Ernie Fletcher

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, July 18, 2003, had I been present for Rollcall Votes #395, #396, and #397, I would have voted the following way: Rollcall vote No. 395--``aye''; Rollcall vote No. 396--``nay''; Rollcall vote No. 397--``aye''.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, July 10, 2003, I was unavoidably detained due to weather grounding my commercial flight. Had I been present for Rollcall votes No. 348, No. 349, No. 350, No. 351, and No. 352, I would have voted the following way: Rollcall vote No. 348--``nay''; Rollcall vote No. 349--``nay''; Rollcall vote No. 350--``nay''; Rollcall vote No. 351--``nay''; Rollcall vote No. 352--``nay.''

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, July 21, 2003, had I been present for rollcall votes Nos. 398, 399, and 400, I would have voted the following way: rollcall vote No. 398--``nay'', rollcall vote No. 399--``aye'', and rollcall vote No. 400--``aye''.

Mr. FLETCHER of Kentucky

Mr. FLETCHER of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, July 16, 2003, had I been present for rollcall vote No.'s 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374 and 375, I would have voted the following way: rollcall vote No. 368--``aye,'' rollcall vote No. 369--``aye,'' rollcall vote No. 370--``no,'' rollcall vote No. 371--``aye,'' rollcall vote No. 372-- ``aye,'' rollcall vote No. 373--``aye,'' rollcall vote No. 374-- ``aye,'' and rollcall vote No. 375--``aye.''

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, July 10, 2003, had I been present for rollcall vote Nos. 346 and 347, I would have voted the following way: Rollcall vote No. 346, on Approving the Journal-- ``yea''; rollcall vote No. 347, strike enacting clause of H.R. 2660-- ``nay.''

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, July 10, 2003, I was unavoidably detained due to weather grounding my commercial flight. Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 353 I would have voted the following way: Rollcall vote No. 353, Final passage of H.R. 2660-- ``yea.''

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, June 25, 2003, had I been present for Rollcall Vote No.'s 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, and 317, I would have voted the following way: Rollcall Vote No. 312, S. 858-- ``Yea;'' Rollcall Vote No. 313, H.R. 2474--``Yea;'' Rollcall Vote No. 314, H.J. Res. 49--``Yea;'' Rollcall Vote No. 315, H. Con. Res. 49-- ``Yea;'' Rollcall Vote No. 316, H. Res. 199--``Yea;'' Rollcall Vote No. 317, H. Res. 294--``Yea.''

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for her leadership in chairing our majority conference as well as her leadership on this issue and this rule. Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting to see and observe the number of people that have stood in line here to talk about this bill, even though CBO estimates that 93 percent of our seniors will take advantage of this bill. That means many of the sisters, mothers and family members that these Members have just spoken about will take advantage of this legislation. As a matter of fact, I would imagine if we asked these Members how many of them take advantage of the Federal Health Benefit Plan, that probably the majority of them, if not all of them, choose to participate in that. Now, we offer something here in this prescription drug bill that gives them a similar choice, and yet for some reason they seem to deride what we are doing. This is the single most pressing health care issue facing our country: providing prescription drugs for our seniors. This bill does several things. One, it is a voluntary program. Two, it provides something that is affordable, not only affordable for seniors but affordable for taxpayers, and it is something that far exceeds anything that has been looked at or has had a reasonable opportunity of being passed that this Congress has ever put forth. It is flexible. It provides choice and security. It provides a modernization of Medicare that will address the concerns of prevention and chronic disease management which are so needed in this country. It also prevents a catastrophic illness from bankrupting a family. Often a catastrophic illness can bankrupt a family, and we know of families that have saved money their entire life and then one illness in the family has bankrupted them. This bill absolutely prevents that from happening due to the cost of prescription drugs. We also find that it helps a number of low income seniors, particularly women, and I am shocked that these Members would not stand up and support this bill, because women are particularly affected. Many women live on fixed incomes of Social Security and are having to choose between food and medicine. I saw them as a physician. I saw them as patients of mine. In Kentucky nearly 35 percent of Medicare beneficiaries will qualify for low income assistance under this bill. Mr. Speaker, not only that but in Kentucky, Medicare recipients are spending 67 percent of their total prescription drug costs out-of- pocket, which is the highest in the Nation. Additionally, with this bill, they were talking about Democrats not having input, but we had 30 hours of debate in the Committee on Energy and Commerce. As a matter of fact, a Democratic colleague of mine, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) and I put forward an amendment for diabetes screening. We passed that. It is part of this bill. So I think this is a tremendously important piece of legislation. Every senior will have reduced costs in the prescription drug expenses that they pay because the Federal Government will negotiate a lower price for these drugs. What we see here is an opportunity. We will negotiate a lower price for the prescription drugs. Mr. Speaker, I would hope Members would support this rule and that Members would support this prescription drug bill.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to rise today to pay tribute to a wonderful father and grandfather, resourceful businessman, and lifelong Kentuckian that, unfortunately, passed away on June 21, 2003. I speak of Clifford Theodore Shumate, a self-made man that rose from humble beginnings to build a successful textile-manufacturing outfit that now stretches across Kentucky's Bluegrass Region. Clifford Shumate was born on September 9, 1914 in Fleming County, Kentucky. The eldest of seven children, Mr. Shumate struggled to provide for his family. When he was just eight years old, Mr. Shumate completed the third grade and was sent to work the land as a tenant farmer. Although he received only a limited formal education, Mr. Shumate was, nevertheless, a knowledgeable man that learned a great deal from his own experiences and self-determination. In 1933, Mr. Shumate married Carrie Spivey and, together, they founded Griffin Manufacturing in Carlisle, Kentucky. In 1948, with resources totaling about $6,000 and a workforce of only eight employees, Mr. and Mrs. Shumate oversaw a modest t-shirt manufacturing operation. It took little time, however, for this small company to grow. Within a year, Mr. Shumate expanded his company to include a second Carlisle factory with 150 employees. Following the construction of a third factory in Mt. Sterling, Kentucky, Mr. Shumate consolidated all of his plants into a new 36,000 square foot facility in Nicholas County. By 1973, with new plants in Paris, Cynthiana, and Maysville, Kentucky, Mr. Shumate administered a company with over 3,000 employees. Clearly, Mr. Shumate's accomplishments in his home state of Kentucky cannot be questioned. However, his personal resolve and desire to grow led Mr. Shumate to open international facilities in Merelbeke, Belgium and Carlton Place, Canada. After 33 years of service, Mr. and Mrs. Shumate retired in 1980. They left the company, now known as Kentucky Textiles, in the same manner in which they created it--together. Mr. Shumate's international textile firm, which began 55 years ago as a small t-shirt manufacturer in Carlisle, still remains in family hands. Mr. Shumate's son, Wayne, and his grandchildren, Cliff and Paige, are continuing the legacy that Clifford Shumate began long ago, at the age of eight, on the family farm in Fleming County, Kentucky.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, June 23, 2003, I was unavoidably detained due to commercial plane mechanical problems. Had I been present for rollcall vote Nos. 297, 298, 299, and 300 I would have voted the following way: Rollcall vote No. 297, H. Res. 264--``Yea''; rollcall vote No. 298, H. Res. 177--``yea''; rollcall vote No. 299, H. Con. Res. 209--``yea''; rollcall vote No. 300, H.R. 2465--``yea''.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his leadership and work on this very important piece of legislation. Health care coverage is becoming more unaffordable for workers and small businesses all across America. In fact, the cost of providing health care now exceeds the cost of taxes. For that reason, I have introduced the Small Business Health Fairness Act to ensure that more workers can afford their health care, regardless of whether they work for a large international company or for just a small hardware store on Main Street. A farmer in Kentucky should have the same access to health benefits as someone who works for a large company like Ford Motor Company. That is where the fairness is. Why should small business employees not be able to obtain the same economies of scale, bargaining power, benefit design and choices now available to those in large corporations and to those in labor unions? You will not hear our opponents attack those plans, I do not believe. Ninety-eight percent of large businesses offer health insurance to their employees. Less than half of small businesses offer this important benefit. When we look at the fact that the morbidity rate of an uninsured hospitalized patient is more than twice that of an insured one, I think we can see that that is a resounding call to decrease the number of uninsured, which this bill will do. Experts estimate that up to 8\1/2\ million uninsured small business workers will be covered by AHP legislation. This plan will decrease the number of uninsured Americans, will reduce health care costs by up to 30 percent for small businesses, and provide new coverage options for self-employed, like farmers and small business workers across this Nation. It will not only give more health care coverage but allow small businesses to create more jobs. Many have made false claims against this bill, and I would like to take a moment to set the record straight. In redrafting this bill, we have taken great lengths to ensure that these plans remain solvent. We have set up strict solvency provisions that include reserves, cash reserves, surplus reserves, stop-loss insurance, both specific and aggregate, indemnification for plan termination, insolvency funds, and a certification fee required for application. Opponents of this legislation have also asserted AHP plans will engage in cherrypicking, taking only the young and healthy and leaving the sick to fend for themselves. These false accusers overlook or are unaware that all members of an association must be offered the plan coverage. Furthermore, plans must demonstrate that they have average or above-average risk to even be able to form an association health plan to begin with. That means an association could not be formed of young marathon runners just to provide a low-risk group. Opponents of this legislation falsely charge that the Department of Labor is unable to handle such a program. Such statements, I believe, are baseless and contradict the facts. The DOL currently administers 2.5 million private job-based health plans. These programs serve 131 million workers. Sixty-seven million individuals now are in self- insured plans and are monitored exclusively under DOL oversight. DOL has the experience, the personnel, and the vision to monitor and enforce these plans. Besides, I know Secretary Elaine Chao. She is a friend of mine; she is a good Kentuckian. Believe me, she can effectively oversee these plans. In conclusion, the President favors association health plans and strongly supports them. The Department of Labor is ready for AHPs; and small businesses, farmers, and the self-employed are ready for association health plans. Uninsured Americans have waited far too long, so I ask my colleagues to do the right thing for the uninsured Americans of small businesses, not only in Kentucky but across America. Support this bill.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, June 5, 2003, had I been present for rollcall vote No. 248, I would have voted the following way: Rollcall vote No. 248 ``aye''.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, June 10, 2003, had I been present for rollcall vote Nos. 252, 253, 254, 255, and 256, I would have voted the following way: Rollcall vote No. 252--``aye''; rollcall vote No. 253--``aye''; rollcall vote No. 254--``nay''; rollcall vote No. 255--``aye''; rollcall vote No. 256--``aye.''

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, Dr. James W. Holsinger Jr., Chancellor of the Albert B. Chandler Medical Center at the University of Kentucky will be retiring this month and I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to this exceptional physician. Dr. Holsinger is a distinguished member of his community and the proud father of four daughters and the grandfather of three boys. He has had an extensive academic and administrative career. Dr. Holsinger began his academic career at Duke University, receiving a B.A. from that undergraduate institution in 1960 and an M.D. from its medical school in 1964. He then completed a surgical internship, residency in general surgery, and fellowship in thoracic surgery and anatomy at Duke. In 1968, Dr. Holsinger was awarded a Ph.D from Duke University with a major in anatomy and a minor in physiology. He then completed a residency in general surgery and a fellowship in cardiology at the Shands Teaching Hospital at the University of Florida. Dr. Holsinger continued his education in administration, attaining a master's degree in Hospital Financial Management from the University of South Carolina in 1981 and a B.A. in Human Studies from the University of Kentucky in 1997. In 1972, Dr. Holsinger was appointed Assistant Professor of Medicine at the University of Nebraska Medical Center. In 1974, he was appointed Assistant Professor of Medicine at the University of Connecticut and was promoted to Associate Professor in 1976. Dr. Holsinger moved once again in 1978 to the University of Georgia, where he was appointed Professor of Medicine and Anatomy and served as Assistant Dean in the College of Medicine. In 1981, Dr. Holsinger was appointed Professor of Medicine and Health Care Administration at the Medical College of Virginia, where he was also appointed Assistant Vice President for Health Sciences in 1985. Dr. Holsinger retired from the United States Army Reserve in 1993, after serving over 31 years. While part of the Army Reserve, Dr. Holsinger was assigned to the Joint Staff as Assistant to the Director for Logistics in 1989 and promoted to Major General in 1990. Dr. Holsinger served in the Department of Veterans Affairs for 26 years, beginning in 1968. The culmination of his career was his appointment by the President of the United States as Chief Medical Director of the Veterans Health Administration in 1990. During his appointment, Dr. Holsinger became Undersecretary for Health and was reassigned as the Director of the VA Medical Center in Lexington, Kentucky, in 1993. Upon his retirement from his position as Chief Medical Director in 1994, Dr. Holsinger was awarded the position as Chancellor of the Albert B. Chandler Medical Center at the University of Kentucky, where he was also the Chief Academic Officer. As Chancellor, Dr. Holsinger was responsible for planning, organizing, and coordinating the operations of the colleges of Medicine, Nursing, Dentistry, Allied Health, Pharmacy, the School of Public Health, four graduate centers, the University Hospital, the Children's Hospital, and the Kentucky Clinic. He also provided overall guidance and direction for the academic programs of the Medical Center. Dr. Holsinger helped create the Holsinger Professorship in Anatomy in 1998, to which he and his wife, Barbara, donated $65,000 this year. Dr. Holsinger has set a positive example for future physicians by providing quality care to his patients and service to his community. His achievements and recognitions speak for themselves. May God bless Jim and his wife Barbara. I wish them every happiness and success.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, when we look at this bill and I think about the people back in Kentucky and what they want, I think of three things particularly they want: One, they want jobs; two, they want healthcare; and, three, they want education. The people on the other side believe that they can hand out all of those things through government. But let me tell the Members what this bill does. This bill provides the resources for those individuals to make sure that they can get a job, to make sure there is a job available. Ninety-seven percent of the educational dollars come from the State revenue. The way we provide increased funding for education is to create more jobs, more revenue by having more jobs in the State. The way we create healthcare is to provide more jobs in employer-based healthcare. We have also provided $20 billion for the States. States are facing some difficult times, and this bill addresses that. It addresses the Medicaid problem which we have in Kentucky. This addresses the problem of other revenue shortages we have. They are still following the old mantra, and that is that we can spend ourselves into prosperity. These Keynesian economics have proven to fail. I remember when I was in the military when President Carter was in office. We had a terrible problem of funding the Department of Defense, and I remember when Ronald Reagan came in and instituted some of the principles that JFK had which was reducing capital gains. We saw prosperity then. We were able to provide jobs, education and defense money. Pass this rule and this bill.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, May 19, 2003, had I been present for rollcall vote Nos. 192, 193, and 194, I would have voted the following way: rollcall vote No. 192--``aye,'' rollcall vote No. 193--``aye,'' rollcall vote No. 194--``aye.''

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, May 8, 2003, had I been present for rollcall vote Nos. 170, 171, and 172, I would have voted the following way: rollcall vote No. 170--``aye''; rollcall vote No. 171--``aye''; and rollcall vote No. 172--``aye.''

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, April 29, 2003, had I been present for rollcall vote Nos. 146, 147, and 148, I would have voted the following way: Rollcall vote No. 146 ``Aye''; rollcall vote No. 147 ``Aye''; rollcall vote No. 148 ``Aye.''

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, April 7, 2003, had I been present for rollcall vote Nos. 109, 110, and 111, I would have voted the following way: Rollcall vote No. 109--``aye''; Rollcall vote No. 110--``aye''; Rollcall Vote No. 111--``aye.''

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, March 31, 2003, despite all my efforts, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present for Roll Call Vote Nos. 93 and 94 I would have voted the following way: Roll Call Vote No. 93,--``Aye''. Roll Call Vote No. 94,--``Aye''.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, March 27, 2003, despite all my efforts, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 89, on final passage of H.R. 1104, The Child Abduction Prevention Act, I would have voted as follows: rollcall vote No. 89--``aye.'' Protecting our children is a top priority of this Congress. Child abduction and exploitation cannot and should not be tolerated. The Child Abduction Prevention Act not only creates new methods for finding and recovering abducted children, but it also takes steps to prevent them from happening in the first place. To help recover abducted children, it establishes a national AMBER Alert communications network and doubles the annual grant to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to $20 million through 2005. To get tough on perpetrators and bring justice to sexual predators, it eliminates the statute of limitations for child abductions and sex crimes, denies pretrial release for child rapists or child abductors, requires a mandatory life sentence for twice-convicted child sex- offenders and a minimum 20-year prison sentence for the kidnapping of a person under 18 by a nonfamily member. It also punishes persons who travel to foreign countries to engage in illicit sexual relations with minors and criminalizes the actions of sex tour operators. To provide law enforcement officers the tools they need, it authorizes COPS funding for a Sex Offender Apprehension Program, so local law enforcement may track sex offenders that violate the terms of their release. I fully support this strong measure, ``The Child Abduction Prevention Act,'' that will help protect America's children.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, March 27, 2003, despite all my efforts, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present for rollcall vote No.'s 87, 88, and 90 I would have voted the following way: Rollcall vote No. 87, Amendment offered by Rep. Feeney of Florida-- ``aye'' Rollcall vote No. 88, Amendment offered by Rep. Smith of Texas-- ``aye'' Rollcall vote No. 90--``aye''

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, March 27, 2003, despite all my efforts, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present for rollcall vote No. 91, on H. Con. Res. 118, Concerning the Treatment of Members of the Armed Forces Held as Prisoner of War by Iraqi Authorities, I would have voted as follows: rollcall vote No. 91--``aye.'' As the United States Armed Forces and its international allies continue to liberate the oppressed Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, we pause today to recognize their bravery and professionalism. In addition, Congress extends heartfelt sympathies to the families of servicemembers who have been injured, killed, or taken prisoner in Iraq. For more than 50 years, the Third Geneva Convention has prescribed guidelines for the proper and humane treatment of prisoners of war. Sadly, Iraq--which has agreed to abide by the Third Geneva Convention-- views these international standards with the same callousness and disregard for human life that Saddam Hussein's murderous regime has demonstrated for decades. Iraqi troops unwilling to die for a corrupt, diabolical regime can be comforted by the fact that American and coalition forces will treat prisoners of war humanely, supplying them with food, shelter, and medical assistance--in other words, treating them in full compliance with the Third Geneva Convention. Iraqi television recently has broadcast, in direct violation of the Third Geneva Convention, footage of American Prisoners of War. I join my colleagues in thanking America's brave men and women serving their country on the front lines. I also unequivocally condemn Iraq's mistreatment of prisoners of war and remind the Iraqi regime that, if it chooses to ignore America's demand to abide by its commitment to the Third Geneva Convention, then these war criminals will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, what is best for the patient? I believe that unlimited medical liability awards are bad for patients, because they cause malpractice insurance prices to climb, resulting in more expensive care, fewer doctors, and problems obtaining access to needed care. H.R. 5, the HEALTH Act of 2003, actually ensures fair compensation for everyone. We need to keep in mind that everyone is entitled to full compensation for their losses, medical bills and wages under H.R. 5. It is not unusual to hear stories of doctors moving from Kentucky to Indiana, where they have enacted comprehensive liability reform, to take advantage of lower costs of medical liability insurance. Passing the HEALTH Act, which reasonably reforms our liability system, will hold premiums at a lower, more predictable rate. That will ensure patients are not left without their local physician, who may be otherwise driven out of their practice. And to say that this bill will not reduce frivolous lawsuits and reduce malpractice premiums is truly laughable. Lawsuits do not prevent injuries, they do not reduce medical errors, but they do create an atmosphere of fear, defensiveness and distrust in the doctor-patient relationship. In fact, a recent study estimated that defensive medicine cost $163 per person per year in Kentucky. That means Kentucky spends about $655 million on unnecessary care due to fear of litigation. Let me give you specific examples, too. Blue Grass Orthopedic Group in my district has never lost any of the handful of claims filed against its eight doctors. Yet their premiums, which were $222,000 last year, shot up to $635,000, nearly tripling in a single year. Why? Because personal injury lawyers, hoping to hit the jackpot, file frivolous lawsuits. More than 70 percent of Kentucky physicians say their medical liability insurance premiums increased in 2002. Emergency physicians saw increases greater than 200 percent, general surgeons and orthopedists saw increases between 87 and 122 percent, and obstetricians and internists saw increases between 40 and 64 percent. Several saw several hundred percent increases in their premiums. In other words, this is just unsustainable. It is estimated that for every obstetrician that leaves a practice in Kentucky, 140 women are left without their physician. That means that women during prenatal care will have to drive an extra 30 or 50 minutes to see a doctor. That also means during labor if that unborn child is in fetal distress, there is an extra 30 minutes of fetal distress, which could blankly rob that child of all their hopes and future of what they potentially could be. As a family physician, I took an oath to do no harm. The only bill today that will help physicians keep that oath is one that ensures safe and timely access to care through reasonable, comprehensive and effective health care liability reform, and that is H.R. 5. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and vote yes on H.R. 5.