Rush Holt

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, we have a copy going to the gentleman now.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am offering today is a simple one and one that I think will add accountability for science and math teacher training that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) is trying to put in the bill. I applaud his effort. As I try to look at this from the point of view of a local school seeking flexibility to accomplish their aims, I think my amendment will offer improvement. As we discuss ways to give schools the flexibility they need, we should not lose the successful priority given to math and science teacher training under the Eisenhower Professional Development Act. As my colleagues well know, the Eisenhower act is the only readily available Federal program that helps teachers become trained and remain trained in math and science. Previous Congresses have ensured, both through law and through allocation of money, that math and science should be given a priority in teacher training. Congress placed a priority on math and science training in allocation of these funds because math and science are two areas where teachers have traditionally needed the most help. The statistics bear that out. The study released just last week by the Chief State School Officers points out that in my own State, New Jersey, only 69 percent of secondary school math teachers have a degree in their main teaching assignment. In other States, the percentage is even lower. And when teachers are not up to speed on academic areas, particularly math and science, students do not achieve all they can. The Third International Math and Science Study results showed that U.S. 12th graders lag behind the international average in science and math. The amendment I am offering is a simple one. It says that when local education agencies, local schools, are applying for a waiver of the math and science priority under the Eisenhower act, they need to explain in their application how the professional development needs of their teachers in math and science will be, or already are being, met. The amendment preserves the importance of math and science professional development while still allowing schools to waive the math-science priority if they need help in other areas. I believe this is a simple change in keeping with the goals of the bill and maintains a needed focus on math and science education. The amendment of the gentleman from Michigan says that the underlying purpose of the statute should be met. My improving amendment only asks each school to state how they will meet that underlying purpose. It protects flexibility. It does not tell the schools how to meet that purpose. It does not tell the schools how to provide the training. It only asks them in their application to state that they are thinking about it and have thought about it. My amendment is supported by nonpartisan education advocates like the National Association of Science Teachers and by Dr. Bruce Alberts, the President of the National Academy of Sciences.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOLT. What I want to make clear, Mr. Chairman, is that from the point of view of the local school, the local school, the people who are preparing the application for the waiver, are not aware of the legislative intent. They just know that they are preparing an application to the state to be excused from some requirements so that they can have the flexibility to achieve their ends, and we want to make sure that they demonstrate that they have thought about how they will achieve the math and science training for their teachers.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, point of order.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a point of order that there are no mandates in my bill.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, today we will be talking about flexibility and accountability in our schools. My colleagues know that to compete in today's world and to give citizens personally fulfilling lives, we need to give students good education in science and math. International math and science study results show U.S. 12th graders lagging well behind the international average in math and science. Eisenhower funds are the only program available to all schools to help train public school teachers in math and science. If we are to give these students the education they need, we need these Eisenhower funds to help teachers at all levels prepare to teach in science and math. As we give school systems more accountability and flexibility, we need to give a priority to math and science education.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, the Honorable A. Leon Higginbotham, who recently passed away at the age of 70, was a highly esteemed jurist, renowned scholar, noted lecturer, and civil rights leader. But the citizens of central New Jersey had a special connection to Judge Higginbotham. For them, particularly the African-American community, he served as a shining example of hope for the future. A native of Ewing, New Jersey located in my Congressional District, Judge Higginbotham was widely known in his youth as a talented musician and excellent student. At a time when professional and academic possibilities for blacks were severely limited, his outstanding accomplishments represented hope that such success was within the reach of all our children. The African-American community knew that he was forced to live in an unheated attic room because his college had no housing for blacks. They knew of the struggle he endured at Yale Law School and during his early years in the legal profession. But his perseverance and refusal to settle for anything less than excellence made Leon Higginbotham a living symbol of the possibilities for all children. I am proud to take this time to salute Judge Higginbotham, and on behalf of all the citizens of the 12th Congressional District, would like to express my condolences to his family.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the State of Washington. I am pleased to join today in the fight for passage of the Patients' Bill of Rights. My colleagues, the gentleladies from Nevada and Illinois and California and the gentleman from Washington have ably presented arguments in favor of this bill. I would like to address one of the fundamental, one of the fundamental features of the issue here, that is, the doctor-patient relationship, something I have observed closely. Few things are more fundamental, Mr. Speaker, more fundamental or more personal, than the relationship between a patient and her or his doctor. My wife is a physician, and the bond between her and her patients is something important, even sacred. It is a bond cemented by honesty and time and, importantly, by trust. The doctor-patient relationship is the bedrock of the entire health care system, and it is one of the main reasons that people choose to go into medicine in the first place. That relationship between doctors and their patients is under threat, and all too often in our Nation today, Mr. Speaker, the bond is being jeopardized by HMOs who are more interested in their profit statement than their mission statement. Mr. Speaker, there are insurance companies that are trying do a good job and many compassionate people working for those companies, but frankly the focus on profits taken by some HMOs makes you think they have more in common with Neiman Marcus than Marcus Welby. All of us have heard the stories, all of us here have, all of us on both sides of the aisle, families who worry that an insurance company clerk rather than their doctor will decide what treatment they get, providers who are afraid to tell their patients all of the health care options available to them because some might cost more, doctors who are restricted in what medicines they can prescribe and families who have to go through endless appeals and mountains of paperwork just to get the care they deserve. Just yesterday my colleague, Frank Pallone, and I met with constituents at Centrist State Medical Center in Monmouth County, New Jersey, to discuss this issue. We heard from people, a variety of people involved in health care: doctors, nurses, patients, hospital administrators and consumer advocates, men and women who serve every day on the front lines of health care. They had one message for us here in Washington, Mr. Speaker: Pass a Federal Patients' Bill of Rights, legislation that will ensure that medical decisions are not held hostage to business decisions. House Speaker Hastert recently said that he is willing to bring single-issue patients' rights bills to the House floor, bills dealing with issues like gag rules, emergency room standards and direct access to specialists. There is no doubt that these are issues that we need to address, but we cannot, we must not use them as an excuse to avoid tackling comprehensive patients' rights or we should not use them to dodge the important questions, issues of accountability and liability. As soon as we raise the question of liability, people say, oh, we should not let lawyers run this. Of course we do not want a health care system run by lawsuits, driven by lawsuits, but the question is: Who has the last word on medical decisions? That is what we have to protect. HMO horror stories are not isolated incidents. They are happening to families every day in my district and in yours, people who work hard and thought they were protected, people who see their loved ones denied the care they need and are powerless to do anything about it. We need to act in a bipartisan way to see that insurance companies are held accountable for their decisions, their medical decisions, and that they start to think twice before they deny payment for needed care and, in effect, deny the care. Mr. Speaker, we need to pass the Patients' Bill of Rights now.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, there is no better example of the loss of trust in government than our Social Security program. Social Security is one of the great accomplishments of our government in this century and one of the most successful programs in our history. When Social Security was passed more than 60 years ago, a majority of the elderly lived in poverty, lived in fear of destitution in old age, and it was a fear that was crippling all of society. Today, Social Security benefits not just those who depend on Social Security primarily to put food on their table, but it benefits all of society. Yet, in my district in New Jersey, and I believe in most of my colleagues' districts, we would be hard put to find anyone who thinks they will get a dime from Social Security for all of the taxes they have paid. That skepticism shows the serious problem of trust we face. We must restore faith in this fundamental Federal program. That is why we must save Social Security first before we turn to tax cuts.

Mr. HOLT

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 4, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''