bad. In this day, in this era of high-paid athletes and prima donnas and egos, Hank Aaron always had the level temperament. He was a man of distinction, and probably his greatest distinction was the year in which he caught and surpassed the Babe, because he dealt with threats, he dealt with discrimination, he dealt with those that would undermine his effort; but he diligently and quietly and professionally, day in and day out, pursued and finally caught the Babe. Hank Aaron broke a lot of records in baseball. He may have broken a few hearts of teams that lost to him, but to all of us in Atlanta and in Georgia and around America we are proud that Hank Aaron came our way. He is a distinguished American. He is a distinguished Georgian, and all of us in Georgia today are pleased to honor the man we know as ``Hammering Hank.''

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill, H.R. 2140. This legislation would modify the boundaries of the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area to protect and preserve the endangered Chattahoochee River and provide additional recreation opportunities for the citizens of Georgia and our nation. The river and its corridor lands are a vital source of water for the City of Atlanta, and more broadly for all of north Georgia. The area hosts diverse wildlife, significant natural communities and irreplaceable historic resources in the midst of one of America's most vibrant urban areas. It also affords a recreational haven for the millions of visitors each year to the dozen or so non-contiguous parkland areas that together compromise the Chattahoochee Recreation Area. Congress established the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area in 1978 to preserve and protect the natural, scenic, recreational, historic, and other values of a 48-mile segment of one of our nation's great urban rivers. Six years later, in 1984, as development around and within the recreation area increased, Congress acted to facilitate State and local government efforts to protect the area by declaring the 2,000-foot-wide corridor adjacent to each bank of the Chattahoochee as an area of national concern. Now, due to the rapid pace of commercial and residential development in the Chattahoochee River corridor, I believe it is absolutely essential that we pass this legislation in order to provide additional protection for this important resource. I have sought to continue former Speaker Gingrich's efforts to preserve the Chattahoochee River by funding the Chattahoochee Greenways Project, which will keep land on the banks of the river from further development and help clean up the waterway. This legislation is essential because over the years there has been a shift from largely water-based to land-based use of the park by visitors to the area, thereby contributing to a need for a larger land base for recreation. H.R. 2140 would expand the recreation area and protecting most of the remaining open spaces along the river corridor. The goal of the legislation is to create as much of an uninterrupted stretch of land as possible along the river banks in order to meet increased demand for recreational opportunities by communities along the river. This legislation also promotes private-public partnerships since Congress appropriated $25 million for land acquisition along the Chattahoochee last year and this will be matched by private funds. Remarkable cooperative efforts are currently underway to protect key lands in the corridor of Georgia's Chattahoochee River from Buford Dam to the Florida border. Thanks to the tireless efforts and leadership of the Trust for Public Land, the State of Georgia, private foundations, corporate entities, private individuals, and others have already given or pledged tens of millions of dollars to secure properties of public significance within the current authorized boundaries of the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area and to preserve the river for future generations of Georgians to enjoy. I would like to thank Representative Nathan Deal for introducing this important legislation and his efforts to protect one of Georgia's most indispensable natural resources. I am grateful for past efforts of Governor Zell Miller, Lt. Governor Pierre Howard, and for the efforts of other members of the Georgia delegation and Congress at large in support of this important legislation. I believe Congress must act fast to enact this legislation in order to protect the Chattahoochee River from any further development and environmental damage.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, in the days ahead we will debate the final actions that we will take on the budget. We have already tried to bring tax relief to the American people, and we in this Congress day in and day out are fortunate enough to be the governors of a great country that is the freest, safest, and richest country in the world. There are Americans day in and day out, as we cast these debates and cast our votes, who back home are working to pay the taxes that finance this government, volunteering their time in civic activities to make their community better, and day in and day out do the work of this country. I rise here today for just a moment to join many Americans who will next week in Washington, D.C. pay tribute to a great American, to a great Georgian, and to a personal friend of mine, Mr. Bradley Curry, a great businessman who built a company with his employees and his partners known as Rock-Tenn, a national, if not world leader, in packaging and in box board. While he did that, he raised a wonderful family, committed his time to civic activities for the best of our community, whether helping to solve the problems of our public hospital, Grady Memorial, work in a voluntary think-tank called Research Atlanta, or join with hundreds of other Atlantans to make a dream come true to bring the Olympic Games, the Centennial Olympic Games, to our city in 1996. Above all else, Brad Curry is a dedicated American. His partisanship is red, white, and blue. He works for the best of our country and business, the best in mankind in our community and, most importantly of all, for the continuing foundation of our freedom that we enjoy. So for this moment on this floor, I rise to pay tribute to Bradley Curry, who will retire at the end of this year from the Rock-Tenn Corporation, but will not retire from his tireless efforts on behalf of his city, his State and his country. I ask all in this Congress to join me in paying their highest respects to Bradley Curry of Atlanta, Georgia, upon his retirement from the Rock-Tenn Corporation.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of H.R. 987, as introduced by the distinguished gentleman from Missouri. I rise to make really two points. The first is based on experience. In the State of Georgia, for years, where I worked in the legislature on workers compensation legislation, without question, the preponderance of the cases that went to final court were cases over musculoskeletal disorders. I believe if we were to check the other 50 States in the United States of America, we would find also the preponderance of those cases that had to go to court were over musculoskeletal disorders. And we would also find that in every case a physician of renown, a physician with experience, testified on behalf of the injured party and on behalf of the business. And decisions fell on both sides. And why? For a very simple reason. It is a very difficult task to determine exactly what the cause was. To wait for scientific data to be conclusive is important, and to wait for this study that has been funded to come back before those regulations is also very important. But I also want to address what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) said. This is not a battle of us against workers and someone else for them. This is not a battle against the lady that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) mentioned, who over and over repeated those motions. But it is a battle over looking at all the interest of regulation. So let me personalize the story. Let me talk about James Abney, a doctor in Marietta, Georgia, who employs his wife and two dental assistants. A few years ago, when a major problem in our country arose over the possible spread of AIDS in the use of dentistry, and many will remember that case, immediate regulations came down which caused the acquisition of almost $40,000 in additional equipment, additional techniques, additional coverings in treatment and additional policies. None of us would argue that was not the appropriate response, but they were so quick, and in the absence of data, that over half of those within a year were repealed as being unnecessary. But the $40,000 was not paid back to Dr. Abney. Businesses deserve the right to have scientific data before business does what it will do, and that is take care of the best interest of its workers.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yield me the time. I appreciate the opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I want to address myself to the rule first because that is what we are debating. I have heard it said here today that we should not wait any longer for the scientific evidence to be evaluated by the National Academy of Science, what we should immediately do is proceed to pass rules and regulations. That is a little bit like going into a waiting room of a sick patient and saying, let us just not do any diagnostic testing, let us go ahead and operate. It is risky business. Secondly, I want to agree completely that this is about the cost to American business and the safety of American workers. In a period of unprecedented prosperity, in a period of full employment, the last thing an employer wants for a moment is to have workers getting hurt on the job, because there are not good replacements, because we are fully employed. They want workplace safety. But the last thing they want, also, is conflicting scientific data dictating to a bureaucracy to go ahead and establish rules and regulations preceding a final determination. In committee on this bill, whether my colleagues agree with the bill or not, no one can argue that professionals and physicians from both sides of the musculoskeletal disorder syndrome agree that there were conflicting data and it was time to have a decision. Mr. Speaker, I believe we should move forward with what will be a very contested debate. To vote against this rule makes no sense. When the debate on the rule is over and the rule passes, I think the evidence will come forward that we are doing what is right for workers and what is right for the employer and what is right for America, to depend on conclusive evidence and not conflict opinions.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of all the Members of this Congress to extend our sympathy to the citizens of Atlanta, to the families of the victims in the tragedy that took place yesterday, and the prayers of this House for those that are in the hospitals recovering. I also want to extend my gratitude to the hospitals of Grady, of Northside and St. Joseph's, and to law enforcement in Atlanta and the EMTs. And I close by saying this. In the days ahead, all of us will seek to find some thing to blame in this tragedy. Today, in America, we all share the blame. Violence has become all too repetitive, all too often. It is time for us in this Congress, for those in the media, for everybody in all facets of our society to understand that violence has now permeated mainstream America, and we must begin to act to change the minds and hearts of Americans, or all that we have loved and treasured will begin to be broken down no matter how great and strong our economy.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) for the opportunity to share in this 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge at the outset of my remarks how much I have appreciated the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) in the past 10 days. They have allowed me the opportunity to express my opinion, and they have done so sincerely and not just as a token and a pat on the head. I want to take the remarks of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), and I want to share it precisely with him for a second. He said he may lose a plant in his district. But if he, rather, had the choice between jobs in his district and the United States security, he would always choose security. Although this plant is not in my district, it is in the district of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr), many of its employees are. The gentleman from Georgia and I share this thing close. So it is natural for me as a Congressman of the Sixth District to argue for jobs in my district. But I am here to argue for the security of America. I just give my colleagues a couple of points. In the 21st Century, tactical theater attacks like we have had in Iraq, like we have had in the Balkans, will be the prototype. Our ability to knock out radar early, surface-to-air-missiles early, anti-aircraft early is what allows the rest of the United States military to act precisely without the loss of American lives or ground troops. The 15, the 14, the 15X will not have stealthy capability equal to the 22. They will not have capacity equal to the F-22. America will be sacrificing if it turns its back and pauses, if I give my colleagues the word ``pause,'' or kills, which could be in fact the correct word, the F-22, then we are placing the security of our country at a higher risk than it would be if we fully funded the F-22. So while I thank the chairman, the subcommittee chairman, and the ranking member for the courtesy they have shown me, and I mean that, I hope that, during the weeks ahead as we go to conference, they, too, will think of the security of the United States of America because we must always put it above even a job in our own district. I rise for precisely that reason today.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) on this piece of legislation, as well as the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon). I commend as well the work of the committee. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address my remarks specifically to the difference between this bill and the substitute that will soon be before us, and I want to use the context of the remarks of the gentleman from California when he introduced his substitute, or explained it. He accused this bill, the Teacher Empowerment Act, of choosing quality over quantity of teachers. And he is right. But we must understand if we reject this bill on that basis, we must accept his substitute in accepting quantity over quality. I want to submit some facts which every Member of this Congress must understand. First of all, there are not 100,000 certified teachers in the United States of America available to be hired. If there were, the State of Massachusetts would not be offering $20,000 bonuses to get teachers already employed in other States to come to theirs. If there were, the State of California would not have had the unfortunate circumstance it had when it reduced classroom size, but it did unfortunately with teachers teaching out of field and out of certification. And in my own State of Georgia there are public school systems where as much as 40 percent of content is taught by teachers out of field. Not because that is our desire, but, Mr. Chairman, because the fact is the talent is not there. Teacher empowerment means staff development. It means flexibility in funding to see to it that those who have already committed their life to teaching can be trained in field and in service to become better teachers. Those who want to fool us with the ruse of one number is better than the other, are putting their facts and their future in numbers, not in the quality of our teachers or, more importantly, the education of our children. When we choose to vote today, we should reject the substitute, because all it offers is quantity, with no quality. Instead, adopt the bill, which gives our local systems the flexibility to find the best teachers they can, improve the good teachers they have, and make the best decision for their children at the local level, not in Washington.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 278, expressing the sense of Congress rejecting the conclusions of a recent article published by the American Psychological Association that suggests that sexual relationships between adults and children might be positive for children and on rollcall No. 279, concerning United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-10/6, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time yielded from my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), and I appreciate the opportunity to speak. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a couple of things to my colleagues on the other side. I am married to a wonderful lady for 31 years, a special speech and hearing, special child teacher. I was in the State legislature and helped to implement 42-194, which Mr. Miller coauthored in this House in the 1970s, and I am pleased the last 2 years to chair the Georgia Board of Education, where 1,368,000 kids are in school, taught by 87,000 teachers. I want to make one thing real clear. There have been some misstatements, not intentionally I am sure, but I want to clarify. Number one, I would say to my dear friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), it is not 1 in 100. It is 13 in 100. It is a number of students who fall in this category. Number two, this bill does not have the word ``shall'' in it. This bill has the word ``may'' in it. Number three, with regard to the civil rights, I am committed to the civil rights of every child in the classrooms of America. They are God's gift to us, regardless of their special need or their gift. I would submit that there may be an occasion, may, where a special needs child may threaten the life in a self-contained environment of another special needs child, or in a mainstream environment, which Mr. Miller passed and I support, where we ensure that those that may have an infirmity or disability or a special need are mainstreamed with our most gifted. This does not say they will not get an education. It does not say they must be suspended. It does not stigmatize them. Nor does it violate their rights, but it says that every child, every gift of God to us, has the right to expect that if the need is there, that we can apply the discipline to ensure a safe environment in our schools. I know of no educator cavalier enough or no one brazen enough to take advantage of a disadvantaged child all because the word says ``may.'' If the time were available, I could quote case after case where had the school system had the flexibility at the time, they could have treated the civil rights of every child equally and maybe turned around the life of a special needs child rather than otherwise having to have their discipline governed by an external act not close to the situation.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise tonight and talk for a second about a subject that only a few months ago was on everybody's lips but fast wanes away, and that is school safety and the problem with violence in our schools. In the next few days, or next week, we will consider gun legislation. We will hear a lot of rhetoric. We will talk about a lot of things. But somehow, with time and space, we forget about the great tragedy that has happened in America in the past 2 years. This year, when graduation takes place, many students will commence to higher education. But in Colorado, 13 students will never go to class again. In Georgia, only by the grace of God, our students were injured and not killed. Does Congress have a role in this? Is there something that we can do? Yes, I think there is. But first I think we need to be honest about the blame game. There is appropriate responsibility in the gun industry, and they should accept it. There is appropriate responsibility in the motion picture industry, and they should accept it. There is appropriate responsibility in the music industry, and they should accept it. And every parent in America should understand today that parental responsibility must be restored in America if we are ever to solve school violence. But Congress has a role, too. It is our fault, as well. We stand here today in the people's House and appropriate money for the education of our children, the defense of our country, exports of our materials and facilitating our businesses. Yet our greatest natural resource is the generation now being educated in the schools of America. Should we run them? No, they should not be federalized. I was a school board chairman in Georgia. I know local control is important. But I know resources are equally important. Next week, I will introduce in the Congress a bill that really does address school violence. It does not play the blame game by attacking an inanimate object, a motion picture or music, all of which have some responsibility, but instead it talks about us being a facilitator for resources at the local level through a block grant program that institutionalizes in this country an expectation of safety, discipline and student assistance. When you read behind the sensationalism of the last few instances in America, you will find students who were troubled, students who were reported by teachers or other parents to have demonstrated tendencies that would be violent, and you will find gaps between that report and any follow-up. And unfortunately in each and every case, whether it be Paducah or Jonesboro or Conyers or Littleton, tragedy ensued and the lives of American children were lost. This bill would do the following things. It would create a block grant program for any system in the country that wishes to apply for us to assist in the funding of a director of school safety in every public school in America. It would not allow the funds to supplant State or local funds. The individual employed would not necessarily have to be a certified teacher but could be at the discretion of that system, somebody that most importantly met the needs of the demographics of those children. If accepted, it would require a school safety plan. And further it would exempt from existing law the prohibitions we now place on many teachers and administrators from direct referrals of students who demonstrated violent tendencies to the appropriate law enforcement, mental health or other agency that we fund in our local governments around this country. Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that children rise to the expectations that we set for them. Unfortunately, we have created an environment where our expectations in our schools in terms of discipline, in terms of zero tolerance for violence, are not as high as they should be. And the children, the vast majority, almost 100 percent who are good kids, who obey the rules, who go to school, they should not be punished and their life should never be taken, because we did not do what we could do to facilitate an environment in our schools of safety and discipline and, probably most importantly, direct assistance when a child is in trouble, to see to it they receive what they need at the most critical time in their lives. I want to conclude by making a point. I am a parent. Since I have been in politics I probably got more credit for raising our three than I deserve, but my wife and I raised three wonderful children. We sent them all to public schools. I think that is the real world. I think that is the world my kids will grow up in. We sent them there and we tried our best to be involved in their education, to raise their expectations, to do the right thing and to obey the law. There are lots of other parents like that. But the biggest problem in America today is probably parental deficit disorder, not attention deficit disorder. We cannot expect our system to educate our kids and to raise them. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and let us do something concrete for the children of America.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 157) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives in support of America's teachers.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is only appropriate that today on the floor of this House the Congress of the United States of America recognize and acknowledge the teachers of our country. Today, over 3 million American men and women are teaching our children, our next generation, our Nation's greatest resource. Were I to stand anywhere in this Chamber and pose one question to every Member, I would get exactly the same response. Were I to ask any Member, think for a second and tell me if there was ever a teacher that made a difference in their life, instantly, without question, every individual would think of a teacher or teachers and would respond further with a story about how that person had impacted their life. So, too, is it true with almost every adult in America today. Save only our parents, teachers are the most important people in the lives of our children. While we are doing the right thing to pause today and pay tribute to America's teachers, we must remember every week and every day to give thanks and give support for the contribution that they make. Were I to be asked if a teacher had made a difference in my life, I would think back to Alice Gibson in Atlanta, Georgia, a teacher who made a student of me. She was a disciplinarian, a demanding lady, a lover of literature. For me, before having Ms. Gibson, learning was work and books belonged on shelves. After attending her class, barely making it the first time and excelling the second, everything that is open to me today is because of the windows of the world that she opened in teaching that appreciation. In my home district in Cobb County, there is a teacher by the name of Linda Morrison, a social studies teacher in North Cobb High School in Cobb County, who year in and year out her teams win Model U.N. and win debates. Every year political candidates come to her class and they are overwhelmed by the inspiration and motivation that Linda Morrison places in all those children. I did that trip 3 months ago, shortly before my special election. Linda turned the classroom over to me; and I was once again impressed by the respect, the courtesy, and the insight of those kids. When I left the class, once again awed, the principal put his arm around me and told me that Ms. Morrison had just finished her first chemo treatment but had come to class to see to it that her students were fulfilled and her class went on. That is the kind of dedication, that is the kind of commitment we see not just in one but in many of our teachers all over America. And lastly, it is only fitting that I recognize Andy Baumgartner, this year the United States of America's Teacher of the Year, as honored just 2 weeks ago in Washington D.C.; a kindergarten teacher outside of Augusta, Georgia who dedicates his life to putting excitement into education for every child. He recognizes that, at the age of five, he has one opportunity to help the life of an individual in the most formative year of their education. Mr. Speaker, it is only appropriate that this House today commend our teachers all over this country, recognize them for the contribution they make, and appreciate the fact that today in every American classroom they are under the watchful eye of a teacher, an individual who is willing to share with them. And, Mr. Speaker, I think all of us remember or might ask, had it not been for teachers or a teacher, where might any of us have been today? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), distinguished chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), the original sponsor of this resolution.