Deborah Pryce

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the author of much of this tax relief provision and America's greatest champion for marriage penalty relief. (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule. It provides for more than 4 hours of debate on an issue that has already been considered and passed once in this Congress. Unfortunately, it was vetoed by the President. But with this rule and the underlying bill, we have an opportunity to give the President a second chance at signing marriage penalty relief into law. And I hope he will. Now, I have to say that the Democrats' objections based on budget concerns rings a bit hollow. As the party who oversaw decades of deficit spending and reigned over an era when the Social Security Trust Fund was raided to finance big government spending, this newfound dedication to balanced budgets and debt reduction, while welcome, seems to be guided by an even stronger desire to deny the American people tax fairness and tax relief. We are in no way jeopardizing those goals by promoting legislation that provides fundamental tax fairness to 42 million Americans and returns a very small percentage of the people's tax dollars to them in a time when we expect a $1.82 trillion revenue excess in the next decade. If we cannot give tax relief now, when can we? Let us loosen our clutches on the American taxpayer's money, act in fairness, and let families have just a little bit of their money back. Let us be straight with the American people about what we stand for. I am proud to join my colleagues on this side of the aisle for real marriage penalty relief. I urge support for the rule and for the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the chief deputy whip.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have one speaker remaining, and I will close.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from the great State of Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the chairman of the policy committee for the Republican conference.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), a member of the Committee on Rules and a champion for marriage penalty relief. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 419 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 419 is a structured rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 6, the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act of 2000. Under this rule, which is a typical rule for the consideration of tax legislation, the House will have 2 hours of general debate, equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. After general debate, it will be in order to consider a substitute amendment offered by the minority which is printed in the Committee on Rules report. This substitute will be debatable for 1 hour. Finally, the rule permits the minority to offer a motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, as taxpayers across America receive their W-2 forms in the mail and prepare for the dreaded annual ritual of filling out tax forms and writing checks to the government, thousands of newlyweds across the Nation will be in for a very rude awakening. If they tied the knot in 1999, they may be surprised and outraged to find that their tax bill has increased by hundreds or even thousands of dollars. Hopefully, these couples have not cashed and spent the wedding checks they received from Grandpa Joe and Aunt Lucy, because they still have to pay Uncle Sam. That is right, Mr. Speaker, the Federal government thinks marriage is cause for a tax increase. We should not really be surprised. After all, there is not much that government does not tax. But it is hard to find a good reason to tax marriage and penalize the most fundamental institution in our society. Still, each year 42 million working Americans pay higher taxes simply because they are married. This is fundamentally unfair and discriminatory. Despite a robust economy, most families find that to make ends meet, both spouses must work. Under our current Tax Code, working couples are pushed into a higher tax bracket because the income of the second wage-earner, often the wife, is taxed at a much higher rate. Because of the marriage penalty, 21 million families pay an average of $1,400 more in taxes than they would if they were single and living together. We do not think it is fair or responsible to increase taxes on married couples, especially when marriage is often a precursor to added financial responsibilities such as owning a home or having children. This policy is without logic. The Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act will bring fairness to the Tax Code by doubling the standard deduction for married couples, expanding the 15 percent bracket so more of a couple's income is taxed at a lower rate, and increasing the amount that low-income couples can earn and still be eligible for the earned income tax credit. H.R. 6 provides relief to all couples suffering from the marriage penalty tax. That means lower taxes for almost 59,000 couples in my district alone. My Democratic friends on the other side of the aisle say that they are for marriage penalty relief, but all the Democrats on the Committee on Ways and Means voted against this bill. The Clinton administration is issuing veto threats. The Democrats make budget process arguments against marriage penalty relief, claiming concern about our surplus and social security. Yet, they know full well that by the time this legislation is approved by the Senate and ready to be sent to the President, our budget will be approved. Be assured, as long as Republicans keep control of Congress, our budget will be balanced. Since earning the majority, Republicans have kept our promises and reached our budget goals, and there is no turning back now. Moreover, since it was the Republican majority who forced the White House and the Democrats to keep their hands out of the social security trust funds, my Democratic friends can rest easy knowing that we will continue to guard it faithfully. Mr. Speaker, let us keep our eye on the ball. This debate is about a fundamentally unfair tax that discriminates against and discourages and punishes marriage. Shame on us if we cannot do this one thing to correct this blatant inequity in our tax system. The fact is that the government is currently taking in more money than it needs to operate. That is what a budget surplus is. It is a big enough surplus that we can give some of it back to the people who earned it. What better place to start than by correcting an inequity in the Tax Code that affects 42 million Americans? I just cannot understand why my Democratic colleagues are so intent on pulling out all the stops to thwart this commonsense and very fair policy. Mr. Speaker, it is time to either defend the marriage penalty or eliminate it, no more excuses. I hope all my colleagues will support this fair rule so we can move on to a full debate on the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act. I hope in the end all of my colleagues will vote in support of marriage and basic fairness by passing this long overdue legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon a ``Dear Colleague'' letter will be sent to all Members informing them that the Committee on Rules is planning to meet the week of February 14 to grant a rule which may limit the amendment process for H.R. 2366, the Small Business Liability Reform Act of 2000. Any Member who wishes to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies and a brief explanation of the amendment by noon on Tuesday, February 15, to the Committee on Rules in room H-312 in the Capitol. Amendments should be drafted to the text of the bill as reported by the Committee on the Judiciary. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are properly drafted and should check with the office of the parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the Rules of the House.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. All time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 412 is a modified open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2005, the Workplace Goods Job Growth and Competitiveness Act. The rule provides for one hour of general debate, equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate, the bill will be considered under an open amendment process, during which any Member may offer any germane amendment as long as it is preprinted in the Congressional Record. And the minority will have an additional opportunity to change the bill through the customary motion to recommit, with or without instructions. So I think it is fair to say that this rule encourages a full debate and accommodates any Member who wants to improve upon the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, this act is a bipartisan bill that creates a uniform statute of repose for durable goods. In layman's terms, that means that 18 years after a product is sold, durable goods manufacturers will have some protection from the liability for injury caused by use of their products. The thinking behind this legislation is that if a product has been used safely for a substantially long period of time, it is not likely that it was defective when it was originally purchased. If an injury occurs after almost two decades of use during which time the manufacturer had no control over the product, it is more likely that the product was either misused or not well maintained. In such cases, it is unfair to hold the manufacturer liable. The encouraging news is that, in most cases when manufacturers are sued for injuries caused by old products, the manufacturer wins; but this justice is not won without a price. The costs of defending a case involving an old product are more burdensome because establishing a strong defense may involve tracking down an employee who has long since retired, indeed may no longer be alive, digging up old records, and recalling events that occurred many, many years ago. The time and money required to litigate such cases divert resources that could otherwise be spent on developing innovation, increasing production, creating jobs, or providing benefits to employees. H.R. 2005 strives for a balance by providing remedies for legitimate claims and at the same time protecting manufacturers from the cost of unreasonable and unnecessary litigation. The bill is narrow in its application of the liability protection it provides. The death and personal injury section of the bill is limited to those eligible for Worker's Compensation. The bill also takes into account latent injuries, which may not manifest themselves for years, by exempting cases where harm is caused by toxic chemicals. Exemptions are also provided for cars, boats, aircraft, or passenger trains. Further, if a product is covered by a warranty that exceeds 18 years, the bill allows suits to be filed until the end of the warranty period. Establishing a national statute of repose for durable goods is not a new idea. Bills containing a national statute of repose have been considered by every Congress for almost 2 decades. And currently 19 States have statutes of repose laws covering a variety of products and ranging from 6 to 15 years. But durable goods are often sold nationally, which creates a disparity of results for claimants and manufacturers in different States. The provisions of H.R. 2005 would preempt State law, thereby extending the 18-year time limitation for workers and States that have statute of repose laws and creating a uniform law in the 30 States that do not have these laws on the books. Statute of repose laws are not unique to the United States. European and Japanese manufacturers benefit from statute of repose laws that provide a competitive advantage in the amount of time and resources they save, which then can be used to grow their businesses and market their products. These are many of the arguments in favor of H.R. 2005. But this legislation does not have its opponents. And while the Committee on Rules did not hear from the Members who have concerns about this bill, the committee recognizes that some disagree with the provisions, which is why the rule allows for a full debate and a limited number of amendments. So, Mr. Speaker, I would urge all of my colleagues, regardless of their views on H.R. 2005, to support this fair and open rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 412 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, I would just repeat that this is a modified open rule which only limits amendments through a preprinting requirement that the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) announced last Thursday. All of the Members who wish to participate in debate or offer thoughtful amendments may do so under this process. I urge support for this fair rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, at a time when the traditional two- parent family becomes increasingly rare, the Internal Revenue Service continues to punish this important institution. Studies consistently confirm what common sense already has told us: more two-parent families mean healthier children with a much greater hope at success in school, on the job, and in life. The marriage penalty affects about 28 million working couples. They pay an average of $1,400 in additional tax burden simply by saying ``I do.'' That is money that could be used to purchase a family computer, save for a child's college education, or make the car payments. Congress must address this immoral tax and strengthen the two-parent family, not punish it. Mr. Speaker, I urge President Clinton to help Republicans enact significant relief from the marriage penalty this year. Republicans will not rest until the marriage penalty tax has been eliminated once and for all.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, today we consider the Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act, the CAPE Act, a bill that represents an important step in the fight against child abuse. Children are our Nation's most precious resource. As a former judge and prosecutor, I have seen the terrible impact that abuse has on the lives of our children. It has an impact that robs them of their childhood and resonates throughout their adult lives, inflicting irreparable damage on these children, their families and society. As federal legislators, as parents, as individuals, we have no greater responsibility than to protect our children from this harm. The CAPE Act focuses on two critically important aspects of child abuse, prevention and improved treatment of victims. In doing so, it recognizes that the people best equipped to make a difference for our children are those who are on the front lines: the child protection workers, the police, the judges, the court-appointed special advocates, the doctors and nurses, the foster families, the nonprofit volunteers. That is just naming a few. These are the people who offer the best hope of real progress in our ongoing battle against child abuse. We must provide them with the resources to coordinate their efforts so that recognition of abuse or potential abuse situations is swift and treatment of child abuse victims is handled in a manner that adds no more confusion or fear to an already traumatized child. The CAPE Act will do this. Briefly, CAPE accomplishes this with three important steps. First, it provides State and local officials the flexibility of using existing Byrne law enforcement grants, the major source of federal funds to States for fighting crime, for child abuse prevention. Second, it increases the set-aside out of the Crime Victims Fund for improving child abuse treatment. The Crime Victims Fund comes from forfeited assets, forfeited bail bonds and fines paid to the government, not taxpayers' dollars. These funds can be used for training police investigators and child protective workers. The funds can also be used for building more child advocacy centers, places where victims of child abuse can receive help and treatment in a manner that will not cause them further emotional and psychological stress. By creating these centers, we can overthrow the cold, bureaucratic maze of probing and prodding which children used to have to endure and replace it with a one-stop experience in a child-friendly environment so that examination by police, the prosecutors, the doctors, and the child protection workers does not have the unintended consequence of revictimizing the child abuse victim. Third, the CAPE Act allows existing grant funds to be used by States to help provide child protective services workers access to criminal conviction records and provide law enforcement instant and timely access to court child custody, visitation, protection, guardianship, or stay-away orders. This will ensure that abused and neglected children are placed in foster and adoptive homes as expeditiously as possible so that they do not languish in bureaucratic limbo. Healing for abused and neglected children only begins when they are in a permanent, safe environment free from fear and danger. The CAPE Act accomplishes all this without tapping the United States Treasury. Along with CAPE, today we will be passing Jennifer's Law, an inspirational piece of legislation sponsored by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio). It will take great strides in the effort to identify missing children and adults. By taking these steps together, we can make a difference in the lives of children. And we can do this without additional cost to the taxpayer, as the CAPE Act will do nothing more than remove federally imposed straitjackets on federal funds and give local officials and workers the necessary flexibility to be successful in their struggle against abuse. Given that this bill requires so little from us and nothing additional from the Treasury, can we do anything less than pass it today? Passage of this bill will strengthen the national arsenal of resources that can be used in the prevention and treatment of child abuse. I urge my colleagues' support. I am thankful for the continuous support and the hard work of the original cosponsors of this bill, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing), and the help of the Committee on the Judiciary and all the staff involved. Their efforts toward ending child abuse should be commended by all. We must never waver in our fight to protect our children from abuse and neglect. We must be ever vigilant, ever resourceful and always striving to do more to improve the lives of all the Nation's children.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for Senate bill 440, a bill honoring many great Americans, two of my favorite American Senators, Howard Baker, a Republican, and our own Ohio Senator, John Glenn, a Democrat. The bill would also create, among other things, a new academic program at the Ohio State University and authorize appropriations to establish the John Glenn Institute for Public Service and Public Policy and its endowment fund to provide long-term funding for personnel and operations. Located at the Ohio State University, the John Glenn Institute will collaborate with the university's extensive public service and public policy resources to sponsor classes, facilitate research on issues facing this country, provide internships for students, and encourage community service activities. In addition, the institute will sponsor forums to improve public awareness and foster discussion and debate on critical issues of national and international significance. The institute also will offer training seminars to elected and appointed public officials to enhance their governing skills. Lastly, the institute will become the rightful, permanent, and proud home to Senator Glenn's papers, speeches, and historic memorabilia. As one of our Nation's largest public institutions, Ohio State University has a long and proud tradition of providing the highest quality education to students from all over Ohio and around the world. I believe that this legislation will enable Ohio State to integrate public service into their curriculum, thus formulating creative educational initiatives that will combine hands-on experience with research and teaching activities. This experience will prepare our Nation's future leaders for service in government and other public affairs organizations that will ultimately lead to thoughtful solutions to important public policy problems facing our society in the 21st century. The Ohio State University is committed to enhancing public service and public policy at all levels of government. I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring this great American by supporting this legislation.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), my friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 367 is a structured rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 3073, the Fathers Count Act of 1999. The rule provides for 90 minutes of general debate. One hour will be managed by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and 30 minutes will be managed by the Committee on Education and the Workforce. Both of these committees have jurisdiction over portions of the bill and the compilation of their work is embodied in a substitute amendment which will be made in order as base text for the purpose of further amendment. The rule designates which amendments may be offered which are printed in the Committee on Rules report. Out of the nine amendments filed with the Committee on Rules, six are made in order under the rule and five of those six are Democrat amendments. In addition to giving my Democratic colleagues five out of six amendments, the rule offers the minority a motion to recommit with or without instructions. So I think it is accurate to say that this bill treats the minority very fairly, especially considering that both committees of jurisdiction reported their versions of the bill by voice vote, suggesting very little controversy. Mr. Speaker, the Fathers Count Act builds on the welfare reforms that Congress successfully enacted in 1996. Those reforms were based on the principles of personal responsibility, accountability, as well as the value of work. And with this foundation, welfare reform has been a great success. Since 1996, we have seen our welfare rolls shrink by 40 percent. We now have the lowest number of families on welfare since 1970. But our work is far from done. There are still families struggling to make ends meet and many of them are single-parent households and more often than not, the lone struggling parent is the mother. For those of us who have raised children with the help and support of a spouse, it is hard to fathom the energy, patience, and stamina required to face such a task alone. And for those of us who were fortunate enough to be raised by two parents, it is hard to imagine the void of a fatherless youth or how our personalities and life experience would have been altered had our fathers not been there to guide us. But as we know, this is the reality for many low-income American families that have their financial challenges compounded by the absence of a father and a husband. The fact is that kids in two-parent homes are generally better off than those raised in single-parent homes. Kids who have only one parent to rely on have a harder time in school, a lower rate of graduation, a greater propensity toward crime, an increased likelihood of becoming a single parent themselves, and a higher chance of ending up on welfare. The Fathers Count Act recognizes these hardships as well as the significant role that fathers play in family life. The bill seeks to build stronger families and better men by promoting marriage and encouraging the payment of child support and boosting fathers' income so that they can better provide for their children. Specifically, the Fathers Count Act provides $140 million for demonstration projects that are designed to promote marriage, encourage good parenting, and increase employment for fathers of poor children. Congress and the President will appoint two 10-member review panels who will determine which programs receive Federal funds. Preference will be given to those programs that encourage the payment of child support, work with State and local welfare and child support agencies, and have a clear plan for recruiting fathers. The number of programs selected and the amount of funding they receive is not dictated by the bill. Members of the selection panels will have the flexibility to make these decisions based on the quality and number of programs that apply. The bill also encourages local efforts to help fathers by requiring that 75 percent of the funding be given to nongovernmental community- based organizations. The Fathers Count Act also seeks a balance in terms of the size of programs and their geographic locations. The fact is that we are not sure what the best way is to get fathers back into the picture and engage in their children's upbringing, but we think some community- based organizations might have some good ideas and would meet the unique needs of the fathers in their own cities and towns. The Fathers Count Act is designed to try to tap into these communities, try some new things, and then scientifically evaluate the results so that good programs can be duplicated. Despite its name, the Fathers Count Act is not just about fathers. It also improves our welfare system by expanding eligibility for welfare- to-work programs. The program was designed to help the hardest-to- employ, long-term welfare recipients. But in an attempt to ensure that the most needy individuals are served by the program, Congress made the criteria a bit too stringent and the States are not able to find enough eligible people to fulfill the program's purpose. So this bill adds some needed flexibility to the program by requiring recipients to meet one of seven defined characteristics rather than two out of three. As a result, we should see many more families move successfully from welfare dependency to self-sufficiency. Further, the bill gives relief to States who are making a good-faith effort to meet Federal child support enforcement requirements, but which are facing devastating penalties for missing an October 1 deadline. These penalties were established with the thought that if States missed the deadline by which they were to have a child support State distribution unit set up and running, they would be doing so in willful disobedience of Federal law. In fact, there are eight States that have been working very hard to comply, but have hit some bumps in the road which have slowed them down a bit. The alternative penalties provided in this bill provide incentives and encouragement to meet child support enforcement goals without crippling these States' welfare systems in the process. Finally, I am pleased that the Fathers Count Act includes important funding for the training of court personnel who are at the center of our child protection system. As we implement new laws that seek to move more children out of the foster care system into safe, loving and permanent homes, we must ensure that our courts have the resources necessary to make the very best decisions for our children. Mr. Speaker, all said, the Fathers Count Act takes a number of important steps forward in our Nation's efforts to redefine welfare and make it work for families. But most importantly, this legislation values responsible parenting, in this case, fatherhood, by giving the support and encouragement for fathers to be there for their children, physically, emotionally, and financially. I hope my colleagues will support this rule, participate in today's debate, and take another step forward in making our welfare system work for all families. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the Fathers Count Act. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 367 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. PRYCE of Ohio

Mrs. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder). (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Jefferson Thomas, a resident of the Far East Side of Columbus, on receiving the Congressional Gold Medal. Mr. Thomas was a member of the so-called ``Little Rock Nine,'' a group of African-American high school students who first crossed racial barriers at Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas forty-two years ago. President Clinton bestowed the medal on Thomas and the other eight members of the ``Little Rock Nine'' today in a ceremony at the White House. The Congressional Gold Medal is the nation's highest honor for a civilian. Previous recipients of the award include such notable figures as George Washington, Nelson Mandela and Rosa Parks. In the summer of 1957, the city of Little Rock, Arkansas made plans to desegregate its public schools. However, on September 2, the night before classes were to begin, Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus called out the state's National Guard to surround Little Rock Central High School and prevent any African-American students from entering the school. He stated that he was trying to protect citizens and property from possible violence by protesters he claimed were headed in caravans toward Little Rock. A federal judge granted an injunction against the Governor's use of the National Guard to prevent integration, and the troops were withdrawn on September 20. When school resumed on Monday, September 23, Central High was surrounded by Little Rock policemen. Approximately one thousand people assembled in front of the school. The police escorted the nine African- American students into a side door of the building immediately before classes were to begin. Two days later, President Eisenhower dispatched the National Guard in an effort to maintain order and protect the ``Little Rock Nine.'' Throughout their first year at Central High School, the nine civil rights pioneers received death threats and were the subject of violent acts. Through it all, they remained stoic and focused, realizing that the eyes of the nation were upon them in their quest for equality. In May of 1958, Ernest Green became the first African-American graduate of Little Rock Central High School. Jefferson Thomas is to be commended for his courage in the face of overwhelming adversity. Little did he know that his bravery over forty years ago would have a lasting historical impact. His determination, and that of the other members of the ``Little Rock Nine,'' paved the way for the desegregation of all schools, and helped make equality in education a reality for all students. Mr. Thomas is truly a source of inspiration to the citizens of Ohio and the rest of our nation.