Ernie Fletcher

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 172, I inadvertently pressed the ``nay'' button. I meant to vote ``aye.'' Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I stand before the House today to express my strong support for the Breast and Cancer Prevention Treatment Act. Back a few weeks ago during the budget debate, myself, along with a number of colleagues, worked very hard to set aside what ended up being $250 million to provide treatment for those women that were identified to have breast and cervical cancer to make sure that they got Medicaid, that they got treatment if they were uninsured. So this certainly is a very important issue. Also, in the State of Kentucky, we were able to get last year and worked very hard to get a CDC Cancer Prevention Center at the University of Kentucky. Because we have in Kentucky the highest rates of cervical cancer in the Nation. And, so, this bill is very important. We also have a degree, unfortunately, levels of poverty and uninsured in Kentucky. This bill will be very important to make sure we address those needs, that those individuals first get detected early and, second, so that they can get the kind of treatment. When we look at medical studies, we find that an individual that is hospitalized without insurance or coverage and matched demographically with others is three times more likely to die if they have no insurance versus having insurance. So this bill is substantially, I believe, going to reduce morbidity and mortality to our women across the Nation and especially help at the University of Kentucky and in central Kentucky as we work to screen more individuals for breast and cervical cancer. Let me talk briefly about HPV. Its unequivocally associated with cervical cancer. No question from a medical standpoint that it is associated. I think it is time for us to be honest to make sure that we report this and reduce the number of deaths. I rise to support this bill.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 141 I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, we just came from a meeting, but I did want to get in at the few minutes left and certainly participate. We have got 1 minute remaining it looks like. First of all, I think it is very important and I am very encouraged by this plan. I think it is essential. Health care without prescription drugs in this modern age is really not health care. I give my colleagues an illustration. In assisted living, I was visiting with some seniors who talked about a gentleman living there. For the first half of the month, he was a perfect gentleman. The last half of the month, he was a tyrant in the place. The problem was he could only afford the first half of the month's prescription drugs. We see a number of seniors like this. So I think it is very important we put $40 million aside versus the President's $28 billion over the 5 years. His does not start for 3 years. We are toward the target at making sure it is affordable, available, and optional. So I think it is an outstanding plan that targets those that really need it and it is essential. Again, health care without prescription drugs is really not health care in this day and age with the way prevention and chronic disease management has become the major portion of health care versus acute care, which we had back when Medicare was first developed. So I wanted to come and just certainly say I think, hopefully, we can get good bipartisan support. We did in a bill that I filed back last year, we got bipartisan support, which is very similar in concept. So I am very encouraged by this and look forward to us being able to get something done. There are a number of seniors out there that need this and it is going to be very important for their health and future.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, it's an honor to speak today on behalf of a dear friend and active civic leader in the 6th Congressional District of Kentucky. For 16 years, Hazel L. Underwood, has been the Executive Director of the Jessamine County Chamber of Commerce. Hazel is a caring lady, who has worked hard to ensure that Jessamine County is and always will be a wonderful place to live, work and raise a family. There is no doubt in my mind, or the minds of the folks who live in Jessamine County, that today the community is a better place due to Hazel's hard work and dedication. Within our many communities, there exist organizations and civic groups that provide invaluable services and activities for its citizens. The leaders of these organizations dedicate countless hours of service to ensure that the organization is well represented and accomplishing all that it can within our communities. Hazel has been this kind of Executive Director and she has achieved all of her organizational goals in a courteous, respectful manner that will be remembered by the Jessamine County Chamber and community for many, many years to come. I salute Hazel for her years of dedicated service to the Jessamine County Chamber of Commerce. She has been the kind of leader that every organization wishes for--a leader who knows how to get things done right and work continuously to assure all aspects of every situation are covered. Hazel, thanks for your many years of dedicated service, remarkable accomplishments and many successes.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the accomplishments of an outstanding organization within the community of Lexington, Kentucky. With a motto of ``We Serve'', the Lexington Lions Club has been serving folks in the Lexington community for the past 79 years. Its members always give freely of their time and labor to serve our nation, our state and local community. Their dedication to the ideals of service and high standards promotes good citizenship and the welfare of our neighborhoods. The members of the Lexington Lions have worked tirelessly to produce positive change and as a result, their efforts have helped many over the years. I believe their hard work and dedication is obvious, as the Lexington Lions Club will come together on Friday, April 28, 2000 to celebrate its ``Million Dollar Decade''. Since 1990, this organization has worked to raise the necessary funds to serve the needs of our community. Their efforts to prevent blindness and their dedication to serving young people have touched and improved the lives of so many--I salute this remarkable organization for its many achievements, accomplishments and years of dedicated service. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize an outstanding organization that has made so many contributions throughout its 79 years of service. It is an honor to share with my colleagues and the American people how the Lexington Lions Club has constantly given to make Lexington and Kentucky a better place.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) bringing this bill to the floor. I stand to speak today to support this bill. It is a day that my daughter back home, surrounded by her mother, my mother, and my mother-in-law, are all viewing right now as she is having an ultrasound this morning to look at the child within her womb. There is a lot of excitement about that, and there should be. It reminds me of the quote from Hubert Humphry, who says, ``The moral test of government is how that government treats those that are in the dawn of life.'' That is what this bill is about. What is it about? It is about children. It is about decency. It is about compassion and love. It is about putting aside our selfish desires, whatever desperate situation we are in. And I agree that there are some desperate situations, and I have seen those, but setting those aside to look at the interest of the most vulnerable among us, those, as Hubert Humphry said, are in the dawn of life. We have heard the discussions of the details of this procedure. We may not need to discuss how barbaric and gruesome a procedure that we wish to forbid here today. For I believe that all know, each one of us, everyone, deep down in our hearts, that killing a living, viable child who has made only a partial entry into this world of opportunity is wrong and morally inexcusable. The President has vetoed this bill several times. Mr. Speaker, I would ask him that he reconsider, that he turn from his friends on the radical left and look deep into his heart and into the eyes of children, those eyes that glisten with hope for a future, and that he would sign this bill. It is a bill of decency, goodness, fairness, and it is a bill of hope, a bill filled with the dreams, the dreams of those that want to come to know the joys of opportunity to be all that they can be. I know that there are those that may consider the debate as one whether they are pro-life or pro-choice, but this goes well beyond that debate. This debate goes to are we going to be judged as a Nation, as Hubert Humphry said, a Nation whose moral test is decided on how we treat those at the dawn of life. This bill is about those that are at the very dawn of life and are we going to protect their opportunity, their future, and their dreams. I trust we can. I encourage the President to sign this bill for decency, for fairness, and for moral integrity of this Nation.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I think one of the things that we need to come back and look at is that when the Democrats controlled Congress, we had deficits approaching $200 billion a year. Now we have surpluses, a surplus last year of $178 billion that we have used to pay down the publicly held debt. And so even the fact that they can have this discussion about talking about paying down the debt, it amazes me; and it is because of the work of the Republican Congress that they have been even able to talk about paying down the debt, which was really not part of their dialogue until we were able to balance the budget and to have the surpluses. What does this budget do? First, it protects Social Security. Remember last year when the President wanted to spend 38 percent of Social Security on more and bigger government? We are saving 100 percent of Social Security. We are strengthening Medicare and prescription drugs, setting aside $40 billion for that over the next 5 years. The President had a plan. He has a plan that puts zero in next year, the year after that zero, the year after that zero and then the last 2 years of his plan, he begins to put in some money. When you watch his plan, the cost skyrockets. Why? Because you have working people, a bricklayer, a teacher paying taxes to buy prescription drugs for the Ross Perots of the world. But we have set aside $40 billion for prescription drugs and for Medicare for help with our hospitals back home that we will be able to provide targeted relief for those who need it in a fiscally responsible way. We also plan on retiring the public debt by 2013. Who wants to see a child born here and have the debt of $20,000 upon their back? We are going to eliminate that publicly held debt that has been passed on by the minority for years to our future generations. We are going to strengthen and support education. We put more money into education, more flexibility, more money coming right back to the classrooms where it can be used most effectively with local control. We promote tax fairness for families, farmers and seniors. It is interesting, they are talking about the huge tax breaks. What we are talking about is tax breaks that have to do with relief and fairness. I can remember them talking about not wanting to pass the marriage penalty tax, not wanting to relieve that $1,400 penalty. We have been able to set aside money to make sure that our taxes are more fair while we are paying down the debt and certainly restore America's defense. Let me say additionally, we are adding money to basic research and science, hoping to find cures for disease like cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease. We have consistently increased our support for the National Institutes of Health well above what the Democrats have proposed. I am very pleased with this budget. I certainly encourage my colleagues to vote against the Democratic budget and for the Republican budget.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of rhetoric regarding this progressive budget. But let me say this, as I was listening, if Ronald Reagan had paid attention to this sort of rhetoric and allowed our national security to slip as much as what this progressive budget would be, I could imagine we would still have the Soviet Union, we would still have the Iron Curtain. But let me talk about what our budget does. It protects 100 percent of the Social Security surplus, strengthens Medicare with prescription drugs, $40 billion for that. It retires the publicly held debt by the year 2013. It strengthens education and science, and I want to talk specifically about science. It promotes tax fairness. Eliminating the marriage penalty tax is not to the wealthy, it is a fairness issue. It gets to the very values that we have in eliminating the earnings limit and decreasing the inheritance tax and allow farmers to pass on their farm from one generation to the next. It restores America's defense. I want to talk a little bit about NIH funding, the National Institutes of Health. As we can see from this chart, we clearly show that the Republican priority over the Clinton-Gore priority and the Democratic priority has been to fund basic research, the kind of research that provides the cures to diseases that affect every family in this country. Let me read a statement from the NIH: In these final years of the 20th century, we have seen an explosion of progress against cancer. We have begun to gather significant information from programs launched only 2 or 3 years ago, right during the time we increased the funding. With our recent funding increase, we have been able to launch innovative new programs that will have far-reaching effects into the next century. I think about results from the breast cancer prevention trial, showing that we had a 49 percent reduction in the incident of primary breast cancer during the treatment period in women of high risk for the disease. Things like this that affect every single family in America. Is there anybody out there that has not been affected by Alzheimer's disease? We have one of the major centers at the University of Kentucky, the Sanders Brown Center for Aging that does a lot of research on Alzheimer's disease. NIH is very important to that institution providing money to back basic research. One day my hope is that we do not have any family affected by this disease that has such tragic effects. Because of the increased funding, I am hopeful that one day, because of the Republican priorities, which stand for the values of making sure that we provide the health care for this Nation, that we are going to cure diseases like cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer's disease. So I encourage my colleagues to vote against this progressive budget, vote for the Republican budget. It provides the necessary basic dollars for science, education, national defense, paying down the debt, providing real tax relief and fairness, and protecting Social Security.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Madam Speaker, I think the gentleman has covered a lot of these areas very well. It is my understanding, and I would ask the gentleman, but if we took how much the President spends over the next 5 years really on his prescription drug plan and Medicare, it is only about $28 million, and how does that compare to what we are doing in this budget?

Mr. FLETCHER. Madam Speaker, the gentleman means he has no benefits for anyone over the next several years?

Mr. FLETCHER. Madam Speaker, I think what the gentleman points out is very true. The President cut Medicare or proposed to cut Medicare by $16 billion. What I am seeing as I travel across my district, as I have held a number of town hall meetings, is that right now we have hospitals that are operating in the red, rural hospitals that provide that local care that is needed, to where if there is an emergency, a stroke, for example, it is very important to get there immediately, yet we have rural hospitals that possibly will have to close because of the cuts that this administration has already done through HCFA and these further cuts that they are talking about. Then the President is also talking about raising taxes and fees, and some of those fees are to some of these providers. I read recently and what we hear is that now some of the providers and physicians are beginning to drop out of Medicare and they are beginning to drop out of Medicare because of the cuts, as well as the administrative difficulties of dealing with this administration have become so complex that they are saying we can no longer provide the care. What is this going to do for our senior citizens? When we start operating a hospital or nursing home, a long-term care facility and we really have to cut back on the number of nurses that we have that are caring for those patients, it is going to have a tremendous impact on the health care and the quality of health care that we can provide for our senior citizens. I think it is very important to point out that as I was out traveling across the district, we compared the President's prescription drug plans with a plan that focuses on those that are the most needy. Now, this $40 billion that we have set aside would really allow us to focus on a prescription drug plan that really addresses those that are in need without, as the gentleman has said, providing benefits for the Ross Perots of the world that really do not need this benefit. Madam Speaker, can my colleagues imagine having a school teacher or a brick layer paying taxes so that they can buy drug benefits for Ross Perot. That makes no sense at all. Yet, I have had patients that have come into my office and they have not been able to afford their prescription drugs because they are living on maybe just Social Security, maybe $600 or $700 a month, and they have a $30 to $100 prescription drug bill a month, and how are they going to pay for that. It is a difference between am I going to buy food and clothing or am I going to buy this prescription drug. Oftentimes they do not buy the prescription drug. Their hypertension goes untreated or their heart disease goes untreated and they have complications that they really did not have to have, so that our families and our senior citizens suffer because of that. So we have proposed, let us set aside this $40 billion, and this money starts immediately. It does not start down the road. Also, as we look at the President's plan, the cost escalates tremendously. He projects it as only $28 billion over the next 5 years and the reason is because he does not give any benefit for the last couple of years. But then, if we look at the projections to his costs, they rise tremendously because he is covering those very wealthy or those folks that do not need it. Yet, if we target it toward those in need and then we look at those that have high costs, those that have very high-cost medications that cannot afford it and if we have it targeted toward those truly in need, then I think we have a benefit that does not wreck Medicare and it is something that is fiscally responsible, and it also targets the people that need it the most. I am very encouraged by what we have done, and I think that it really has taken the Republican Congress to focus, and to first get our House in order to make sure that we balance the budget, that we have this surplus that we can pay down the debt so that we eliminate the debt, the publicly-held debt that we are leaving to our children, and now we can start working and providing the kind of health care benefits that are needed in this country. Madam Speaker, I would like to talk a little bit too about when we are talking about health care and what we have done, we have to get back to basic research, because I think it is very important to look, and we can see here on this chart that deals with NIH funding. If we look at this, actually, over the last 5 years, there was a real effort made when the Republicans took control of this Congress to say, we are going to try to double the funding on basic research, National Institutes of Health research. What we see is that we have continually funded NIH, science, basic research, well above what this administration and the Clinton-Gore and Democrats have proposed.

Mr. FLETCHER. Madam Speaker, there is no question. This chart I think really shows that clearly. This blue line represents what the Republicans have put in compared to what the administration, the Democrats want to, and we can see that every year it is more. Now, this year, finally, we have convinced the administration to come up with the same level, but we have increased the funding this year by $1 billion to basic research.

Mr. FLETCHER. Madam Speaker, I am glad the gentleman asked that, because when we look at the quality health care we have in this country, it really derives from our basic research. A number of years ago, and the gentleman may remember back when JFK said he wanted to put a man on the moon and had a goal of doing that. Well, we have many diseases that NIH is funding and diseases like the gentleman has mentioned, like cancer. There are several cancers that we really have cures for now, but there are many that we do not, and this increased funding will go toward finding cures for the different types of cancer that we have. If anyone has been affected by that in the family, they know what a tragedy it is to have someone struck down in the prime of their life or even in their later years with cancer and how devastating that disease can be. I will tell the gentleman, there is probably not any greater impact that we could have in this country than to find a cure for those diseases. This is exactly where it will come from, as we begin to fund more basic research to find the causes of cancer and the cures. There are other things like disease which is obviously very important. Madam Speaker, 24 percent of our Medicare budget goes toward treating diabetes and the complications of diabetes. It is one of the largest reasons for kidney failure in the country. It is one of the largest reasons that we have in blindness. I think we are close. I do not know how far away, but we are close because of the funding we have of being able to find some real breakthroughs in diabetes. But we continue to raise the funding for diabetes and Alzheimer's disease. How many people have seen the tragedy of that. We think of even Ronald Reagan and the tragedy that Alzheimer's has caused in our country. So these are the kinds of programs that it funds. When we look at the consequence and the benefits, how much we will get a return on this investment, how much more we have put in than the Democrats, then we really understand the difference in priorities that we have.

Mr. FLETCHER. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman from Georgia will yield, let me say in conclusion that this increase in funding that is going to have a tremendous impact on finding breakthroughs and cures, as the gentleman said, only came about because we looked back a number of years; and we had deficits in the $200 billion range. Now we are going to be paying off $170 billion of the publicly held debt this next year. But the only reason we can put and continue to put money in basic research is because of the fact that we have not started all the new programs that the President asked for, that he wanted to spend more money on more programs and bigger government. We have restrained the growth of government. But we have emphasized those priorities that are very important. We are doing a better job of doing what government is supposed to do and not spending money and wasting it on a lot of programs that have been proven to be ineffective. So I am very encouraged that we are spending it in Medicare and targeted prescription drugs where it is needed, basic research, and that we are still able to pay down the debt, provide some tax fairness and relief. I think we have got an outstanding budget. I do hope my colleagues on the other side will find their way to support this budget.

Mr. FLETCHER. Madam Speaker, this budget, as we have heard and been able to speak about tonight I think is really the work, and I have to give the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Kasich) certainly a lot of credit for all the work he has done to work and even get an agreement with the Senate. We begin to work with an agreement with them. It is the culmination of that to making sure we save 100 percent of the Social Security, that we strengthen Medicare, that we set aside $40 billion. Because we believe that, now that we have saved the money, the taxpayers' money, that we have actually the revenue now to strengthen Medicare and to improve it with the Medicare prescription drugs we talked about, pay down the debt by 2013, promote taxes that are fair, and restore American defense and education. We have passed several bills that have given back more local control, give 95 percent of the dollars back in the classroom, increase our funding for IDEA, those individuals with disability, continue to provide more resources back to the classroom with local flexibility and control. Lastly, and I appreciate the opportunity to close, is that I sat here 2 years ago and listened to the President's speech, and he talked about family farms. He talked about wanting to support the family farms. I tell my colleagues our farmers are really hurting back in Kentucky. I know that the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) mentioned that. We have got a problem. We have had it. The administration, the Clinton-Gore administration has certainly come after our burly growers. I understand why they have done that. We all are concerned about smoking and the health care interest of our youth. But they have provided absolutely no relief for our farmers back home. We have seen a 65 percent reduction in their incomes. I am glad, with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) here, that we were able to put the $7 billion or so, $6 billion last year, that we can certainly increase crop insurance, that we have been able to, even with some supplemental payments, we were able to bring back $125 million this year back to Kentucky alone to help our farmers. As we look at this budget, I think it covers the full gamut. I think we have got an outstanding budget. I am just very happy and pleased to join my colleagues to say that this can strengthen our family farms, our education, for our senior citizens, and really provide a brighter future for our children. So I am very pleased to be here tonight to participate in this discussion on our budget.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman putting forth this bill, and I rise today in strong support of this bill. I stand amazed as we see the minority be very gifted in demagoguery, to the point I think they could demagogue apple pie if we put that up. It is also very interesting as we look that there has been a lot of rhetoric and jargon, we are talking about Social Security and Medicare. I looked at the number of bills. We have almost 4,000 bills filed, almost 2,000 by the minority side, and only 49 deal with Social Security. We bring up one bill that will bring fairness to families and married couples and they talk about Social Security, when we have 25 percent more bills that deal with Social Security and Medicare and offer plans to reform them. So it is very clear that first we have saved Social Security. We put all the money aside. Now we want to provide fairness, fairness because a couple wants to make a committed relationship to their family. Now we talk about family. What does that mean? What about the spouses that want to stay home? Our bill gives them that kind of support, because they make a great sacrifice when they stay home. Your bill does not do that on the minority side. The President sent down a budget with one provision called an infant child credit. He gives $250 a year for an infant. But do you know what it does? It takes it away after the child is one year old. That is what he has got in his budget. He kicks him out and says you are on your own after one year. What kind of values are those? That is not valuing the American family. This bill is clearly something that will set straight fairness and begin the path to fairness in our tax structure and begin to say we are concerned about the family, and we want to make sure that the message we have coming out of this House is a message that says you are important and we want to support you in what you are doing.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge an outstanding educator in central Kentucky and one of the exemplary teachers of this Nation. As a freshman and senior honors English teacher at Boyle County High School, this teacher of 6 years has added a curriculum that instills compassion and understanding in her students. Recently, the Kentucky Department of Education selected this distinguished teacher, Mardi Montgomery, as Kentucky Teacher of the Year for 2000. She was nominated for this honor by her fellow teachers and selected, along with others, from a list of very deserving semifinalists. Mrs. Montgomery sought to integrate her students with the community by forming the Boyle County Breakfast Book Club in which students and local community members, from grandmothers to business leaders, critically read and discuss books. This creative approach has led her students to a deeper appreciation for literature and learning. Today, I join our central Kentucky community in recognizing a remarkable teacher for making a significant contribution in the lives of her students and to education. I find it most fitting that Mrs. Mardi Montgomery receive this prestigious award.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Lexmark International, an excellent corporate constituent headquartered in my District, that embodies the entrepreneurial spirit as well as the environmental consciousness required by a global corporation. Lexmark received the Kentucky Governor's Environmental Excellence Award on November 9, presented by Lt. Gov. Steve Henry and James E. Bickford, Secretary of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, at the Governor's Conference on the Environment. Lexmark International was selected to receive this year's Environmental Excellence Award for Industrial Environmental Leadership because of the many steps it has taken to prevent pollution and encourage recycling. Since 1991, Lexmark has increased the amount of materials it recycles by about 70 percent. Last year, this Lexington- based company recycled more than 4.3 million pounds of paper and one million pounds of scrap metal. Lexmark encourages its customers to recycle by offering them an incentive to return their empty laser printer cartridges through its Prebate program. Since the incentive began, Lexmark says that returns of empty toner cartridges have tripled, saving them from ending up in landfills. As we recognize America Recycles Day this week, I urge my colleagues and our constituents to help encourage environmental protection both at home and at work. I offer my congratulations to Lexmark International for setting such a positive example for others to replicate.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge an outstanding leader within the Central Kentucky educational community. A man who has dedicated his life to not only improving education--but making sure students strive to do the best they possibly can. He is a principal who has touched and improved the lives of so many throughout his years of dedicated service to our community--and I applaud the recognition of his commitment. Recently, the Kentucky Education Commissioner recognized this outstanding principal--Mr. Virgil Convington--as a recipient of the National Educators Award from the Milken Foundation. Next summer, Mr. Covington will join other educators in California for a week-long conference--but today he receives praises and congratulations from the school system, community, parents and children that he has strived so hard to serve over the years. It's obvious that Mr. Covington has worked to produce positive change--while making sure that no one is left behind within the Winburn Middle School and surrounding community. It's only proper that he receives this award on the eve of the 21st century--as he has been a part of the Windburn Middle School since 1990. The new millennium will mark Mr. Covington's 10th year of dedicated service. Today--I join our community in recognizing an outstanding principal who has made a significant contribution to the field of education. I find it very fitting that Mr. Virgil Covington received this prestigious award.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I want to interrupt this demagoguery from the other side to talk about a very important individual back in my district. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge an outstanding educator and leader within Central Kentucky, a man who has dedicated his life not only to improving education, but making sure students strive to do the very best they possibly can. He is a principal who has touched and improved the lives of so many throughout his years of dedicated service to our community. Recently, the Kentucky Education Commissioner recognized this outstanding principal, Mr. Virgil Covington, as being one of 172 selected to receive the National Educators Award from the Milken Foundation. Next summer, Mr. Covington will join other recipients in California for a week-long conference, but today he receives praises and congratulations from the school system, community, parents and children that he has strived so hard to serve over the years. It is obvious that he has worked to produce positive change, while making sure that no one is left behind within his middle school. Today I join my community in recognizing an outstanding principal who has made a significant contribution to the education of our children. I find it most fitting that he receive this prestigious award.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Madam Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the Student Results Act of 1999, the reauthorizations of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and certainly laud the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for all of his work along with the ranking member in this bipartisan effort. Now the education of our children is one of our greatest responsibilities, and this bill is about children that often are born and know only poverty and failure. It is based on some very important principles, the first being accountability and rewards. For about 34 years we spent $120 billion on programs in title I to help those disadvantaged students, and yet we have not seen the kind of results that we should have seen spending taxpayers' money to that degree. But we have a bill here now that gives that money and holds the students and the teachers, the local education administration, accountable. Certainly it empowers them, but it also has the kind of accountability that we can ensure that those students show improvement like we have seen in many other States. Flexibility is another important principle here with local control. It allows local teachers, parents, and local education administrators to really use the resources that match the local needs. A one-size-fits all does not work. The needs of my home State differ even within my own district in different counties, and I think this bill gives the kind of flexibility that is needed. Thirdly, it gives choice. It gives disadvantaged students the choice of public schools; and with this choice, I think it renews hope to those students. As my colleagues know, some schools in some areas, we could put a banner over them and say that all who enter, abandon hope, because they have continued to operate without empowering the students, without showing the students that they can improve, without giving them what they need; and yet this bill gives those students when schools fail to have a choice to go to another school, not to be robbed of hope, but to enter a school where they can be taught and mentored. It also empowers teachers. It also gives the students the hope of having a mentor or a teacher that is well trained, that is capable, as well as the classroom aides that have the kind of instruction and training that they need. I am very glad to stand and speak in support of this bill and the work that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the committee, has done, and I certainly laud him. I am thankful for the opportunity to work on the committee. Again, the education of our children is one of our greatest responsibilities. I think this bill moves us in the direction of giving more local control and restoring hope to children.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Madam Speaker, as I was walking to work this morning and reflecting on the day's very important vote to ensure real patient protection, I was reminded of Miss Nannie Lackey and her 100th birthday. As I got closer to the Capitol and the Longworth Building, I thought how rich her life was in health, friendship, love, and faith. See, Miss Lackey has voted in every election since women were first given the right to vote. She takes voting very seriously, and she hopes all of us will take equally seriously the votes we cast today. So I would ask that my colleagues take a few minutes to reflect on the importance of providing the best health care possible in our next century. I hope my colleagues will see, as I do, that increasing the cost and number of uninsured is not the answer to real health care reform, nor is it real patient protection. I ask that my colleagues join me in supporting positive health care reform and support the Coburn-Shadegg coalition substitute.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I appreciate the opportunity to address this bill. I want to give my thanks to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) for the extensive work they have done on this, coming from a great deal of concern about patients and a great deal of clinical experience in providing care. Certainly I appreciate my colleagues, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), for all the work they have done to bring this debate here to the floor this day. I am here to support the coalition bill, the Coburn-Shadegg bill, because it is the best bill to provide the patients that I have taken care of real protection. It is real patient protection. It is not real trial lawyer protection, I will grant that. No ambulance chasers are going to be smiling today when we pass this bill. But patients will, because they will be assured that, first, physicians are making medical decisions, not insurance bureaucrats. Secondly, they will make sure that the cost does not go up so much that they end up with no insurance. Causing patients to lose their health insurance is not patient protection. If anyone has seen what the plight of patients are when they do not have health care, how they deliberate at home as to whether they are going to go to the physician, whether they are going to go to the emergency room, because they know it may result in bankruptcy, you know what it means to a family and patient not to have health insurance. Yet, I believe this bill, the Norwood-Dingell bill, will drive up health care costs and drive up the number of uninsured. It is very important that we pass this coalition bill. It is kind of interesting to me. As a physician, my primary concern is patients. It is not the special interest groups, whatever they are. I will say that this bill probably does not please a lot of the special interest groups. I think when we reach a bill that probably is balanced and fair, it really protects patients, primarily. It is interesting to me that, as a physician, we have cried out for help with tort reform for years. We have said, give us some relief and we can reduce the cost. I talked to an OB-GYN physician just this last week who said, my malpractice insurance has gone up to $40,000 a year. This bill will increase the cost of malpractice. It will increase the cost of health care. That money will go into the pockets of trial lawyers. That is not what we want to do for the patients. That is not real patient protection. Vote for the Coburn-Shadegg coalition bill, for our patients' sake.

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 489, I voted in the machine but it did not record my vote. I voted ``aye.''