Ernie Fletcher

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) for the work they have done on this bill to make sure that we make health care more affordable and more accessible. Let me first start in saying, what does it mean to be uninsured in this country? I will share with my colleagues, and especially those on this side of the aisle that oppose this, what it really means. A patient named Mary came to me a few years ago. She had no insurance. She was not the poorest of poor, because the poorest of poor have Medicaid. She was working, but she did not have insurance. She came to me and, upon exam, it was very obvious that she had a very large tumor. Cancer, metastatic cancer, that probably could have been prevented had she had health care and had the kind of preventive care that patients that will benefit from this legislation will have. Now, many will say this is not a perfect solution. I agree with that. But what it means to not have health care means an individual does not have access to getting the kind of preventive care that will prevent the kind of diseases that will take an individual's life too soon. In Kentucky, what is happening? We have had health care reform. Now, if an individual is on the individual market, they only have two choices of insurance. And small businesses only have a few. This plan with associated health plans and health marts gives the opportunity for individuals to have health care, as small businesses can help reduce their costs from 10 to 15 percent and be able to offer a spectrum of choice that will enable them to get the kind of health care and the preventive care that they need. Some folks say, well, we should not link these two. I am kind of disappointed they were not linked to begin with because they are inseparable. The whole debate about patient protection is about how the money, cost of reimbursal, affects access. Because if an insurance company says they are not going to pay for something, they do not prevent an individual from having treatment; but they limit the access because the patient cannot afford it. Right now we have limited access because folks cannot afford health insurance, because small businesses cannot offer it, because we do not have legislation that encourages small businesses to offer it. This will allow the tax deductions for individuals to allow small companies to come together. And now insurance companies do not like it. Why? Because they will have to contract and negotiate with a group of individuals much larger than just a small company. I have been a small business owner. I know what it is like to buy insurance. I have seen the costs escalate every year, and I think this will help small businesses. I ask those folks on the left that oppose this to look at themselves in the mirror and look at patients like Mary, who I am talking about, and ask themselves whether this will help her get insurance. I hope my colleagues can look at themselves in the mirror and say, this is not perfect, but at least it is a step in the right direction. My intent in coming to Congress was to make sure that we eventually get every American covered with health insurance. This is a step. Some would like a government-run, single-payer system; others like a market-based system. I think a market-based system with choice is the way to go. This does that. I encourage my colleagues to vote for this measure.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to come and speak. It has not been too long ago since I was sitting face-to-face with patients, practicing family practice, primary care. We also had a program in Kentucky where we cared for those without insurance. We provided that treatment free of charge. And we saw a lot of folks that would like to have insurance. But they were not able to afford it, or the small business that they worked for could not afford it. We also solved problems with HMOs, and I have the utmost respect for my colleagues, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), and the other folks that certainly have addressed this issue long before I arrived here. I have had the privilege of working in health care in the State of Kentucky, and I do know that projections of increase in costs and those sorts of things are tenuous. The real fact is we do not know how much any of this is going to cost. I think there was an article yesterday, an editorial in The Washington Post, that advised us to be careful, to go incrementally, to take very careful steps because, in fact, we do not know how much this is going to increase costs and how many more people this is going to leave without insurance and without health care. We have 44 million people, increasing almost by a million people a year, that are uninsured and have no health care. And we do not need to take health care dollars and run them into another system. We need to make sure they are running in to providing care for patients that really need it. That is why I came here, and I trust that is why all of us came here. Since I have arrived here, I found one thing out, Mr. Chairman. There are some very loud voices here. I have heard the loud voices of trial lawyers, or people that take that position, providers, employers, insurance companies. Sometimes those voices get so loud that we cannot hear the patients back home. We cannot see the number of folks that are getting the kind of health care that they need because their employer voluntarily provides that. I have companies like Toyota and 3M, Caterpillar, Johnson Controls, Trane, Cooper Tires, and I could go on and on, Dana, et cetera, et cetera, that offer the kind of health care, and I visited those plants and I have gone through, and I have asked the employees about this. They have some of the best health care in this country. I do not want to threaten that, but we do need to do something to make sure that physicians make decisions not insurance companies. I think we have done that with many of the bills. We have said, let us make sure we have internal review. And I am glad that we want to make sure it is a physician in many of the bills, but we also say there is an independent panel that can look and decide, a panel of experts decide what is medically necessary and what is needed. And then the decision lies with physicians not insurance companies. I think that is important. We need to look at the other provisions of the bill. Certainly we want to make sure they have access to emergency room, they have access to the OBGYN and their pediatricians, that they can go to the emergency room so we do not see the kind of problems the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) has brought out about a patient that wanted to go to the emergency room and had to go to a distant one. Our bill takes care of that. I am very concerned about the Norwood-Dingell bill, because I am concerned about where would some of the money go of increased costs. I want to hold insurance companies accountable, but to open up unfettered liability is something that I have felt like has increased costs. And I think many other folks have documented the increased costs over the years, and I do not think there is any question that it will increase cost and more money will go into the pockets of trial lawyers instead of providing care for patients. According to the General Accounting Office, it takes an average of 25 months, more than 2 years, to resolve a malpractice suit. At the same time, patients typically receive only 43 cents on the dollar. Defensive medicine, Mr. Chairman, is the practice of ordering tests, and the American Medical Association has said that about 8 out of 10 doctors practice defensive medicine because of the fear of trial lawyers. One study touted by the AMA, was in 1996, reported by Daniel P. Kessler and Mark McClellen of Stanford University, published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics. This study found that tort reforms directly limiting the liability of medical care providers could reduce hospital expenditures by 5 to 9 percent within 3 to 5 years of adoption basically by eliminating unnecessary testing associated with defensive medicine. I want to make sure that physicians make the decision, but I do not want us to put money in trial lawyers or to have the practice increase of defensive medicine. I think it is important, and we have got one estimate of Stanford researchers that extrapolating the savings to the national level of researchers, if we had some tort reform, unlike what is in the Norwood-Dingell bill, would save an estimated $50 billion per year. I think we need to be very careful as we are doing this. As my colleagues know, we can always come back a year, 2 years, or whatever and improve what we are doing; but I think this leap to the Norwood- Dingell bill, a leap that will increase the costs, decrease the availability of health care, and I discourage or I encourage my colleagues to vote against the bill.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the 150th anniversary of the Lexington Cemetery. ``The Athens of the West'', as Lexington was once known, serves as a resting place for such notable residents as Senator Henry Clay and General John Hunt Morgan. This cemetery has a national reputation as being one of the most beautiful in America and the people of the sixth district of Kentucky are very proud of it. The Lexington Cemetery, which spans over 170 acres, serves as a memorial to the lives of folks who meant so much to so many people. These grounds tell a story of those who walked the hills of central Kentucky as far back as 1849. However, these grounds also tell us a story of those who came over the years to grieve the loss of a loved one, of the memories they left behind and many contributions made throughout their lives. It represents the cord that binds families to their roots and connects them to past generations. For 150 years, the Lexington Cemetery has honored those lives whose contribution and value will always be remembered. These hallowed grounds offer a place to preserve the memories of those who have passed on but left behind many who will always mourn their loss. So, as folks from throughout central Kentucky gather on Saturday to commemorate the beginning of the historical and sacred grounds of Lexington Cemetery, they will experience the beauty this special resting place has offered so many families for the past 150 years. It is an honor to stand before the United States House of Representatives to acknowledge this historic day for the Lexington Cemetery.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I have heard hours of testimony on the failure of our nation's public education system. Far too often, we fail to recognize the success stories, and the thousands of men and women that dedicate their lives to the education of our children. Next to parents, I believe the most important factor in whether or not a child succeeds academically is the quality of the teacher in the classroom. With that in mind, today I rise in recognition of a model teacher from Lexington, Kentucky--the kind of teacher that every child in Kentucky, and across the nation, deserves to have standing in front of the chalkboard. Fayette County Public Schools recently honored Charlotte Ray as high school teacher of the year. During her twenty-seven years as a ninth grade chemistry and physics teacher, she has touched the lives of hundreds of children by showing them that there is much more to science than what can be found in a textbook. With an energy level that rivals her students, Mrs. Ray uses the entire school as her laboratory and through hands-on experimentation teaches students that learning can be both interesting and fun. Mrs. Ray is also a teacher that enjoys her job. In her acceptance speech, she said, ``My family encouraged me at the end of last year to think about retiring. Perhaps they were optimistic for better meals, or for ironed shirts. I'm not a very good cook and I sure don't want to iron. I'm still having a great time in the classroom.'' Her enthusiasm is contagious, so contagious that she was nominated not by her principal, or a group of her peers, but by the parent of a former student. She has also benefited from the school system in which she serves. A product of Kentucky public education, she graduated from Bryan Station High School in Lexington, and went on to receive a Bachelor's Degree from Eastern Kentucky University, followed by a Master's Degree from the University of Kentucky. As the students and faculty of Lafayette High School celebrate Charlotte Ray's award, I would like to commend her on this achievement, and encourage all of us to look to her as an example of one of education's brightest stars.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 1543) to amend the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 to release and protect the release of tobacco production and marketing information, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I call up from the Speaker's table a privileged Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 51) providing for the conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate and a conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding any adjournment of the House until Wednesday, September 8, 1999, the Speaker, majority leader and minority leader be authorized to accept resignations and to make appointments authorized by law or by the House.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday, September 8, 1999.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on S. 1543.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the bill, and I certainly thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the committee chairman, for their work to ensure that we make sure that we evaluate fully what we are doing before we begin to promulgate regulations that can have extensive effects upon the workers, the workplace, and job availability. I think we all agree on both sides of the aisle that paramount in our concern is worker safety, making sure that we have the kind of jobs that are needed, that are safe jobs, that folks do have the kind of protections that they need so that they do not have injury, permanent injury and problems that will affect their livelihood and their families. But when we look at past history of OSHA, sometimes they promulgated regulations that really do not make a whole lot of sense. Let me give my colleagues just one simple illustration of what they do in a physician's office. I generally keep a cup of coffee sitting right on the counter, so that when I come out from seeing a patient, I just grab it and get a sip of coffee. But OSHA passed a regulation that, because I have got a microscope right there on the counter, and I do some urinalysis on it, that somehow this is a major safety hazard, and this is against the law for me to have that cup of coffee setting there because it may be a detriment to my health. I think it is clearly that, many times, regulations are promulgated that are not fully thought out, that have not been investigated thoroughly. We have certainly petitioned, the Congress has, a study by the National Academy of Sciences to study this. We have allocated almost $1 million of taxpayers' money so that they can do this study so that we can hopefully resolve the conflict. We find physicians in medical organizations on both sides of this issue. Clearly it is not resolved. Musculoskeletal disorders are very complicated disorders. There are folks that have opinions on both sides. I think it is paramount and very necessary that we make sure that we have definitive studies, a review of studies by an organization of the National Academy of Sciences. Then we can promulgate the regulations that are necessary to ensure the safety, ensure that we do things properly, right, and do not do some ridiculous things that OSHA has a history of doing in the past. I encourage my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Madam. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak after the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), and I certainly concur with the things that she said. I am getting ready to catch my flight back to Kentucky, actually, just in probably about an hour. Madam Speaker, I just got a call from one of the nursing home companies back in Kentucky, and I have visited multiple of these nursing home units in Kentucky, as well as our rural hospitals and our teaching hospital at the University of Kentucky. I think as we look at what interpretation HCFA has taken of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, I think we have some critical problems that are facing our Nation, especially in the care of our elderly. We see that our rural hospitals are having trouble; several of them are looking at the possibility of closing their doors. We have nursing homes that are going bankrupt; even nursing homes that are run by faith-based organizations, church groups where they really have contributions in addition to what they receive from reimbursements from Medicare and Medicaid. Yet we found that, with the very draconian interpretation of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, we have such a reduction that even these operations that have operated very efficiently, not trying to defraud in any way, have been unable to really provide the services or to continue to provide the services that are needed for our senior citizens. So I think it is incumbent upon us in Congress and to call upon HCFA and the President to make sure that they relook at the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and HCFA's interpretation of that. I would also like to work with the Congress and make sure that we address this very critical problem, that we address the needs of our senior citizens. As I talked to this one business owner who was very distraught, they have worked very hard at a family business to provide the kind of care that is needed for our senior citizens; and yet, when I see what a misinterpretation of the balanced budget has done in their capability of providing a business, they provide over 1,900 jobs in a business that has grown over several years to provide excellent health care in the long-term care business. And I see that what the interpretation has done is caused the possibility of driving that company into bankruptcy, affecting the care of a number of people, especially in my district, in the 6th district of Kentucky, and it has certainly affected their ability to provide the jobs and to provide the care that is needed. Madam Speaker, I just wanted to take this opportunity to share my concerns that I certainly share with the gentlewoman from Connecticut that have been stated here previously.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I certainly appreciate his long-standing efforts to secure the financial security of families, and I believe this bill does just that. Mr. Speaker, the President wanted to save only 62 percent for Social Security. We put 100 percent in it, locked it up for Social Security and Medicare so that we can make sure we provide for that. We also increased our spending on military, education, and still able to return money to the American people in overpayment because of the on-budget surplus. I saw this cartoon in my local newspaper the other day and I think it really expresses the difference in attitude. It shows here a thief in the night holding up an innocent young couple saying, ``I know how to spend your money better than you do,'' and that is exactly the way the minority side feels. They know how to spend money better than American families do.

Mr. FLETCHER. You take the money; you are not going to take my time.

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time. We will be glad to show the gentleman. I am surprised. I also have a list of the folks who voted to increase how much money they take home, over $4,000 a year. Last night those same people stood up here and said no, we do not want the American, average American, to take just a little over $5,000 home over 10 years. We want to keep it. We will take ours, but we do not want you to have yours. So I think it shows the hypocrisy there. I stand to support this bill and what the chairman has done. I encourage my colleagues to vote for the bill and not for the substitute.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Pursuant to the rule, I offer amendment No. 5.

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate and thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for his work, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) for his work, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), the ranking member, for his continued work in improving education in this country. Let me talk and tell my colleagues a little bit about a lady by the name of Pat Michau. She is the principal of Johnson Elementary School in Lexington, Kentucky. She recently told me, ``It is vital for teachers in the 21st Century to be technology literate. All of the future textbooks and plans for teaching will be on the computer, many of our textbooks are already available on CD ROM, and that number is only going to increase.'' Now Johnson Elementary is an inner-city school that serves primarily low-income and minority students; not what comes to mind when most people think of a high-tech school. However, Principal Michau at Johnson has been effective in integrating technology into every aspect of the curriculum. The 3- and 4-year-olds in pre-kindergarten are on the computer every day; and by the time the students reach the third and fourth grade, they are able to do PowerPoint presentations for their classmates. The use of computers is not limited to science and math. Johnson has purchased two digital cameras which teachers take with them on field trips. Then, when they return to the classrooms, students can download pictures from the trip and write about their experiences. The children also have access to on-line collections of museums around the world. Besides learning about the artists behind these works, children have been painting their own art modeled after what they have seen on the Internet. Miss Michau is quick to point out that none of this would be possible if the teachers had not been willing to put in hours of training in order to bring this technology to their students. She said, ``School is the only place where some of these children will be exposed to computers, and it is vital to their future success that their teachers are effective teachers of technology.'' The demands of teaching in this country are growing more and more complicated every day, and we owe it to our children, especially our low-income and minority students, to provide them with every possible tool in order to meet the challenges of an increasingly technological society. An investment in professional development for our teachers is an investment in our future, and I hope that my colleagues will join the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and myself in opening the door to the world of technology for children across this country.

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, once again I would like to commend the committee chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), for his work on this Teacher Empowerment Act. No one can argue that parents have the primary responsibility for raising their children, and there is no substitute for a strong family that prays together, reads together, and spends time together. Unfortunately, many of our children are not receiving the attention from parents that they need. The average American child spends almost 20 hours a week watching television and less than an hour in meaningful conversation with a parent. Next to parents, the most important factor in whether or not a child succeeds academically is the quality of the teachers in the classroom. Children spend 6 hours a day in the classroom, at least 30 hours a week, more than the time they spend watching TV and talking with their parents combined. Every parent should be confident that the person standing in front of his or her child's classroom is both knowledgeable and qualified. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. The Teacher Empowerment Act gives States the flexibility to use Federal education dollars to promote innovative reforms to improve teacher quality, reduce class size, and ensure quality professional development. Too often the lessons our children learn in school fail to emphasize the importance of citizenship and respect. The first step towards fixing this problem is giving teachers the training necessary to convey these ideas to our children in an effective and positive manner. History and literature are full of lessons on character that we should share with our youth. American history, from the creation of the Constitution to the Civil War and up through the Civil Rights Movement, is replete with examples of the importance of character in our society. Teachers must build upon this historical foundation accordingly. Unfortunately, character education is often absent in teacher training. A constituent from my district recent contacted me saying that they were interested in introducing character education but really were not sure where to start. My amendment answers that question. It allows the use of professional development dollars to instruct teachers on teaching character education that reflects the values of parents and the local community. This amendment accompanies and augments the amendment I offered to the Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act earlier this summer, which received overwhelming support. This amendment states that character education should incorporate elements such as honesty, citizenship, courage, justice, personal responsibility, and trustworthiness. These virtues are the hallmark of a civilized society, and I do not believe that anyone could argue with their inclusion in a child's education. Today's students are tomorrow's leaders, and I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment to help our teachers equip our students for the moral and academic challenges of the 21st century. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, although I have utmost respect for the Committee on Rules and the work they do, I rise to express my opposition to the previous question to the rule on the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. As the rule is currently written, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Riley) to disallow the Members' COLA is not included. If the previous question is defeated, Members will have an opportunity to change the rule to allow a vote against the COLA. Mr. Speaker, it is my intention, if the previous question is defeated, to offer an amendment to the rule that would disallow the Members' COLA. For that reason I intend to vote against the previous question and urge my colleagues to do the same. The proposed amendment is as follows: At the end of the resolution, insert the following: Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, it shall be in order to consider the amendment contained in section 3 of the resolution. The amendment may be offered only at the appropriate place in the reading of the bill, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment or demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against the amendment are waived. At the end of the bill, insert after the last section (preceding the short title) the following new section: Sec. . Section 601(a) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31) is amended to read as follows: ``Sec. 601. (a) Until adjusted under section 225 of the Federal Salary Act of 1967 (2 U.S.C. 351 and following) or other provision of law, the annual rate of pay for-- ``(1) each Senator, Member of the House of Representatives, and Delegate to the House of Representatives, and the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, ``(2) the President pro tempore of the Senate, the majority leader and the minority leader of the Senate, and the majority leader and the minority leader of the House of Representatives, and ``(3) the Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall be the rate payable for such position as of the date of enactment of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2000.''.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 278, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), there is nothing in this amendment that would impose anything against the Constitution and that amendment. It clearly supports the local character education curriculum, which is already being conducted. It will provide grants for the instruction, as well as activities. And these are things that have withstood constitutional muster so far.