Johnny Isakson

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), distinguished member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint).

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, before introducing our final speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 157.

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I consider it a fortunate privilege for me to have been elected to this House in a special election, even more fortunate to have met the two principal cosponsors in my first committee meeting in education and for that to have dealt with the Ed- Flex bill, and I obviously stand in support of the conference report and in support of the initiative, but in particular to address the question of the national dialogue. I would like to share for just a minute what a great first step I think this Congress is taking, but I would like to share it not from the perspective of a Congressman who stands and thinks he knows a lot about a subject, but rather from one who just fortunately, the last act I did in Georgia before I left to come here was a submission of the $5 billion state education budget for the State of Georgia, 97.2 percent of which was State tax dollars and local government tax dollars, but 2.8 percent of which was money, much of it covered by the flexibility we are now granting in terms of regulations and rules within seven categorical programs. Giving flexibility and the ability to waive Federal and state standards on the spending of this money with accountability to ensure that after 2 years there must be improvement and cannot be a decline is a great gift to the people in public education, our States. The fact of the matter is the amount of money necessary for creativity in education at the local level is shrinking every day because of mandates that we pass on in our areas or mandates the general assemblies pass on. But it is those small dollars that sometimes flexibility is granted upon that bring about the greatest of change. I just like to give one example which both gives credit to a school back in Georgia, but also demonstrates precisely what I think we are on the verge of doing in this country. I attended a school that was about to be closed 3 years ago. It is 100 percent free and reduced lunch, total poverty, surrounded by a chain link fence with razor wire. It was my first visit as the chairman of the State Board of Education, and my visit was because we had been asked to grant substantial waivers by that principal, a new principal, of State rules to try and allow him to get his hands around the problems of discipline and despair and a system that was failing. Two years later the school was turned around in large measure because we granted at the State level the flexibility to allow that school to deal with the difficulties it was confronting, and a school that was hopeless, maybe even hapless, was turning around the lives of poor and disadvantaged children. It is my belief that the flexibility granted in this act, in the programs that it governs, is the beginning of greater flexibility that we can grant to educators that deal with the most precious asset we have and hopefully will be the foundation upon what national dialogue we do have on many other areas where this Congress and this country must focus on our greatest asset and resource of all, and that is the children of the parents of the United States of America.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for the introduction of this amendment. I have listened with interest to the constitutional references, so I would make just a few points. It is correct that there are only three places in the Constitution where a two-thirds vote is required, but one of those is to amend the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers knew they could not contemplate everything that would happen, but they knew a legislative body needed to be prepared to deal with it. That is why they had a constitutional amendment privilege. That is why we have an income tax today, because a Congress saw fit to impose one, not our Founding Fathers, and it reached a supermajority to do so. Our Founding Fathers did not contemplate limiting the President of the United States in his terms of service, but following the Roosevelt administration this Congress and the people decided a limitation was appropriate. I would submit to my colleagues that Madison does not roll over in his grave nor does Jefferson. In fact, they probably stand with pride that the document they created let us respond, in a time far different from theirs, to what is truly in America a very valid question, because they did not contemplate that the citizens of the United States of America would pay marginal rates equal to 40.6 percent of their income.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to stand before the House of Representatives today and acknowledge the tremendous contributions of the women of the sixth congressional district of Georgia to our state and nation. In particular I want to acknowledge the contributions of women in business. The growth and economic prosperity of Georgia's economy has been paralleled by the growth of Women-Owned Businesses and Enterprises. Their contributions have provided quality jobs, innovative services, and new products for Georgia. I am very pleased to inform you that Georgia is now the second fastest growing state in America in terms of women business owners. For just a moment I would like to tell you about a few of these outstanding women. Carolyn Stradley, the founder and owner of C and S Paving in Marietta, Georgia is a true success story. Orphaned as a child and a school dropout as a teenager, Carolyn founded her business with a shovel and determination. Today she sits on the National Women's Business Council, and is one of Georgia's leading contractors. Jane Carithers, along with her husband Larry, owns and operates the successful Carithers Florist in Marietta, Georgia. Jane is Georgia's leading florist and an innovator in her field. She initiated the use of flowers and floral arrangements for business promotion, office interiors, and community benefits. Even while reaching the heights of her profession, she still commits time and resources to many community events and programs. Jackie Ward, founder of Computer Generations, is one of North America's leading developers of computer technology and services to corporate America. Jackie has created jobs for thousands of men and women in Georgia and the United States. While building her business she has also worked to bring business to Georgia by serving as the first woman President in the history of the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce. So many women in so many ways are growing Georgia's economy. Women in real estate like Pat DiGeorge, Mitzi Jaznicki, Mary Ann Anziano, Gail Hurst, Sandra Eades, Shirley Hardman, and Annie Parker. Women in homebuilding like Kay Cantrell, and in new home marketing like Bea McDowell. Women in commercial planning and design like Bianca Quantrell, and women in economic development like Annie Hunt Burrus. I could acknowledge so many more for all they have done and contributed to Georgia. I am very pleased that the Congressional Caucus for Women's issues has chosen to acknowledge the contribution of women, and I am pleased to recognize the tremendous contribution of women in business throughout the sixth district of Georgia.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct, and as I listen to the debate from both sides, I think both sides would really agree with voting against instructing for the following reason. For whatever its intention, this particular amendment forces us to take a choice between a direction of spending money on teachers or on IDEA, when in fact it was this House, when it passed the Educational Flexibility Act, which passed an act that in seven Federal programs, including Title I, gave waivers of local and State rules to local systems to spend money for the betterment of children. It did not deal with 100,000 teachers, nor did it deal with the funding of IDEA. I think both sides understand that whether or not we continue the commitment on teachers will be dealt with later in authorization; whether or not we rise to fund IDEA will be dealt with later. But today this House has the chance to stand firm behind a bill that it passed which in fact caused the Senate to take action. Notwithstanding whatever our opinion of the amendment may have been, we should leave here united behind the House message, which was flexibility to local schools, waivers of rules to allow them to be able to do what they think is best. Let us debate later, and at the appropriate time, how many more teachers we fund for the classroom or where the IDEA money comes from. And just so it is clear, it is really not appropriate on an instruction to all of a sudden hire 100,000 teachers, spend $3.6 billion, which I understand is the cost, and not even consider the mandate of additional benefits and supplements to local systems, plus whether or not there will even be an ongoing commitment in the future. I would submit that for us to continue what this House began, we should send back the message that we are for educational flexibility, we should have our conferees stand firm for that which we passed, and we should not place ourselves or anyone else in the position of picking over children or teachers, all for the sake of politics.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, exactly 3 weeks ago tomorrow, I presided over my last board of education meeting as chairman of the State Board of Education of Georgia, so probably from a contemporary standpoint I am closest to the effects of this legislation and the proposed amendment than anyone. I do oppose the amendment, but I oppose it because I think the previous speaker, the coauthors, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), have done an outstanding job of ensuring that there is accountability without ensuring that the babble that was referred to that went from the local systems up does not also come from the Federal Government down. In the final amendment that the committee adopted in the legislation, which was referred to by the previous speaker, there is the greatest accountability of all. That accountability is that if a system for two successive years is declining, their waiver is withdrawn. Now, I understand school people about as well as anybody else. We spend $5 billion State dollars a year in Georgia, and we appropriate it to local systems. I got appointed to the State Board of Education in a unique circumstance. The governor fired the entire board that he had appointed about 2 years prior to my service here. He did because they were fighting, they were raising accountability, they were micromanaging schools, and Georgia was hurting and Georgia was declining. When he put in a new board, he asked us to do the following. He said, give them the chance to succeed or fail, just make sure if they fail, you take away the latitude that you have given them. This legislation does not just require a waiver of Federal rules, it requires a waiver of State rules as well. No waiver can be granted from the Federal level if it is also granted at the State level. And if we understand how local boards of education work or how the system works, what in fact happens is a local board of education has to first approve the request before it goes to the State Board of Education and before the Federal Government approves it. Now, that is a lot of accountability. It is a lot of accountability for the merits of the request and the intent. The last point I want to make is not that I am opposed to accountability by any measure; I am not. But I think the authors have ensured and the committee ensured that it was there. I want to just for a second close with why flexibility is so important. Children are taught in classrooms by teachers, not by Congressmen, not by boards of education, not by State boards of education. Our children are uniquely different from Montana to Georgia, from California to Michigan. In the programs affected by this legislation from Title I to technology, there are differences as broad in my State from one end to the other as there are in your State to my State. We are opening the door, I think, to a great opportunity, and that is to challenge our States to do better and say we trust them, and if they fail, we will pull it away. There is no greater accountability, and there is no more greater testimony to where education really takes place than to grant flexibility back to where it all begins: in the classroom where a teacher deals with one child at a time, trying to build the future of our country through an improved education. I urge the adoption of this bill, but not the adoption of this amendment. The authors have put in the accountability. The flexibility our systems need will bring about the progress all of us hope for.

Mr. ISAKSON

Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, distinguished Congressman John Lewis and all of my friends in the Georgia delegation, I am very honored and privileged to be here today. I am particularly honored that 150 of my closest family members are in the gallery. I have the most wonderful family a man could have and the most wonderful friends in the world. And anytime you get 65 percent of the vote, there are a lot more than 150 folks back home that helped you. But I could not be prouder than to be associated with and to represent these people. I am sure there are probably a lot of wise words I ought to say today, but I can only really think of two things that seem appropriate. One is an admonition I got from a great friend of mine by the name of Carl Harrison who on the first day of my swearing in to the Georgia House of Representatives said, ``Johnny, the best way to learn is to keep your mouth shut.'' And so I intend to be a very good listener and learn. And then from my father and mother who always admonished me to do what was right and always talked about Mark Twain's great quote: ``Just do what's right. You'll gratify few but you'll astonish the rest.'' I will do the very best I can to do what is right in the service of my State and in cooperation with you. I am well aware that to all of you I am nothing more today than the fellow that replaced Newt. I hope in the years to come I will be a respected friend and one who joined with you to make a difference for the United States of America.