Max Sandlin

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, in protest of this rule and since passage of this rule would require spending the Social Security surplus, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, we must stop the raid on Social Security in this country. Last year, the administration stood in front of the United States Congress and promised us, My budget protects all $2.6 trillion of the Social Security surplus for Social Security and Social Security alone. Later in the year, leadership on the other side of the aisle said, The House of Representatives is not going to go back to raiding the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Yet, the reality is that the Republican budget did not protect the Social Security fund. Despite voting five times for the Social Security lockbox, today we are breaking that promise and raiding Social Security, to the tune of $1.8 trillion. Blue Dogs and other conservative Democrats across the country warned that the shaky projections of surplus, on which much of last year's budget was based, could so easily turn into deficits. That prediction has come true. We are now being asked to consider another budget proposal that does not even try to disguise the raid on the Social Security surplus. Thirty-two million current retirees depend on Social Security income, and that number is increasing. Congress must stop this attack on Social Security.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, after September 11 hundreds of thousands of Americans lost their jobs and were forced to seek unemployment benefits. Earlier this month we voted to extend unemployment benefits for an additional 13 weeks. Unfortunately, the extension we approved on March 7 does not apply to those who receive unemployment benefits through the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Today we are considering legislation that would address that oversight. Unemployment benefits are crucial to those who have lost their jobs in order to pay their bills and preserve their dignity. In the same way Social Security provides our Nation's 32 million seniors with crucial monthly income, it helps pay for their costly prescription drugs and otherwise keeps them out of poverty. Unfortunately, the Republican budget for 2003 taps into the Social Security trust fund every year for the next 10 years, over $1.8 trillion through 2012. That is simply unacceptable in this country. The legislation we are considering today provides funding for unemployment benefits for those directly affected by September 11. The budget we will consider tomorrow also contains funding for important initiatives that were begun as a result of September 11. Our military must continue to pursue terrorists and prevent attacks. However, we must also prevent a raid on the Social Security trust fund and reject the Republican plan to raid the fund once again. Even as we continue to support the war on terrorism and those who lost their jobs as a result of the attacks, we must also continue to support our Nation's working families and seniors by protecting the Social Security surplus. We need to protect seniors and working families who have worked hard and played by the rules. Preserve Social Security, do not raid it. Help our families that were directly affected by September 11. Do not make them worry about the future.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. SANDLIN. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill in its present form.

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, by matter of correction, retraction and addition, the reference is section 1332(d). Mr. Speaker, today's debate has illustrated a number of very serious problems with the bill before us. By federalizing class actions, it would make it far more burdensome, expensive, and time-consuming for groups of injured victims to obtain access to justice and far more difficult to protect our citizens against violations of fraud, consumer health, safety, and environmental laws. The legislation goes so far as to prevent State courts from considering class actions which involve solely violations of State laws such as State consumer protection laws. In the post-Enron world, when we are trying to hold corporate wrongdoers accountable for their actions, this bill takes us in exactly the wrong direction. The motion to recommit responds to another very serious problem with this legislation: the fact that it would permit parties who engage in terrorism to remove a class action brought against them in Federal court. As the bill is presently written, if a terrorist released a nuclear device or an anthrax cloud, the harmed victims could very well lose their ability to seek redress as a class in their local State court. For example, if a class composed of mostly New Yorkers, but some citizens in New Jersey and Connecticut, want to pursue a terrorist in New York State court, I believe they should have that option. It is a matter of national security. This bill today prevents that. The language in the motion would eliminate this problem by removing terrorists from the party defendants whose rights are enhanced by the bill. The language is based on the text of the airline bailout bill and the airport security bill we approved last fall. Any defendant who is a knowing participant in any conspiracy to hijack any aircraft or commit terrorist acts should not get the benefits of the bill. The bills we passed previously provided for protections and limitations on liability to protect airlines, airplane manufacturers, the City of New York, and others, but we agreed on a bipartisan basis that nothing in the reform should in any way assist terrorist defendants. We should do the same thing in this bill. Let me repeat, since September 11, every single liability bill we have passed has included an exclusion for terrorists based on the language of this motion. We have excluded terrorists. The last thing we should be doing today is anything that will make the terrorists lives easier. Let us vote yes on the motion, send the bill back to committee, and let us fix this bill.

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, our friends on the other side have had some pretty charts, but they have had some very misleading stories. Let us talk about the effects of class actions and how it helps normal Americans. A class action in Texas forced Turn of the Century Adventure, Inc., and Travelbridge International, Inc, to stop defrauding consumers. If we want to talk about coupons, let us talk about the coupons that they gave folks, giving thousands of dollars in coupons in return for false discount promises. It took a class action suit to cure that. My friend from Washington brought up the suit against Foodmaker, Inc. Three children died and 500 people were injured as a result of eating E. coli. It took a class action suit to take care of that. Are we are going to complain about attorneys' fees all day? Is that what we are going to talk about in class action? Why do we not complain about Beech-Nut? Do we know what those folks did? They sold sugar water labeled as pure apple juice for infants. They gave it to parents and parents all across America fed it to their children as nutrition. It took a class action to make that corporation back down and say, We are going to sell you apple juice if we charge you for apple juice. Native Americans in San Juan County, Utah, 52 percent of the residents there were Native Americans. None served on juries from 1932 to 1960. It took a class action to make people stand up for the Constitution of the United States and get them access to the courts. How about promoting accountability? A group of homeless students and their parents brought a class action suit against the Chicago Board of Education and the Illinois State Board of Education because the defendants turned away homeless children from the Chicago public school system because they could not show proof of permanent residency. Twelve thousand homeless students in Chicago were denied schooling. It took a class action to cure that, and we are going to complain about pennies? It took a class action when UDC Homes filed for bankruptcy in 1995 and 15,000 shareholders were left holding worthless stock certificates. They had been artificially inflating profits. Does that sound familiar? Does that sound like Enron? I can tell the Members this, when they say it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. When they say it is not about Enron, it is not about Enron, it is not about Enron, it is about Enron. They want to put all of America, everyone watching us today and everyone on this floor, in the same position that they have put Enron. They want to tie our hands, not give us access to the court, not let us go to State court, not use the State law, not use the State procedure. They say everyone in America has to be in the position that the Enron pensioners and employees and stockholders are in. That is what they want to do. Support States' rights, use State law, use State procedure. Let us remember that, and protect consumers against wrongdoing corporations.

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Everyone is interested in fairness. Everyone is interested in transparency. I think no one has any opposition to making sure that both sides in the litigation and the court know about the amount of attorneys' fees, and that is fine. But this amendment is one-sided, Mr. Chairman, because this amendment requires only that the plaintiffs' attorney reveal the amount of fees to the clients. That is fair to neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants. Also, our friends on the other side of the aisle forget to note that courts already review fees with a long laundry list of issues and criteria such as time and labor involved, novelty and difficulty of the questions, skill requisite to perform the employment, the customary fees and things such as that. So our position is that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If we want to have transparency and we want to know what the fees are, let us talk about the fees on both sides so everyone knows where we are. I wonder if the gentleman from Florida would be willing to consider requiring equal treatment for both sides, require the disclosure of fees for both defense attorneys and plaintiffs' attorneys. Request to Offer Modification to Amendment No. 4

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the Keller amendment be amended by inserting the words ``and the defendants'' after ``plaintiffs'' in line 5 of the amendment.

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, as I said before, this amendment is one- sided and unfair. If the other side was really interested in letting consumers and the court and the public know about fees, the other side would say the defense should reveal the fees that the defense attorneys are charging, too. That is fair. That is equitable. They know it. The change I offered to this amendment, which was rejected by the gentleman from Florida, would have corrected that inequality. I would support a fair and equitable disclosure of all attorneys' fees, and those on the other side would not. I would note that later today the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) will offer an amendment to commission a study to look at, among other things, attorneys' fees and get recommendations from experts on how best to ensure that they are fair and reasonable. Let us not put the cart before the horse. Let us not make change and then do a study. If we want to see if fees are fair, if they are equitable, if they are based upon the law, let us do the study and see what the study says; then we can look at the changes. The change should be applicable to the plaintiffs, the change should be applicable to the defendants. I think the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania's approach would better ensure that we are addressing the real problems. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. If you want to review attorneys' fees on both sides, then support Hart, support the study. But do not support one-sided legislation and then have the nerve to get up here and put the word ``fairness'' in the name of the bill. We know there is nothing fair about this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The statement from our last speaker shows a gross misunderstanding of these suits and the way the fees are paid. He indicated that the plaintiffs do not pay the attorneys. They fail to recognize that there is only so much money in these suits. What are the defendants scared of? What are the Enrons of the world trying to hide? What are the accounting firms trying to hide? What do the chemical manufacturers want to hide from the public? Why will they not accept fair and reasonable disclosure of the fees charged by defense counsel? That is because defense counsel is charging $750 an hour, $500 an hour, $450 an hour, countless hours with scores of attorneys, most of them not doing any work. If we are going to have transparency, if you are really interested in good public policy, if you really want to know how much fees are being paid, you should stand up there and do the right thing and say, we agree that the defense should reveal and show how much the defense is getting in addition to what the plaintiffs are getting. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member.

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as was indicated by my friend, the gentleman from Michigan, fees are already revealed in settlements. Fees are a matter of public record; and they are approved, the fees, by the court based upon certain criteria that has been set out and is of long standing approval by the courts. There are two basic methods, the percentage method and the load star method. They have many of the same elements; but they consider things, such as an evaluation of the number of hours worked, benefits secured, the nature and complexity of the issues involved, the amount of money or value of property, the extent of the responsibilities assumed by the attorney, or that the attorney lost employment as a result of being employed in this case, novelty and difficulty of the questions, time limitations, experience, reputation and ability of counsel, undesirability of the case, awards in similar cases and customary fees. That is the general rundown. Those things are considered by the court and fees are placed against that standard when they are approved, and that is placed in the approval. Now, true enough, attorneys do get fees and do get paid; but our friends on the other side do not want the defense to reveal that. Why not? What are they scared of? What are they hiding? Answer me why the defense will not do it. In one case, Food Maker, Inc., as we heard today, killed three people. The attorneys got paid in a class action, and they got paid under the criteria that I read to you. In another case, a sulfuric acid compound leaked from a car in a General Chemicals Richmond, California, plant; 24,000 people sought medical treatment. The attorneys were paid, and they were paid based upon this criteria. There was another case where we had $50 million to a class of 3,500 people living near a pesticide plant contaminated in New Orleans. The amount paid to each plaintiff depended on the years they lived in the area, the extent of exposure, whether they owned their land, what illnesses arose, did they increase in severity, all reasonable things. The attorneys were paid. They were paid based on the criteria approved by the court and by the law. Lawyers recently filed assault in New Jersey on behalf of by diabetics who used the prescription drug Rezulin to lower blood sugar levels. It was marketed as safe, but later it was showed that it caused severe liver damage, liver failure or death in 100 cases. It was shown the manufacturer knowingly concealed facts about the dangers of the drug from the consumers and the FDA in order to increase sales and make more money. They reached a settlement, and, you know what? The attorneys were paid, as they should have been, based upon the criteria approved by the law. It is transparent, it is clear. Everyone knows what the plaintiff gets. Everyone knows what they are paid. And the people here that are hiding something are over on that side of the aisle that say we refuse to let you know what defense gets; we refuse to let you know what the insurance lawyers are paid; we refuse to let you know what corporate America's attorneys get paid, because it would offend people such as Enron. If you want to protect corporate wrongdoers, you need to just get up there and say it and say that is what we are doing, because there is no excuse to say it should be transparent on one side but not transparent on the other. If you want to be fair, be fair; stand up, be fair about it. If you want to be partisan, if you want to protect corporate wrongdoers, just get up there and say it, because that is exactly what you are doing. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, in the law we have a doctrine called the ``clean hands doctrine.'' Courts express it by saying he who seeks equity must do equity. We have seen precious little equity today. First, our friends want to reveal plaintiffs' fees and what they receive, but when we ask to reveal the exorbitant fees of the corporate attorneys and insurance attorneys and defense attorneys, they said no. I have got a question: What are you hiding? What are you hiding? You said the recovery in Cheerios is not enough. You forgot to tell us that the expensive litigation is between the insurance companies. The defendants have been indicted, tried and sent to prison. You are outraged that the plaintiffs have received too little money in one case, but there is absolutely no outrage in your position when a major American company, Nestle, put sugar water in bottles and sold it to American mothers to give to children. You got no outrage in that, other than the attorneys got paid. Well, surely, surely you can support legislation that says if you destroy evidence, if you commit a crime, if you do things that you are not supposed to do, you do not get the benefit of the law. If you commit a crime, you do not have clean hands. If you destroy evidence, you do not get the benefit of the legislation. Surely you can support something as clean as that.

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Our friends on the other side know that this issue is not about attorneys. It takes away rights of consumers, it gives corporate wrongdoers additional protections that they are not currently entitled to, and it strips the States of the States' own laws and procedures. I think it is important to note that neither the Federal judiciary nor the State judiciary has requested any of these changes. No judge in America has written in and asked for these questions. No organization has asked for these changes, no organization of judges at the State or Federal level. This is not a problem. This is an effort by our friends on the other side of the aisle to create a solution to an imagined problem, and it is a poor solution at that. Also, this legislation strips powers from our State courts. I would like to say, what happened to States' rights? What happened to the issue of local control? What happened to what we hear time and time again about local people know best what to do in local communities? This strips the authority of the State court to apply the State court's own procedural rules and the State court's own procedural laws. This is a very, very serious 10th amendment question. It is unconstitutional. It is an effort by our friends on the other side of the aisle to federalize State actions, and it is just wrong. Our Federal courts are already overloaded. Right now, there are 68 judicial vacancies in the judiciary, 416 civil cases pending, on average, as of 2001. The criminal trials, of course, get preference; and every commentator has said, this will move practically every single class action in America into the Federal court. Our friends on the other side of the aisle want to federalize every action. Now, let me tell my colleagues something about this ridiculous argument about forum shopping and trying to get preference. Let me give an example. In my hometown of Marshall, Texas, if one wants to file a class action in State court, it is filed in the State district court. If one would like to file it in the Federal court, you move one block down the street and you file it in the Federal court in Marshall, Texas. Trying to act like there is some big Federal procedure and big Federal law that covers everything is absolutely not true. Remember, no matter what Federal court one files this in, the Federal court is applying State law. The Federal court is applying State law. I take offense to objections to State courts and State law and State judges. Let me read something that one of our friends in Congress said not long ago about judges. He said, ``I simply say, the State judge went to the same law school, studied the same law, and passed the same bar exam that the Federal judge did. The only difference is, the Federal judge was better politically connected and became a Federal judge. But I would suggest when the judge raises his hand, State court or Federal court, they swear to defend the U.S. Constitution; and it is wrong, it is unfair to assume ipso facto that a State judge is going to be less sensitive to the law, less scholarly in his or her decision, than a Federal judge.'' The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) made those statements. It is important that we make sure that consumers have access to the courts. It is important that they choose, and it is important that we stick up for the United States Constitution for once, and we do not move everything into the Federal system. Let me mention one other thing. Oftentimes suits effect changes that are good. There has been a lot of talk about coupons here. Sometimes those coupons are good. Sometimes they change products. There are products on the market today that have increased warnings as a result of suits that have been brought by consumers all across America, where they have been harmed by corporate America, but they cannot afford to have their own suits. Do the words in litigation, Ford Pinto, fire-safe pajamas, asbestos, do those raise an issue? Those are not class actions, but those are lawsuits that have caused change, and class actions do the same. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about the Cheerios cases. Let us look at the facts. Basically, the consumers had to throw away a box of Cheerios. They got back their Cheerios and were made whole. That is not what that litigation was about; it was about tainted food. The pesticide applicator is now serving a 5-year prison sentence for, among other felonies, intentionally altering food under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; knowing misuse of pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and other matters. The litigation is really between insurance companies and big fees by insurance company lawyers. The policy-holders of the insurance company, its general liability insurance company, denied a claim. They both asserted that the loss was not covered; but if it was covered, it was covered by the other insurance company. As a result, the pleadings have been placed in the court's vault. The name of the parties, the insurance companies and the parties, have been removed from the pleadings, and even from the docket. More amazing, both parties in that litigation were given pseudo names. The name of that suit has been renamed ABC v. DEF. That is not litigation among class members; that is not fees by class attorneys. That is litigation between insurance companies and big fees by insurance defense attorneys. If Members want to have true limits, limit that. Limit the fees charged by the insurance defense attorneys. Limit litigation among corporations. Do not take away rights from consumers in America. Do not give additional protections to corporate wrongdoers. The problem is right there in the Cheerios case, but they did not identify the right problem.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding. Let us stand up for fiscal responsibility in this country and conservative budgeting and conservative spending. Last year we were worried about paying off the debt too quickly. That seems long ago. What does it say now that we are looking at raising the debt limit in this country? The administration's request to raise the debt limit by $750 billion confirms the warnings of the Blue Dogs from last year, that it was dangerous to make long-term commitments to tax cuts or new spending programs based on shaky projections of surpluses over a 10-year period. It is impossible to make those 10-year projections in your home, in your business, and it is certainly impossible to make them in this country. Last year, the Blue Dogs proposed taking the on-budget surplus and immediately paying one-half of that available fund on the debt of this country. To pay down the debt, we proposed taking one-quarter of that surplus and making it available for tax cuts for working families here in America, and taking one-quarter of that surplus and making that available for investment in areas such as agriculture, defense and the education of our children. Instead, we enacted a budget consuming 100 percent of the projected surplus, not the surplus but the projected surplus, we used risky and too-rosy projections, and we left absolutely no margin for error in our projections. We have things such as national emergencies, natural disasters, wars. We made no provisions for those changes. So we put ourselves on a course for budget deficits once the circumstances changed and our projected surpluses disappeared for a number of reasons. The vote to raise the debt in part is an acknowledgment that we have broken our pledge on Social Security, and the Social Security lockbox is now wide open; and we are going to leave it open to raid it time and time and time again unless we enact fiscally responsible budgeting principles in this country. The war and the recession represent a part, but only a small part, of the reason the debt limit needs to be increased. We are willing to authorize debt to cover the cost of war. Our fighting men and fighting women across the world need every advantage, every piece of equipment, every bit of technology, every bit of training that is necessary to root out terrorism. But we are not willing to allow the government to continue on deficits as far as the eye can see without a budget, without a plan, without any forethought. The last two increases in the debt limit came when Congress and the President were negotiating on a bipartisan basis to balance the budget. Many of us were here in 1997, and that led to the balanced budget agreement of 1997, a strong bipartisan effort. But presently, instead of working with the Congress to put the budget back on track, the administration's request for an increase in the debt limit is included in a budget which projects deficits financed by borrowing from the Social Security surplus for the next decade and beyond. It avoids making difficult choices. It extends and expands existing tax cuts. It increases the long-term obligations of this country. And it results in more borrowing, just what we do not need. Blue Dogs do not want to see the country in default on the debt, but we do not want to give out just a blank check, a blank check with no plan, with no budget, with no forethought. An increase in the debt limit must be accompanied by a plan to put our fiscal house in order. What is wrong with asking for a plan? What is wrong with asking for a budget before we make these decisions? In 1997, a Member from the other side of the aisle said, ``We said from the beginning of this Congress that we want to negotiate with the President, but we cannot negotiate with a President who does not want to balance the budget. We do not want to negotiate over whether to balance the budget or not; we want him to submit a budget that balances by CBO what he called for. We will negotiate with him in the parameters within that balanced budget. But if the President cannot submit one, how do we negotiate apples with oranges? You know, the saying goes, `If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.' '' We agree with those statements. We hope that the current President agrees with those statements and that we can hold the President and the administration to the same standard. It is certainly reasonable. We want to work with the administration. We propose that in the interim, the Congress pass a short-term debt limit increase equal to an amount that the President tells us is needed to fight the war. We want to listen to the President and support him in his efforts in fighting terrorism and speak with one voice when we leave the shores of the United States of America. So we want to pass short-term limits, that is, in an amount that he tells us is needed; not that it is extravagant, but needed. We want to continue the lawful government obligations and functions of the United States Government. Any additional debt limit, other than those two things, fighting the war and our obligations, must be passed and would be contingent upon successful completion of a comprehensive and complete budget plan. That is fiscal soundness. That is fiscal responsibility. That is putting our house in order. We need a budget. A long-term budget plan should reestablish a glide path for a balanced unified budget. We need to put everything on the table to look at when we are talking about the finances of this country. We have to control spending and include that in our long-term budget plan. And we have to ensure that we do not continue to be the parents borrowing from our own children. This will not be done overnight and there are legitimate arguments about the fact that we could reach a critical point before there is adequate time to develop a plan and develop a budget and approve a plan which meets the criteria. This is why we have proposed, as Blue Dogs, the short-term debt limit increase while the planning is going on. Certainly, Blue Dogs do not want to threaten the United States' credibility or expose United States taxpayers to risks associated with defaulting on the debt. We do not believe in brinksmanship. We do not believe in political posturing. We believe in fiscal responsibility. We do not want the government to continue to function and meet its lawful obligations in a risky manner. And we absolutely refuse in every case to jeopardize our troops or our homeland security or undermine the war effort in any way. However, we do not want to simply write a $750 billion blank check absent concrete actions and concrete plans to restore discipline and return to fiscally responsible policies in this country. If we want to address critical issues such as Social Security, prescription drugs, veterans' benefits for those that fought to defend the country, a true and meaningful Patients' Bill of Rights, and education, we have to have a firm financial foundation in this country. We need fiscal responsibility. We are willing to work on a short-term debt limit increase. We are willing to do anything we can to encourage the economy. All we are saying is, let us please use proper planning. Let us enact a budget just like every home and business in America does. Let us get this country back on a path of fiscal responsibility.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, it is time to stand up for American families. It is time to stand up for American jobs. It is time to stand up in this country for American steel. Already, 30 American steel companies have declared bankruptcy, and 47,000 American steelworkers have lost their jobs. Why has that happened? The International Trade Commission has determined that trade violations and steel dumping by foreign countries have caused these losses. Tomorrow, the administration will decide what needs to be done to punish these foreign offenders. Apparently, the administration is considering an ineffective 30 percent tariff and total exemptions for a number of foreign countries. That simply will not work. Ask the domestic steel industry; ask the steelworkers. Let us protect American jobs. A 40 percent tariff will protect our domestic industry and provide security to American families. We expect American families and American workers to work hard and to play by the rules. We should expect the same from our foreign trading partners.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask that it be entered in the Record that if I had been present today I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 46, the motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 3448, the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Response Act of 2002.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Focused, organized, hard working and goal oriented: those are words that spring to my mind when describing our new whip, Nancy Pelosi. As will no doubt be mentioned many times tonight, Nancy Pelosi's election is historic and an indication of positive change to come. Nancy's leadership will complement our current leadership. She will bring a new energy, a new vision to our caucus and to our country. Her leadership may be to the same destination, but I suspect that she will have a few new road maps for us to follow. I am proud of our caucus, particularly the men of our caucus, that we were able to be a part of breaking the glass ceiling for women in leadership. And make no mistake about it, that glass ceiling is shattered forever. This is important to men and women all across the country, and it is important to me personally. I am the father of four children, two boys and two girls. I want to make sure that my daughters have the same hope, the same opportunity, the same vision as my sons. Nancy Pelosi will guarantee that. We all congratulate Nancy Pelosi; and I say thank you for including us all at the table, from left to right, region to region, persuasion to persuasion, but most of all thank you for your years of hard work, your dedication and your preparation in earning this leadership position. The country will be better for the leadership of Nancy Pelosi.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the misdirected economic stimulus plan, H.R. 3529, Economic Security and Recovery Act of 2001 because the bill fails to balance worker assistance provisions and tax cuts while wrecking years of Federal fiscal discipline. The economy is stagnating and people with a tenuous grip on the economic ladder fear rising unemployment rates and health costs will cause further pain. I am disappointed that Congress could not come to an agreement on an economic stimulus package and I fault those who cling to rigid ideological positions as a justification for blocking compromise and comity. The plan we will consider today does not do enough to focus on the hundreds of thousands of recently unemployed Americans and enacts risky corporate tax cuts and rebates that would further weaken our fiscal health. Squandering an opportunity to secure health care coverage for the unemployed and tax reductions to encourage business growth sends the message to American people that Congress is not serious about economic recovery. Mr. Speaker, the Congress acted in a bipartisan manner to give the President the tools necessary to fight the war on terrorism. Democrats and Republicans compromised to pass legislation in the best interest of the country. I believe that many Democrats and Republicans were willing to compromise on an economic stimulus package but, unfortunately, ideology trumped pragmatism and common sense. Last spring, I voted for the $1.3 trillion tax cut advocated by President Bush. At the time, our budget surplus projections looked strong for years to come. Unlike the present legislation, that tax cut contained relief for working American families and allowed most Americans to share in the expanding economy. I have great reservations that the $250 billion total cost of the bill over 10 years will further exacerbate our fiscal picture and balloon our Federal deficit. In light of the September 11 tragedy, the priority of Congress and our country must be securing the safety of Americans from further terrorist attack and rooting out terrorist evil around the globe. We are making progress on bringing to justice those responsible for the terrorist attacks and our efforts will forestall future attacks. I believe, however, that more can be done to safeguard the American people and strengthen Homeland Defense. As a Member of the Blue Dog Coalition--a group of fiscally moderate Democrats--we proposed, as part of an economic stimulus plan, a homeland security component. This fiscally responsible initiative addresses the fundamental questions of strengthening our domestic security through targeted initiatives. The security package could also complement legislation aimed at stimulating the economy in the short term by providing relief for those who lost their jobs as a result of September 11. The proper course of action must focus on short-term assistance and avoid long-term business tax cuts that will skew our budget picture and endanger the Social Security trust fund. I believe that the components of a balanced and fiscally responsible stimulus plan exist and a compromise can be reached. H.R. 3529, however, fails both of these criteria by enacting long-term corporate tax reductions and rebates with dubious short-term economic benefit that will lead to a return of Federal budget deficits. America needs a shot in the arm, not a misdirected tax bill in disguise as economic stimulus.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Jarvis Christian College, the Tom Joyner Foundation's historically black ``College of the Month'' for October. All too often, a student enters college only to encounter financial challenges that force him or her to drop out of school. As a nationally syndicated radio personality, Tom Joyner uses his platform to raise money to help students continue their education at black colleges. Every month, the foundation selects an Historically Black College or University to receive funds raised during that month. During the month of October, Joyner will encourage individuals, groups, organizations, and Jarvis alumni to make financial contributions to Jarvis. Over the past year, the Tom Joyner Foundation has raised more than $500,000 for deserving students. The money is given directly to the school and its students. Additionally, the Ronald McDonald House Charities has pledged to provide 50 cents for every dollar, up to $333,000 donated, for this year. I am very proud of Jarvis for being chosen by the Tom Joyner Foundation to receive these important funds for its students. Located in Hawkins, Texas, Jarvis Christian College has lived up to its mission to provide a quality liberal arts education that prepares students ``intellectually, socially, and personally to function effectively in a global and technological society.'' Founded in 1912, Jarvis Christian College held its first formal classes in January 1913, with 12 elementary-level students. Only two years later, the school began officially teaching high school courses. Further, until 1937, it was the only accredited high school exclusively for African Americans in the area. In 1927, Jarvis began offering junior college courses, and the school was accredited as a college the next year. Since that time, Jarvis has been an East Texas institution, an excellent choice for students who wish to develop their skills and talents to their highest levels of ability. For 90 years, Jarvis Christian College has given hope and opportunity to the African American community of East Texas, guaranteeing students a quality education within a solidly Christian environment. This year, Jarvis was ranked among the top ``Comprehensive Colleges'' in the nation by U.S. News and World Report. I would like to thank the Tom Joyner Foundation for its mission to support Jarvis Christian College's motto: ``The college with the personal touch, where dreams come true!''