Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and his great work on this bill. I have heard from a lot of Members about their concerns about the alignment of No Child Left Behind in IDEA. If there is ever a child that should not be left behind, it is a child with disabilities.

We are ensuring through this legislation and No Child Left Behind that goals are aligned, that we have meaningful goals and standards for children with disabilities, and that we give them meaningful assessments to determine whether schools need improvement. And then if that determination is made, we provide additional funds through subgrants so local education agencies can fund professional and staff development for special education and regular teachers alike who teach our children with disabilities.

If Members are for children with disabilities and the improvement of their education, if Members are for lifting their sights and raising standards, if Members are for funding professional and necessary staff development, Members should be for this bill, and I urge all Members to vote in favor of it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

Mr. Chairman, it may have been about choice the other day, it may have been about options the other day; it is about children today. No lesser authority than the United States Supreme Court has authorized the portability of Federal funds for students with special education needs.

There is not a Member of this body that does not represent a State that does not have students whose tuition to private schools is paid in full under their eligibility because of IDEA and because the State determines that it cannot meet the needs of those children.

This is not about mandating choice to a parent. This is about giving the option of portability to a public school system that determines that might be necessary in a special ed case; for example, a student with severe hearing disability who goes on to an audio trainer in a rural system who might be able to serve a semester or a year in another institution to learn how to use that audio trainer; or a cerebral palsy student profoundly disabled and handicapped who, through assistive technology, may have the ability to learn how to function in the public school classroom.

Should we say no if a State makes that determination, and a parent chooses, to send most of the money which is theirs, the State's, to follow that student? I think not.

I understand the legitimate debate, and I understand the smokescreens; but I married a special education teacher. I worked all my life with handicapped children. I am not for blind programs that seem to fix things that do not; but I am 100 percent for the flexibility to address the uniquely specified needs, sometimes only temporarily, on behalf of a child who deserves the opportunity to enjoy the richness of life that every one of us without those disabilities enjoys right now in this House.

It is an effort to make a start. It is not a mandate; it is permissive. It is about children and their parents and a better life for both of them.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, earlier in the evening the distinguished ranking member read accurately from the Atlanta Journal Constitution a news article regarding the actions of the board of directors of Delta Airlines. The ranking member also accurately reflected his disappointment and disappointment shared by others in that action.

What was not entered into the Record were the actions of the CEO of Delta Airlines, and I will not read it all, but I would like to read the following things:

. . . who affirmatively, instead of accepting the

compensation reduced his compensation by 25 percent, will not

accept an annual incentive pay included in his contract for

the year 2003, rescinded any retention award payment he might

be eligible for 2004 and 2005, and affirmatively rescinded

his contractual stock option agreements totaling $5.5

million.

Mr. Chairman, corporations are persons under the laws, and sometimes they do not have hearts. CEOs are individuals who have souls, and when corporate CEOs take appropriate actions, and I think consistent with the times which we are in, that should also be in the Record.

Delta,

April 3, 2003.

To: All Delta Employees

From: Leo F. Mullin, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Subject: Executive Compensation

Following the release of Delta's proxy statement at the end

of March, much attention by the media and within the company

has been focused on the subject of executive compensation.

Today, I would like to address this issue with you directly,

beginning with the context in which the Board of Directors

made the decisions described in the proxy statement, over the

course of 2002. I would also like to share with you the

actions I have taken in regard to my own compensation, given

the dramatic ways in which that context has now changed.

Let me begin by noting that Delta's proxy statement, which

outlines the Board's executive compensation decisions during

2002, was issued on March 25, 2003. The date of issue was set

in order to comply with Security and Exchange Commission

requirements for distribution prior to our April 25 annual

shareholders meeting. However, the actions described in the

proxy statement occurred over the full course of 2002, with

many of those actions rooted in the events and the aftermath

of September 11. As the Board explains in the proxy

statement, a key priority in response to the national and

industry crisis following 9/11 was to maintain a management

team ``capable of responding effectively to the extraordinary

challenges,'' including programs that would retain and

motivate the team members.

Among other actions, the Board established demanding

performance goals for Delta's executive team, placing primary

emphasis on ensuring adequate liquidity and drastically

reducing the daily ``burn'' of cash (generally defined as the

amount by which costs exceed revenue). The Delta team

succeeded on both counts. Consequently, Delta is the best

positioned hub-and-spoke carrier in the industry, a view

supported by reports from many Wall Street analysis. Because

the key goals were met, the Board, in January 2003, approved

the final 2002 incentive awards, as the proxy statement

details.

Also as part of its effort to retain Delta's management

team during the extraordinary challenges ahead, the Board in

January 2002 established a Special Retention Program, as

discussed in the proxy statement. This program provides

potential cash awards in 2004 and 2005 for Delta executives,

tied to both retention and performance goals.

In these and every other executive compensation program

outlined in the proxy statement, the Board has consistently

acted in the best interest of Delta Air Lines, meeting all

legal and ethical requirements and expectations at every

point. The decisions in regard to executive compensation were

fully appropriate in the context of the time in which they

were made.

However, the reality of the airline industry is that the

context changes rapidly. Concerns we are now facing were not

part of the environment when those earlier decisions were

made, or their importance has been magnified, including

issues related to:

Impact of the War in Iraq.

Continuing, deeper than expected plunge in revenue and

traffic.

Increased competitive concerns as United and US Airways

restructure under bankruptcy protection.

Further competitive pressure as American Airlines manages

to reorganize outside of bankruptcy--and as others (most

recently Air Canada) declare Chapter 11.

Need for immediate action in Washington to provide federal

relief from post-9/11 security costs and tax burdens.

Competitive requirement that Delta's labor costs be brought

in line with that of the restructuring carriers.

With this said, I understand the concerns that have been

raised in the current context. Most importantly, I want to

provide a basis for moving forward so that we can resume our

focus on the crucial core business and strategic issues we

face. Hence, I have chosen to take the following steps:

Reduce my salary rate by 25 percent (to $596,250), down

from the beginning of year salary rate ($795,000); this

reduction includes

the 10 percent salary rate reduction taken earlier this year.

Not accept any Annual Incentive Pay that might be awarded

to me for 2003 performance.

Rescind any Retention Award payment I might be eligible for

in 2004 and 2005.

Rescind the stock-based awards associated with the renewal

of my five-year contract (signed November 29, 2002), with a

minimum estimated Black-Scholes value of $5.5 million.

As Delta's CEO, I believe it is appropriate for me to take

these steps. Also as Delta's CEO, I believe it is absolutely

essential for the welfare of our company that I continue to

meet the requirement, using a competitive compensation

program, to attract and retain a highly motivated executive

team. I am enormously proud of the team we have assembled,

and fully confident of their ability to meet the challenges

ahead. Most recently, they have confirmed their commitment to

shared sacrifice with the salary reductions announced earlier

this year. As with the entire Delta team, their continued

support is absolutely invaluable to me and to the company as

we move forward through the demanding days ahead.

In closing, let me say that while the specifics of this

decision required careful thought and consideration, what

became clear as I worked through the process was that there

was no absolutely correct approach or set of actions. But, in

the current circumstances, the steps I am taking feel right

to me. I hope you will agree.

Leo Mullin.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) for introducing this important piece of legislation. Last Friday in Atlanta, Georgia, at our State Capitol, and along with the gentlemen from Georgia, Mr. Gingrey and Mr. Linder, and our Governor, I signed a proclamation commending the employers of our men and women who have been called up to active duty from the Reserves, to commend them for the sacrifice those companies are giving, and to commend them on their commitment to reemploy and keep those jobs for those troops when they come home.

It is only appropriate that we in Congress today do exactly what we are doing with regard to student loans. I support the HEROES Act of 2003, which gives the Secretary the authority under title IV of the Higher Education Act to make those waivers and deferrals that are necessary to ensure that our troops whose lives have been disrupted suddenly, and now serve us in the Middle East and in Iraq, to make sure that their families are not harassed by collectors and that their loan payments are deferred until they return; and also encourage those institutions of higher learning that have accepted tuition for semesters or quarters that now cannot be fulfilled because that Reservist has been activated to refund the tuition back to those Reservists. So when they return home they can enjoy a full quarter or semester, and they can get every dollar that they have invested in every bit of education they have paid for.

The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) is doing what all of us in Congress want to do: showing in every way and every facet every appreciation for those brave men and women who serve in our Reserves, and at a moment's notice, go in harm's way on behalf of the defense of everything we do in this country.

I commend the gentleman for his introduction, and I urge every Member of the House to support the HEROES Act of 2003.

Mr. Speaker, as I listen to the constant references to ``tax breaks for the rich'' and ``big business'' in the speeches of those that oppose the President's Economic Growth Package, I can't help but think of my constituent Leon Bridges.

Leon is not rich and his business is not big, but like millions of hard working Americans he is the heart and soul of the American Economy. Leon Bridges is a homebuilder and developer who employs carpenters, mason, and laborers to build homes that shelter families in my district. He borrows money to build from our community banks, and guarantees its repayment through the long hours he works. When his houses and lots sell and he makes a profit, he pays the taxes that fund the government we in this House oversee.

Leon Bridges and the millions of taxpayers like him deserve the President's Economic Growth Package and the tax reductions it includes. While some choose to demonize those who work hard, take risks, and provide jobs, I believe we should reward them--for it is they that make America prosper.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding the time, and I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the vice chairman, and the Members from both sides for the work that they are doing.

Let us face it. Every one of us can come here and every one of us would do it differently, but I would like to address something that has been talked about quite a bit and lend some perspective.

There was a movie known as the American President, and in it Michael Douglas played the American President, and in it there is a great line. Michael Douglas was being attacked for a very difficult decision he had made as President of the United States. He called a press conference, he stood before the media, and he says, ``America has serious problems, and we need serious people to solve them.''

So for one second I would like to be a serious person and talk about the fundamental foundation of the beginning of what we must do; that is, the reconciliation language regarding waste, fraud, and abuse.

We have to in America prioritize our spending and slow the growth in that spending, or we are going to spend ourselves into a position that we cannot afford, either our citizens or ourselves. And it is an appropriate first step, as this budget recognizes, to go through these agencies and look for the reduction in the rate of growth, it is a reduction in the rate of growth, and find that funding wherever possible where there has been waste, where there has been fraud, or where there has been abuse.

And we in this Congress already have set one precedent. There is a program that is off limits, so to speak, in this budget called Medicaid, but when we established the Medicaid program and experienced waste and fraud and abuse in that program, particularly fraud, this Congress, years ago, established that we would offset from the Federal 65 percent match, the amount of money that was found to have been fraudulently spent by the State that administers the program. From the time that was implemented, the rate of fraud went down, which ensured that the money going into Medicaid was going where it should be, and that is to benefit those most in need.

We need to establish the same mechanism in every department of the Federal Government. If there is an accountability for the allowance of waste, for the allowance of fraud, or for abuse, with no consequence in the future, then it will continue. I commend the committee, and I commend the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member. I appreciate this opportunity, and I rise really for two specific reasons. First, on behalf of those I represent in the Sixth Congressional District of Georgia, I want to rise to express my appreciation and my support for this resolution, the men and women whom it honors, the parents who raised them, and the Commander in Chief who today leads them.

And, secondly, I rise to pay tribute in memory of my best friend, Captain Jackson Elliot Cox, who died in 1967 in Vietnam. He died at a time when America's Congress was divided over another conflict at another time. He died and gave the last full measure of his life on behalf of this country so this body could do its work just as those men and women are doing today in the sands of Iraq and in the Middle East.

So before at this early stage we divide ourselves over words, I hope we will unite ourselves over the praise of these young men, these young women, their families that raised them, and the President that leads them. This resolution is important to all in America, but it is most important to those who tonight serve us while we have the freedom to debate, to vote, and to participate in the greatest democracy in the history of the world, the United States of America.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the chairman and commend him on all the efforts last year and the hearings and the investigations and the promotion that he did to bring us to this point today, and I rise in support of H.R. 4 and in opposition to the Kucinich substitute.

I want to make my comparison as simple as I can. H.R. 4 extends a program that raised expectations and turned a safety net into a springboard to independence. The unintended consequence of the substitute of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) is to turn a safety net into a dependency trap.

Mr. Chairman, if we listen to those arguing against the underlying bill, H.R. 4, one would think there is no money for child care and no money for health care, that in fact it is a cutback. In fact, this bill recognizes that those that remain on welfare will be the hardest to train and harder to employ, that their difficulties are they have young children at home, that they need health care, that they need transportation. And on each and every point: H.R. 4 provides child care, a transition in terms of medical help when they go from going off of Medicaid and on to work for a transition period of 1 year, encourages education and counts education and other programs toward the employment period work requirements.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple proposition. Congress passed an overwhelming success in 1996. It changed the lives of millions of Americans who had no expectations. For us to take a success and turn it into a failure by verbally abusing that which has really worked would be a shame. The consequences would be a dependency trap for millions of Americans who now will have hope because of this extension to realize the benefits of independence, of work, of employment and, most important of all, of the high expectations that this great country offers to every one of its citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 41) congratulating the University of Portland women's soccer team for winning the 2002 NCAA Division I national championship.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 41.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of House Resolution 41. This resolution recognizes and honors the talent and accomplishments of the University of Portland women's soccer team.

In December, the Pilots won their first-ever national title in a 2- to-1 win over Santa Clara University at the 2002 NCAA Women'S College Cup. The Pilots ended their season with an impressive 20 win, 4 loss, 1 tie record.

The Pilots' victory exemplifies the determination and dedication that is a hallmark of collegiate athletic programs. A national championship is an accomplishment that will characterize the University of Portland's women's soccer team as a viable competitor for years to come.

Congratulations are in order to Head Coach Clive Charles and the entire women's soccer team at the University of Portland. I am happy to join the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) in honoring this extraordinary team in all of its accomplishments, and I wish all involved a very successful future.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is only appropriate, particularly in light of the remarks of the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), for us to acknowledge at this time that after the tragic passing of our colleague Patsy Mink, Title IX was named after Patsy Mink and will forever carry that name.

Secondly, I think it is important to understand that the opportunities provided by Title IX were the underpinning which allowed teams like the Portland Pilots Women's Soccer Team to reach the heights of achievement in NCAA collegiate athletics. All of us in this House are proud of the achievements of women's teams at the collegiate level and are committed to the continuing excellence of women's athletics and men's athletics at the collegiate level, without the exclusion of anyone. And I feel honored to have been one to have known Mrs. Mink, and I am honored today to acknowledge that Title IX has been named after Mrs. Mink.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, would the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) wait for just a minute? I want to make a clarification.

Mr. Speaker, I think I heard that in the State of Georgia 85 percent of the money appropriated by the legislature went to men's athletic facilities.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Speaker, it is unconstitutional and illegal in the State of Georgia for the State to spend any tax money on athletic facilities. Those all have to be done either privately by booster clubs in the secondary schools, and in post-secondary schools by the foundations of the universities. But we cannot in the State of the Georgia spend any public money on athletic facilities. I just wanted to make that clarification.

Mr. Speaker, there was no State funding. That is the point I want to clarify.

I thank the gentlewoman.

We are investing in their education and urging them to raise the funds to support their athletics, men and women.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I will just take a minute and close, if I can. The original purpose of this resolution is to commend an outstanding university in the Pacific Northwest. It is the women's soccer team that won the NCAA Division I championship, and I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for that, and I support it.

I also realize it is an opportunity to pontificate on title IX, and I am very proud of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and others who have acknowledged the achievements of this body long before I got here in providing access and opportunity to collegiate athletics to women at a time in which those were deprived.

I think it is unfortunate to take a positive resolution like this, however, and speculate that a review 30 years later of title IX is an attack. In fact, if anything, because of the richness that title IX has brought to intercollegiate athletics, the benefits it has brought to athletics for women, the opportunities, as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) says, it was given to Olympic sports to raise America's participation and success in the Olympics is a foundation for it to be perfected and improved for the future, not attacked or demeaned.

So I am not suspect of any commission reviewing any operation that after 30 years has proven to be successful and carried out its intended progress, and I am very happy to have had an opportunity to commend a group of young women who reached the highest achievement in their field in the United States of America, the Portland Pilots. I commend them, Clive Charles, their coach, my colleagues, and title IX.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.