Ernie Fletcher

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the concurrent resolution. The previous question was ordered. The concurrent resolution was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

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 and include extraneous material on H. Res. 154.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call to the attention of my colleagues in the House of Representatives the distinguished career of Russell L. Travis, MD, a neurological surgeon from Lexington, Kentucky, and a good friend. After a lifetime commitment of service to his patients, his profession, his community, and to the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, it is fitting that Dr. Travis be recognized by this body as he completes his term as president of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. Born in Jenkins, Kentucky, a small Appalachian community, Dr. Travis attended Centre College in Danville, and received his medical degree from the University of Louisville. Following his residency at the Medical College Hospital of South Carolina, Dr. Travis returned to Lexington to begin his practice as a neurological surgeon. One of Dr. Travis' most outstanding contributions has been his commitment to ensuring that all Kentucky citizens have access to affordable, quality health care. As both an advocate for change at a legislative level and as a volunteer in the field, his efforts are widely known and appreciated. Almost every week for the past 25 years, Dr. Travis has traveled hundreds of miles to see patients in places where you wouldn't normally find a neurosurgeon--towns like Whitesburg or Hazard, Kentucky, where adequate medical attention is in short supply. What's more, he enlisted others in service to his vision, playing a key role in the formation of Kentucky Physicians Care, a group of physicians who volunteer their services to provide free medical care to the less fortunate in their communities. This national recognized program was the first all-volunteer, nongovernment-sponsored statewide program of its kind in the country. To ensure its success, Dr. Travis traveled to every part of the State at his own expense, encouraging his colleagues to participate. And what a success it has been--since 1985 more than 300,000 Kentucky citizens have received needed medical attention from Dr. Travis' physician volunteers. Dr. Travis' insight, experience, and hard work while serving on Kentucky's Task Force on Health Care Access and Affordability proved invaluable in achieving our goals of reforming health care in Kentucky, attempting to undo the damage well-intentioned but ill-considered government intervention had done. The Commonwealth owes much to Dr. Travis for his efforts on this task force. Dr. Travis has given much back to his profession as well. His tireless involvement in State and national professional societies has improved the standards of medical care. Dr. Travis' colleagues have recognized these contributions with numerous awards, including the Congress of Neurological Surgeons' Distinguished Service Award, the Kentucky Medical Association's Service to Mankind Award, the Fayette County Medical Society's Jack Trevey Award for his leadership role in the Kentucky Physician Care Program, and the Physician's Recognition Award. On behalf of my colleagues in the United States House of Representatives, I congratulate and commend Dr. Russell Travis on his exemplary service for not only the people of Kentucky, but for his contributions to the field of neurological surgery, from which the entire Nation benefits.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to address this matter. I want to speak just briefly about the budget in general and then talk some about Medicare and what we face and what the differences are that we have in looking at the budgets that have been presented. First of all, over the last several years, as I have gone around the district and talked to my constituents, one of the things I consistently heard was that we want to put away 100 percent of the Social Security surplus. We even heard the President say that last year. This year he came and said, no, I only want to put 62 percent of that surplus for this next coming year into Social Security. We are going to do the 100 percent that he wanted that time, and I think we are going to, for the first time, put away everything; instead of just putting 62 percent we are going to put 100 percent away to save Social Security and Medicare; the first time in 40 years that we have not spent the surplus on wasteful Washington spending or larger and more government. I think this is really a change. We have another budget here presented. It seems to be a little bit more of a me-too budget, but it still has that same philosophy of growing government. When we talk to the people across this country, they are tired of wasteful Washington spending. They want to see the end of the era of big government. They want to make sure that we provide the kind of support and security that we need, but that we also secure the future of our children; that we return as much as we can to our families so they can invest it in the best way to ensure the future of their children and grandchildren. It may be saving for college. It may be providing other things that their children need. It may be providing or donating to community activities, but it is very important that we return as much as we can to the American people because that is what they want. It is the right thing to do. I think the budget that we have is very good, as opposed to the President's budget and the Blue Dog budget, that we are being more conservative in spending, that we are stopping wasteful Washington spending and we are going to return as much as we can to the people back home. Secondly, I would like to look at some of the President's cuts on Medicare. It is an issue I am very concerned about. We see possibly a quarter of the home health agencies looking at problems of possibly going out of business. In my district there are 10 counties where one home health agency provides the primary care there. That home health agency is having problems. They may go out of business here in the next few months and that will reduce the care that we can give to those individuals in that area. Rural hospitals are having problems. The President has talked about prescription drugs and increasing there, but let us look at the cuts that he has proposed in Medicare. He has proposed cutting the prescription drug payment by $2.3 billion. Many of these cuts are to the sickest patients. They are to those cancer treatment patients that might mean the difference between life and death. He talks about prescription drugs but he cuts at the very heart of our sickest patients, and I am glad that we are not going to do that; that we are taking 100 percent of that budget and putting it to shore up Medicare. Secondly, we see other things. When we look at some of the things that he is decreasing, the total decrease is $11.9 billion. He is talking about extending these cuts in payments beyond the years that were agreed with in the balanced budget amendment. What will that do to our rural hospitals? I have a hospital in Garrard County, Kentucky, right now. We worked with them to combine two hospitals so they could be more efficient and more effective. That is not going to occur, though, for the next 6 to 12 months. In the interim, they are having to shut down the emergency room right now because they do not have the margins. We need to make sure that we have the kind of support we need, and we cannot afford to cut it $11.9 billion. I am glad that we have a budget that is fiscally conservative, that provides tax relief, and provides for our senior citizens.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk to my colleagues tonight about our work to secure America's freedom. First, I am pleased to be part of the Committee on Budget that has finally delivered what the American people want, fiscal responsibility in Washington and security for all Americans. It is a budget that achieves one of the most important goals, one of my most important goals: Assuring that no one will be left behind as we enter the 21st century. Our priorities are very simple, yet they are very important: Preserving Social Security, paying down the debt, establishing farm security, increasing funding for education and defense, and providing tax relief for American families. These are issues that are important to the folks back home in Kentucky, as well as to the folks across America. Last light we passed a budget out of committee that locks away 100 percent of the Social Security surplus, including every penny of the Social Security tax as well as the interest, to preserve and protect Social Security and Medicare. For the first time in over a generation, Social Security will be used for one thing and one thing only, our Nation's retirees. The President's plan would have only saved 62 percent while spending the rest on more Government programs. The difference, he would have locked up $1.3 trillion, but we are locking up $1.8 trillion and still providing $800 billion in tax cuts for all Americans. My health care amendment was also included in this budget. It addresses two key issues critical to central Kentucky and to America: The availability of home health care for Medicare recipients and addressing the need to provide accessible and affordable health care. I would encourage the President and my colleagues to work together for this important reform. The President has already blocked Medicare reform and proposed $9 billion in Medicare cuts. Let us put people ahead of politics and provide the highest quality of health care for all Americans. We also focused on the needs of farm families in Kentucky. This budget includes $6 billion to address the critical issue of crop insurance. We are upholding our commitment by securing these important funds, while the President did not secure a dime of increases for our family farms and our tobacco farmers in Kentucky. Most importantly, we have achieved all of these important priorities and goals while living within the balanced budget agreement and paying down the national debt. Ultimately, this budget is about making sure the American dream is not gambled away here in Washington. I hope we can pass this historic budget next week in this House with bipartisan support. I will look forward to supporting the budget when it is considered in the full House. It is a budget that is about truth, priorities, fiscal restraint, and hope. Additionally, we moved to secure America's freedom. Economic, social, and educational security are all very important. However, what is a balanced budget, a strong economy, tax relief, or anything else for that matter without an adequate national defense? Unfortunately, missile attacks could threaten every security that we work so hard to protect and the freedom that we all have taken for granted. We need to be concerned about this and focused on the growing number of rogue nations who are working to acquire capabilities to strike at our cherished freedoms. We all know that, for the most part, times are good. That is why it is important and this is a perfect time to address this concern. I am pleased we have taken this important step today. It is a step toward establishing a national missile defense system for this great Nation. Most importantly, it is a step toward providing each and every American with a sense of security, a strong national defense, the best educational system possible, economic, health and retirement security. These are the securities that matter each and every day to this great country. Let us stay on course and deliver on each of these important issues. Our parents, children, and grandchildren deserve nothing less.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bipartisan bill. I recently came back from visiting Russell Elementary School in Lexington, Kentucky. It is a school of low-income students. Many of them are minorities. It is type of students that we are talking about really wanting to help in this bill. Over the years Washington has spent billions of dollars on numerous programs to help, and yet when I visited this school we saw kids that were taking some tests that could not even identify parts of their body like their nose or ear, things that my granddaughter at 1 year old could do. We have seen billions of dollars spent that really has not improved the skills of our students. I think, as we have looked at what this bill proposes to do and the results that we have already seen in some other States, I think it is a very great initiative to really start giving the flexibilities back. As we look at Texas and Maryland and some of the things that have happened there and the results that they have had, they have seen increased performance by students, and I think that we really need to support this bill without amendments that are going to add more Washington mandates and strings. What this bill really is about is about hope. It is about allowing our States to really help the students, and help without a lot of Washington mandates and strings. We have all seen what happens when we add more mandates and reports. We have not really had any indication that there has been substantial increase, with all the programs that we have now initiated. I think, as we look at Ed-Flex, I am even reminded of Bourbon County, Kentucky. There is more than one school district even in that county, because there are different needs for different children. We cannot expect mandates to meet all of the different needs of different children in different areas of the country. Instead of passing legislation that keeps decision-making in Washington and targets the needs of only some schools, I think it is important that we focus on bills that give all students the ability to work toward making it easier for students to learn, and Ed-Flex does just that. It has done it in Texas, it has done it in Maryland, and in 10 other States. This is an important task that will only be achieved, improving education, by local moms and dads, teachers and administrators at the local level. I am glad to support this resolution.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. This amendment changes the accountability standards of H.R. 800, and it does it in such a way that it is so restrictive that really none of the States currently participating in the Ed-Flex program would be eligible for waivers under the Miller amendment. It also tells the States what their goals must be, again decreasing flexibility. The following example is the requirements that are in the current Ed- Flex, and this puts exactly the kind of burden we need on schools and exactly the kind of accountability that we really need without going too far and returning to some of the old ways of doing things, the mandates that we have had for years that really have not produced the kind of progress that we really desire and I know all of us desire. But there is monitoring required. Every year, States must monitor the activities of the local educational administrators. Schools receiving waivers must send an annual report to the Secretary. Two years after being designated as an Ed-Flex State, States must submit performance data as part of that report. After 3 years of being an Ed-Flex State, the U.S. Department of Education can terminate a State's Ed-Flex status after notice and opportunity for a hearing if it has failed to make measurable progress toward its stated goals. Also, the local education agencies and the school district's waiver application must describe specific measurable goals for schools or groups of students affected by waivers and must be part of the local reform plan. States can apply to be an Ed-Flex State for up to 5 years. When they reapply for Ed-Flex status, the Secretary must review their progress toward meeting the objectives described in their application. So I think there is plenty of accountability in this bill. Someone mentioned what the New York Times says and what they want to do, and they recommend a delay. Let me say this, my folks back home in Kentucky do not read the New York Times. I think they should be more concerned probably with the schools in New York City than they are necessarily about those across the Nation. I have had the chance of visiting a lot of schools in the last few weeks, and I can think of two principals of elementary schools. One is Edwina Smith and the other is Elaine Farris. They are in schools that deal with primarily a lot of low-income students, a lot of disadvantaged students. When I talk to them, the teachers there, as well as the principals of these schools, and some of the superintendents in the districts, they want flexibility. They are tired of having mandates coming down without the funding. Yes, maybe it is only 6 percent, but what have we done? We have spent $118 billion in educational dollars over Title I the last 34 years. Yesterday, our 12th graders were out-performed in mathematics by their peers in 18 other countries. Sixty percent of our children in urban school districts failed basic tests on reading and math. Forty percent of our Nation's fourth graders fell below the basic reading level. So I think we really need to look and say, the way we have done things in the past has failed. We do not need to return to that. I think that is what this amendment begins to do is to return to old, failed policies of government mandates, of 6 percent, the tail wagging the dog, 6 percent, dictating what is to be done back in our States. Yet we have seen in those States that have exercised the flexibility given, which they would not have under this amendment, that they have increased the progress of minorities, of the economically challenged children. So I think we need to oppose this amendment because it reduces flexibility and goes back to some policies that have failed in the past. It is a new day. I think we ought to start in new policies, in new ways, the flexibilities, things that are proven to work here recently, and give the opportunity of the flexibilities back to the State to take this progress further so that we can see these low- economic students achieve the kind of achievements that they can have to renew their hope and allow them to be all that they can be.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the life and accomplishments of Mr. Buckner Hinkle, Sr. of Bourbon County, Kentucky. Mr. Hinkle will be missed deeply by his family and community, but his memory will live forever in a place he loved so dearly and worked so hard to preserve. He was a leader in his community and worked tirelessly to make sure Bourbon County was the best it possibly could be. Mr. Hinkle was a dedicated friend, neighbor and citizen, who showed an ongoing interest for people around him and for the community in which he lived. He gave unselfishly of himself and asked for nothing in return. I know he will be missed by his loving family and friends, however his memory and many contributions to those around him will live forever. It is an honor to recognize the life of an outstanding American who truly made Bourbon County, Kentucky, a better place.

Mr. FLETCHER

Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution of my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan). Today, this Chamber takes an important step towards strengthening our Nation's Social Security system. However, this goal can only be achieved if we work together to find a permanent solution to the problems facing this important program. The American people deserve more than Washington simply placing a Band-Aid on the problem by offering a temporary solution. This would not be leadership. It would be politics as usual. In order to assure retirement income security for all Americans, both sides of the aisle will have to work together, not against one another. Ronald Reagan once said, there is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he does not mind who gets the credit. As we debate Social Security reform, it must not be about who gets the credit but how can we shore up the system, provide equal treatment, protect benefits and avoid tax increases for our fellow Americans. Citizens of the Sixth District of Kentucky and across America want genuine leadership. Let us give them just that and let us support this resolution.