Anne Northup

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize someone who has devoted his time and energy to making Louisville, Kentucky a better place to live. Pioneering one of the first high-tech multifamily developments in the United States, Clifford H. Turner has played an invaluable role for the City of Louisville. Nine years ago Clifford Turner's extraordinary vision enabled him to convert an old elementary school into forty-three apartment units. Listed as one of the top ten HUD insured multifamily housing development, this development is more than housing--it represents community living where neighbors share concerns and dreams. Building on this success, Clifford Turner continued his vision, converting an old parking lot into an additional twenty-eight housing units. This vision will not only provide new housing opportunities, but will provide new jobs for the citizens of Louisville. A sense of community spirit is what Clifford Turner has contributed to citizens in Louisville. Working together with local corporations, Turner is involved in a new tutorial program which will teach children, many in the African-American community, to learn how to use computers and to develop pen pals in Africa. Having friends in the community and throughout the world, Clifford Turner is truly an asset to Kentucky and the City of Louisville. His work and his dedication to children and families in Louisville is to be commended. I hope you will join me in recognizing the great talents of Clifford H. Turner of Louisville, Kentucky.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to have an opportunity to speak in opposition to this constitutional amendment. This debate reminds us of just what this country is. It is a country full of people that have their own opinion. That is what has made it so great is that we have debated all of our opinions in public, and we have had vigorous debates that reflect our democracy. I think from the last speaker we can see there is somebody that thinks this debate is frivolous, that this amendment is frivolous. Yet, our minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) realized what other reformers have failed to see; you cannot pass the current proposals of campaign finance reform without infringing on the constitutional right to free speech. At the heart of each of the proposals is a muzzle on first amendment rights. They stated this in their ``Dear Colleague'' letter last year. So while one person that is a Member of the minority party thinks it is a frivolous amendment and not worthy of our time, their same party's minority leader believes that it is the core and the necessity of campaign finance reform. I do not believe that we should infringe on the right of free speech. I do not believe that we should amend the Constitution. I think it served our country well that every group and every individual has an opportunity to express their ideas and their perspective in campaigns and outside of campaigns. It scares me a lot to think that we would begin to change those rules, that we would begin to eliminate the ability for people to freely debate the issues that confront us in elections and confront this country. The fact is that we spend $9 trillion in this country. We are the most powerful country in the world. There are a lot of people that believe it is worth their time and energy and money to influence the debate. What we need to do is make sure that all of the money spent is clear to the voters that it is reportable and that any law we pass is enforceable. The reality is that we are not even able to do that today. We had an election in 1996, and there are all sorts of abuses and suspicions that crimes were committed in the course of that election. The presidential election is the most closely reflective of what proposals today are for the congressional elections. Yet, despite those laws, what we have is probably the most flawed election in our history. We cannot investigate it. We cannot trace the money. We cannot find people to testify. In fact, what happens in a system like that is the person that is most willing to abide by the law, that is the most careful to do exactly what the letter of the law requires, ends up the person least likely to win, the person the most disadvantaged. Because when you push the money off the table, when you have people who want to influence elections that cannot do it through the legal process so that the American voters can watch and judge, what you do is create a system that invites the person most willing to abuse the system to do that for their own political advantage. I am proud to have lived very carefully, not only technically, but within the spirit of the law in the course of my campaigns. I accept that I am in a very tough district and that I will probably have a tough campaign every 2 years. I accept the fact that I may lose. What I do not accept is that we might go to a system where a person could step forward to run that would be the most likely to collaborate with independent expenditures off the radar screen and have the best advantage. I think that compromises the voters in my district and the voters all across this country. Secondly, as soon as you start deciding the rules, you start deciding who wins and who loses, what groups are able to affect elections, and what groups are not. I surely do not think those people that would support campaign finance would begin to restrict what newspapers can print on their editorial page. I have not seen that proposed. Yet, that is an independent expenditure. No one appoints them. No one asks them to be objective. No one enforces that objectivity. In fact, you only have to live in my district to see what one editor can do that is not objective to understand the disadvantage that presents. But we cannot regulate that, and we are not going to regulate that, and I do not support regulating that. The fact is that I have raised money for my campaign. I am proud that very little of my money has come from PACs, about 22 percent last time I checked. Most of my money comes from individuals. Almost all of it comes from my district. I raise money by going from one individual to another and say I am going to commit myself.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, what I am proud to do is go from individual to individual, many people who have never given to campaigns before, and say this is what I believe; can you help me? My husband and I have raised six kids. We could not possibly fund an election ourselves. That is the Democratic process. Any laws that limit individuals from participating in campaigns and in elections and in free speech and in the debate of what direction this country is going in is a terrible opportunity to take away their opportunity to participate in a democracy. I am tired of people saying that the whole system is corrupt. I believe in the system. I believe in this country. I believe in my colleagues. Not everybody agrees with any of us. None of us wins in a unanimous election. But I believe most of us abide by the laws. We participate because we believe in a democracy. We believe the debate is good. I am sorry for those people who have decided to gain political advantage by implying to the American people that the whole system is corrupt. I do not know who they talked to or who they work with, but they are not with the people that I work with every day.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a talented and motivated group of young people, who competed in the national finals of the We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution program in early May. I am pleased to recognize the class from Male High School in Louisville, which represented the state of Kentucky in this national event. These young scholars worked diligently to reach the national finals by winning competitions in their home state and did a wonderful job at the national event. The We the People . . . The Citizen and the Constitution program is the most extensive educational program in the country, developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The three-day national competition simulates a Congressional hearing in which students demonstrate their knowledge as they defend positions on historical and contemporary constitutional issues. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the We the People . . . program has provided curricular materials at upper elementary, middle and high school levels for more than 75,000 teachers and 24 million students nationwide. In a time when the public is often disenfranchised with the political system, when public cynicism and apathy are fueled by media that love nothing more than a story of sin and corruption, this program is instilling in young people a sense of understanding and civic duty. It is an honor for me to recognize this group of shining, young Kentuckians: Angela Adams, Perry Bacon, Katherine Breeding, Will Carle, Eric Coatley, Courtney Coffee, Brian Davis, Mary Fleming, Matt Gilbert, Amanda Holloway, Holly Jessie, Heath Lambert, Gwen Malone, Kristy Martin, Brian Palmer, Lauren Reynolds, Shane Skoner, LaVonda Willis, Bryan Wilson, Darreshia Wilson, Beth Wilson, Janelle Winfree, Treva Winlock and Jodie Zeller. I am thrilled Male High School once again represented my home state of Kentucky in national competition. The student team worked diligently and demonstrated a remarkable understanding of the ideals of our government during the national competition in Washington, DC. I am proud of the students and their teacher, Sandy Hoover, and would like to extend my sincere congratulations for their success.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. In my government class in my junior year of high school, my teacher taught my class about civic duty. We studied the Constitution, and I learned then that that document represents a contract between the U.S. government and us, its citizens; and that as citizens, we are guaranteed certain inalienable rights. Those rights include our freedom of speech. Today we have before us a number of proposals, all addressing the issue of campaign reform. The self-proclaimed reformers will talk about the problems of public cynicism, corruption in politics, and abuse of the system. Their proposed solutions will suggest everything from limiting when certain groups did disseminate their message to capping campaign spending and using tax dollars to fund campaigns. The problem is that at the heart of each of these proposals is a muzzle on first amendment rights, the right to freedom of speech. Members may ask, what does campaign financing have to do with free speech? The answer is, absolutely everything. In the landmark Buckley versus Valeo case, the Supreme Court ruled that being able to raise and spend money is necessary for speech. Restricting the amount of money a person or group can spend in campaigns reduces their ability to express themselves. In today's society, every means of communicating ideas requires spending money. In fact, most campaign spending is used for the purpose of communicating with voters. Running an advertisement on television or the radio costs money. The ink and paper used in a mail piece costs money. An ad in a newspaper costs money. While standing on a street corner screaming at the top of your lungs may be an exercise in free speech, it does little to disseminate your message. In order to share your views with others, whether you are a candidate running for office or a group of individuals concerned about the environment, you must have the funds and be able to buy air time or newspaper space to voice your opinion effectively. While the authors of these reform proposals might say their ideas do not hamper free speech, most proposals do infringe on the first amendment, the right to free speech. We must remember that election activity is a healthy sign of a vibrant democracy. Just as we encourage citizens to vote, we should encourage them to be involved in campaigns. The discussions that swirl around campaigns are part of engaging our citizens in campaigns and the issues that confront them. Limiting our ability to discuss those issues violates our inalienable rights. Oppose limiting free speech. Oppose the Shays-Meehan and Hutchison bill.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize the nurses of Kentucky, as well as throughout this nation. Nurses are a strong component of our health care system and are known for providing health care with a human touch. In my home state, nurses are celebrating Kentucky Nurses Week and they have every reason to be proud. Working hard and achieving professional and personal goals, many nurses in my community have proven themselves time and time again. Continually striving to upgrade standards of care and improve services, Kentucky nurses have shown that they are committed to providing the best quality health care possible for their patients. I hope you will join me in recognizing this noble professional during this week, and throughout the year. Certainly, they are deserving of this acknowledgment.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in favor of this amendment and to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) for bringing it to the attention of this body. As the mother of six children, I understand the frustration of trying to ensure that one's child receives the very best education available. If one's child has a learning disability, we know the frustration and the hopelessness of searching for the answers to provide one's son or daughter with the tools necessary for him or her to succeed in this world. The gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) and I have had an opportunity to work closely together to ensure that children that have learning disabilities have a better opportunity to receive early in their education an opportunity to learn to read and learn to read well, so that they can achieve at every level in their education. But unfortunately, some children today do not receive that intervention and some children have gone through the early years of their schooling without having the opportunity to fully develop their talents in school in some areas in which they are disabled. But that does not mean that they may not be very talented and students that can do very well in college. Many colleges have struggled with giving these children better opportunities. They have set up programs for learning disabled kids and they are struggling to help them achieve at the highest level. What this bill does is create five demonstration projects so that schools can look to the best examples of remediation in areas that children are weak so that in areas in which they are strong they can still be high achievers. We need every talent in our workplace today. We need for every child to be able to realize their dreams and their goals and their talents. What this bill does is make sure that those children who have special needs and special talents receive the best opportunity at higher education levels so that they can become the chemists and the teachers and the people that are leaders in their areas tomorrow. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) for all the time and energy she has put into this bill. She has been a leader on it. She has brought to the attention of many people in this Congress the problem of our talented children who are in higher education that have learning disabilities. I believe this will not only help those kids that are being educated in these five institutions, but those other institutions around the country that are looking for the best examples so that they can pattern within their schools the best ways to help kids who are talented but struggling. I think this is good for a lot of children. Mr. Chairman, I join the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) in hoping that the Department of Education will seek out an institution that primarily serves minority students, since they are disproportionately represented in this population and ensure that one of those institutions will serve as an example. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for his willingness to accept this amendment.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak against this amendment. First of all, I think it is so amazing that the people that are sponsoring this amendment wish to talk about mandates on colleges and universities across this country. The fact is, almost all decisions being made about college sports today have everything to do with the Department of Education interfering and mandating on colleges about what sports requirements they are under. This is not something that will be initiated; this is something that is going on right now. We all believe that sports are great for women and for men that are in college. They serve a wonderful purpose. They provide these young people, first of all, an opportunity for scholarships, provide many of them an opportunity at institutions of education that they would not have if they were not able to receive these athletic scholarships. It also gives them an opportunity to compete on a higher level. Many of these students are very talented in athletics. Many will have opportunities to use these talents in other arenas. They go on and become our Olympic stars. They go on and compete internationally. They represent this country around the world. Many of them have careers if professional careers are available in their sports. Those opportunities are growing for women, as they have been for men for many years. That is all great, and a great opportunity for some very talented young people in this country. Athletics also teach us a lot of other things. It teaches kids about hard work. It teaches kids about sportsmanship. It teaches kids about learning to lose and to start over again, to pick themselves up when they are down. Those are lessons that help all of us for all of our lives. So when we look at athletics, I am thrilled to see colleges looking for the best ways to provide the most opportunities for the most students. Because of the Department of Education's accelerated or new pressure that they are applying on many athletic programs, there are an increased number of programs that are being jeopardized today. Many times, because the colleges have little time to act, they are being forced to eliminate men's teams and to add women's teams in order to try to equalize the opportunities. All of us applaud the new opportunities for women. It has made a wonderful difference in a couple of my daughter's lives. It has not made such a wonderful difference in my son's life, though. This year he is a junior in college. He is a champion swimmer. At one point, he was the second fastest swimmer in the butterfly in the country. Next year, it looks as though his school may not have swimming, so he loses his opportunity to ever go on and an opportunity to ever be the top in the country, ever be in the Olympics. So why does he not go to the another school? Because all of his credits are in one school. He loves that school. He has invested a lot of time, a lot of energy, a lot of effort in that team. The fact is that that school has no time to adjust because of the Department of Education. I am so sorry that our colleagues that are sponsoring this bill are not screaming about that sort of intrusion in colleges today. If we had a little more time, we could probably grow better women's sports opportunities and not endanger men's sports. But since we have this intrusion that exists today, and because nobody on the other side has talked about that, I think it is better, very important to understand why some teams are being eliminated. In the meantime, what my colleague is proposing is that students who are trapped at a school, who love that school dearly, they at least be informed as early as the school knows that it is about to drop a particular sport. That is the least we can do so that they have an opportunity to consider what this means in their lives, so that they have an opportunity to fulfill their talents and their dreams, even if changing schools is the only way to do it. This is, by no means, criticism of my son's school. They have treated him more than fairly, informed the students on that team of the crushing news that they are going to drop swimming next year. I think it is important that this body know that just 4 years ago, they built a $14 million swimming and athletic complex to accommodate this team that now they are being forced to drop. Is that a waste or what? What does the Department of Education think about that? In the meantime, let us leave the language in the bill. Let us get this bill to the conference committee. Let us see if between the Senate and the House we can figure out a way to make things better for all women athletes and all men athletes.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Madam Speaker, I and all other moms know what it is like to worry every day about how your child is doing in school. It is terrible if your child is trapped in a school that is unsafe and unworkable. Your daughter's sleepless nights become your own sleepless nights. Most parents with children in the D.C. public schools live under these intolerable conditions. D.C. schools have received national attention. In spite of funding per student that ranks among one of the highest in the Nation, education in the District has reached crisis proportions. Decrepit school buildings are literally falling apart. The local news here is filled with stories of fire code violations, violence in schools, and failing test scores. The problem in the D.C. public schools right now is the entire system is broken. It is not just a bad teacher or disorganized principal or a leaky roof or an unrestrained bully in the fourth grade. It is all of these problems and more. A parent cannot just change their child's teacher or their class or their school. There is no place to escape, and so the children are simply trapped. Hopefully, the District will begin the long process of improvement. In the meantime, the children in these schools cannot wait. Too many lives have already been ruined. A child only gets to be in first grade once. He or she only gets to be a child one time. We need to make sure that each child has at least a chance to spend that year, that childhood in a safe school with an opportunity to learn. School choice will offer parents the opportunity to give their children a chance to learn, thus enabling them to lay the foundation for future success. The key to ending the cycle of public assistance dependence is in opening doors for children to receive a quality education. School choice is popular in this community. A recent poll found that low-income parents support scholarships. Among families earning less than $25,000, 59 percent support the program. We should, too.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favor of the rule and in favor of House Resolution 3546. Yesterday the board of trustees of the Social Security program issued a report stating that the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted by the year 2032. Mr. Speaker, we have heard all sorts of anecdotes that younger Americans believe they have less of a chance of cashing a Social Security check than they do of seeing aliens land on earth. These stories are somewhat humorous, but they foreshadow an impending crisis that is anything but funny. We as a Congress can no longer afford to sit on our hands. We owe it to this generation and the next to secure our Social Security system and enhance retirement opportunities. Further, Americans must be encouraged to save and invest in their own retirement. That is why Congress should continue taking steps to provide individuals with more savings and investment opportunities. In the meantime, Americans want to discuss the flaws within the current Social Security system and the options that exist for maintaining its solvency. House Resolution 3546 is vital to ensuring that all Americans have a voice in the upcoming debate. In the midst of this national discussion, Congress will be expected to make exciting decisions to strengthen Social Security. The ideas of our constituents, both young and old, will help us make the right decisions for all of us. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and House Resolution 3546.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I know what it is like to worry every day about how your child is doing in school. It must be terrible if your child is trapped in a school that is unsafe and unworkable; your daughter's sleepless nights become your own sleepless nights. Most parents with children in the D.C. public schools live under these intolerable conditions. D.C. Schools have received national attention. In spite of funding per student that ranks among one of the highest districts in the Nation, education in this district has reached crisis proportions. Decrepid school buildings are literally falling part. Just this year, a high school student interned in my office because opening day was delayed 3 weeks. The local news here is filled with stories of fire code violations, violence in schools, and failing test scores. The problem with D.C. schools is that the entire system is broken. It is not just a bad teacher or disorganized principal or leaking roof or unrestrained bully in fourth grade; it is all of these and more. Parents cannot just change their child's class or even their child's school. They simply cannot escape. And so, their children are trapped. Hopefully, the District will begin the long process of improvement. But, in the meantime, we need to give children a choice.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, on Roll Call Vote no. 25, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted aye.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I rise and am pleased to rise in support of the Reading Excellence Act. While we are all concerned about new Federal programs, the budget agreement set aside $260 million for a new literacy program. What we could have had is another feel-good, unproven, sounds-good program, the kind of program that has failed our children so badly. Mr. Speaker, 44 percent of the U.S. students in elementary school do not read at a basic level. Thirty-two percent of college graduates also have failed to reach this basic level. This may be the most important bill that we pass regarding our children and their success in school, because what it does, finally and most importantly, is focus on the proven ways of teaching children how to read. We know today that the latest scientific research shows that 60 to 70 percent of all children read any way you teach them, but the other children need a very systemic, phonics-based approach to reading if they are ever going to read and be good readers. We furthermore know that science has shown us that children that do not read by the end of third grade will always have a bigger struggle in reaching that basic level. Their opportunity to be good readers is much more difficult if they do not learn to read by the end of third grade. Reading opens doors and failure to read slams those doors shut. So what we need is to make sure that we use the kind of scientifically proven method to teach our children, one that has not been in our schools so often in the past. This phonics-based approach is what teachers will learn as a result of this funding. We will also give parents the opportunity to provide tutorial service for their children, their choice based on the most recommended types of tutoring and reading approach. It also endorses family literacy, so we are giving our children an opportunity to go to schools that teach the right kind of reading and parents who can help those children in the same way. I support this bill.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak about this bill and to have served on this subcommittee. I want to also thank the subcommittee chair and the ranking member and the other members of the subcommittee that have worked so hard on this bill. Many of the benefits of this bill, the appropriations that we have made, have been discussed previously, but I would just like to say that one of the reasons this is such a tough bill is because education and health are intrinsically different than anything else we spend our money for. It is one thing to be dispassionate about road construction or military buildup, but it is impossible to be dispassionate about our children. Moms and dads across this country feel passionately and emotionally about the schools that their children attend and whether or not they learn and how much they learn and whether they are prepared for the future. This world is changing. The world our children will know will be different than the world that we have known, and they have to be prepared in different ways and for different experiences. The way they will be pioneers in their lives will be different than the way we are pioneers in our lives. So as our schools are grappling with change, it is difficult for their moms and dads and for all of us to pick the best of what we have and make sure we continue that and prepare it in new ways for new worlds. We are also confused and not certain about what the Federal role is going to be in an educational system that has largely heretofore been a state responsibility and organization. Assuming that will continue and that we will expect schools to succeed locally, we are looking for the way that the best Federal investment can be made in our schools. So I want to say that education is different. It is different than road construction. The fact that there is an unpatched pothole is not very emotional, but if your child goes to school and does not learn to read, that is very emotional. I want to in particular thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the subcommittee chairman, for your commitment to the blind community and the deaf community. I have served very closely with the blind community in Louisville. We happen to be the home for the American Printing House for the Blind. My husband and I have been very involved in this community, and we recognized here in this bill the importance of continued access that the blind community needs to those services. So I wanted to thank the gentlemen in particular for that. Mr. Speaker, I recommend this bill to the rest of the Members.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I appeal to my colleagues as a mother to support this bill. I think that we have demonstrated our commitment to education over many, many years of contributions, both State and local and Federal. In fact, we have 729 programs that contribute to making educational systems in this country work better, to make sure that each child, every child has an opportunity for a good education. I think it is sort of amazing that the people that oppose this bill assume that every parent will make the choice to take their child out of public school and put them in a nonpublic school. I assume that many of our public schools are, in fact, great schools and that these parents, that many parents want to keep their child in public school. If they are not, we have got a much huger problem than what we do about these $2,500 school savings accounts. The reality is, there is not anything we can do at this level. There is not any check we can write at this level that helps each 6-year-old and each 7-year-old, each 10-year-old and each 18-year-old be successful. Each one of my six children took unique needs, unique intervention to help them go from the beginning years of school to successfully complete school. Some of them had a terrible time with math and they needed tutoring. Some of my children needed special help in other areas. I do have special needs children. I have adopted children with diagnosed special needs and I have biological children that are dyslexic and have been diagnosed every step of the way. There is not any education program, private or public, that has met my children's needs. I had to find the resources to provide tutoring, to provide special summer schools, to provide special opportunities for those children to be successful. Thank goodness my husband and I could find those resources. Some of those I found by going back to work myself, by making quilts and selling them to provide for those services. This gives those parents these opportunities.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Madam Speaker, I would just like to add my voice to the very reasonable voices of the sponsors of this bill and comment from a personal perspective as the mother of two adopted children and children that were at risk. Many of the orphans from overseas that come into this country come in here to this country in a weakened state. They come from communities and countries that do not have the opportunity for immunization and for medical records that we have in this country. From a very loving perspective, these opportunities represent real families, real lives, real children. These families may be the only chance that these children have to grow up in a stable, healthy, loving family. For many of the parents, it is the only chance that they have to actually become parents, to create families and to have the wonderful joy that children bring into our lives. I think considering that each year American families provide 12,000 foreign-born orphan children with a home, that we should do everything we can in Congress to make that continue, to make that opportunity ever possible and to create the welcoming, generous opportunity that so many families want to create. I think what we do today is remove an obstacle so that we can continue to have this opportunity for children and parents in this country.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, today there are several Washington, DC schools that are still closed due to construction problems. Earlier this year there were many that were delayed most of September because of construction problems. We need to not prescribe Davis-Bacon because it is expensive and it is an accounting nightmare. These schools need to stretch their construction money so that they can deal with the construction problems they have. This is not about fair labor rates. The fact is, this is about taking advantage of working Americans and the taxes they pay all across this country to subsidize labor rates to extraordinarily high levels. My taxpayers in Kentucky are paid far less than the wages we would prescribe. We have factory workers, policemen, teachers, gas station attendants, hair stylists, lots of people that go to work every day, and pay their taxes. We are asking them to subsidize wages at much higher rates. Their Federal tax money should not be wasted on these extraordinarily high rates. We should have the Government able to bid for these jobs just like we do everything else the Government purchases.

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, public schools are always going to be important in this country. They have been important across the country and they are important right here in Washington, DC. But our public schools are broken in this city. We have tried a lot of things in the last couple of years to try to bring them away. The truth is, the minority party had their way for years in developing this city and this city's schools, and we have an entirely broken system. We are looking for solutions. We believe that the public school system will continue to be very important for the children in this community, but we need to stop talking about what is good for the adults in this system. We need to think about the children. You only get to be 6 years old one time in your life. You only get to be 7 years old one time in your life. If we get it right, if we put our heads together and we deal with the systemic, broken system, maybe in 5 years, maybe in 10 years we can fix this entirely broken system. But in the meantime, the 6-year-olds that only get to be 6 once should not be trapped in an absolutely broken school system. Every mom and dad, and I think of me and my six children, go to sleep every night worrying about the school their child is going to go to the next morning: Will they be safe and will they learn something? There is nothing more tortuous than when your child gets into a classroom and you do not believe that they can learn in that classroom. You go and talk to the principal. You try to move your child to another classroom. You look around for what your other opportunities are. But in this case, it is an entirely broken system. There is not just another teacher across the hall that will change everything. There is not just another opportunity down the street. You send your six-year-old to school trapped in a school that is neither safe nor will they learn. This is our gift to children who are going to be 6 years old, this year for the one time in their life, to the 7-year-olds who are going to be 7 years old only one time in their whole life. It is a chance for their families to make a decision to take the same action each and every one of us will. If we fight that that is not enough, that we leave behind 75,000, then let us fight about how many other children we can find the money to give the same opportunity to, so that every 6-year-old will not be trapped in a school that is going to guarantee a bad start, guarantee going to sleep every night afraid. Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to support the bill as it is written, so we can give children the chance they will only get this year.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank the American Tort Reform Association for setting aside last week as the National Lawsuit Abuse Awareness Week to remind the American public of the problems and the promise of our legal system. Last week served as a reminder that Congress and the President have a real opportunity to do something about those abuses this year by passing and signing the Federal product liability legislation. Reform legislation can go far in curbing abuses, spurring economic development, and helping consumers, particularly women, who have been harmed by the current legal system. For example, women are adversely affected by the near shutdown of contraceptive research in the United States due to the manufacturers' fears of lawsuit. Those same fears are actually keeping women out of clinical studies. Furthermore, women own 30 percent of all small businesses in America. That number is predicted to be at 40 percent by the turn of the century. Federal legislation will help remove unnecessary and unreasonable burdens on these job creators. I applaud the ATRA for its work and look forward to working with my colleagues to see product liability reform legislation enacted into law this year.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of eliminating the marriage tax. Although this Congress has made significant steps in reducing the tax burden on Americans we still have a long road ahead of us in restructuring our Tax Code and instill fairness to all taxpayers. As we travel down this road one of our first stops must be to eliminate the tax that penalizes the sacred institution of marriage. My opposition to the tax on marriage is simply a question of fairness. Why should a man and woman who are married and living together be taxed more than a man and woman living together who are not married? CBO has estimated that 21 million couples have paid on average $1,400 and some exceeding $20,000 in surplus taxes as a result of having to change their filing status to married. This is a substantial amount of money that could be used toward a child's education, retirement savings, a new home or a car. Furthermore, a couple should not have to consider the IRS when deciding whether to enter into marriage. The marriage penalty blatantly contradicts what this Congress has attempted to achieve in strengthening American families and providing significant tax relief. Married couples are faced with numerous challenges and burdens. Let us not forget that married couples frequently are in the process of raising children--a wonderful and very expensive experience--and should therefore be afforded as much financial relief as possible. Let's not punish these couples for their love and commitment for one another, let's reward them for their willingness to strengthen our society through the sacred bond of marriage.

Ms. NORTHUP

Ms. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, regarding the point of order, I understand that this probably will be considered legislating on appropriations, to be subject to the point of order. However, I want to reserve my right to strike the last word and speak to the merits of it when this is concluded.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, regarding the point of order, I understand this provision is probably subject to a point of order and will be stricken, but I want to reserve my right to strike the last word after it is completed and make a few comments.

Ms. NORTHUP

Ms. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, recognizing that the provisions of the Cooperative Purchasing Agreement have been struck, I do want to bring to the attention of the House that the language that was struck was passed in its entirety by the Senate and that that language was also voted by the Committee on Appropriations to be included in this bill. So while it has been struck on the technical provisions, I do think that the intent and the interest and the perspective of the Committee on Appropriations, the entire committee in the House and the Senate, are clear on this issue. And so I look forward in the conference committee to look at this again and to see if we cannot resolve the questions that divide us. In particular, I want to bring up that the blind community is very concerned about the fact that the complete repeal repealed provisions that have allowed them for many years, under other statutes, to engage in certain business arrangements with the Federal Government and local and State governments. While I understand that they support the repeal with regard to State and local governments, they do have concerns about their continued operations of the supply depots. I think it is very important, when we iron out these substantive problems that we have, that we make sure that we do not do anything that would upset the existing arrangement with that community.

Mrs. NORTHUP

Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, understanding that the last provision that we struck was the Global Package Link freeze for one year, I just want to take this opportunity to comment on the importance of this issue. We all believe that we need to expand all trading opportunities that businesses in this country have. In particular it is important that we open and expand opportunities for overnight delivery services. The concern that the committee had and that I raised in the committee is that when we open these opportunities, we should not allow the United States Post Office to create a monopoly so that only they can deliver overnight packages. That is what you do when our government, a government entity, negotiates with another government that this overnight link occurs only if the packages are brought in by the Postal Service. These arrangements allow the Post Office to bypass both customs, pricewise and timewise, so that they can deliver overnight and no private carriers can. We believe all private carriers should have an opportunity to expand trade in this country. So it is not in an effort to limit what companies in this country have and the opportunities they have, but, rather, to expand those opportunities through multiple carriers. We felt like the one-year freeze was a fair balance. Since that has been struck, I want to say that I am reassured by the Committee on Postal Oversight that they are going to take up this issue, that they are going to hold hearings, and that they are going to try to find the fair balance in their reauthorization bill that will come before us early next year. We all agree that it needs to be looked at; we all agree that it needs to be examined. I look forward to the promise of the subcommittee chairman or the committee chairman of the Committee on Postal Oversight that his committee will do a fair and equitable job at looking at this.