Max Sandlin

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, east Texans are overburdened by taxes. They work hard and take home too little of their paycheck. I understand that the deficits of the 1980's have limited the amount of tax relief we can offer to the people, but I feel strongly that we must offer what we can. Families need help covering the expenses of raising their children. They need help paying for the expenses of higher education. They need to be able to keep more of the money they earn from their long term investments. And they need to be able to pass family farm or a family business to their children without having to sell it to pay taxes when they pass away. East Texans need tax relief, and that is why I voted for H.R. 2014, the Taxpayer Relief Act. No legislation is without flaws, and I hope to see a slightly different bill when it comes back from conference committee. Tax relief should be directed toward working middle class families--the backbone of our Nation--and I am concerned that the current bill gives too great a tax break to those with higher incomes at the expense of hard working families. However, this bill is an important step in reducing the tax burden of the people in east Texas. The budget agreement crafted by Congress in 1993 put us on a path for tax relief. Our deficits have fallen significantly over the past 4 years, and it is now time to reward the people for shouldering their share of the load. Today, we passed legislation to give families $500 for each child they are raising, to offer tax breaks on tuition for students in higher education, to reduce the capital gains tax, and to increase the exemption for the estate tax. As I said, this bill is far from perfect. For example, the legislation does not adequately protect worker's rights and fails to immediately raise the estate tax exemption. The exemption, now $600,000, would increase to $1 million with this bill, but not until 2007. Many families in east Texas who own farms or small businesses could end up losing significant portions of their family property waiting for this provision to be implemented. The exemption should be $1 million now, not 10 years from now. I voted for this bill in spite of its imperfections which must be corrected in conference committee. I voted for this bill because I want tax relief for working families in east Texas. Over the next several weeks, I will be working with my colleagues to improve the bill so that we offer tax relief in a fair and equal manner; today, however, I am proud to say that I voted to save the taxpayers $85 billion in taxes over the next 5 years.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives passed the Budget Reconciliation Spending Act, H.R. 2015, a bill to reduce spending programs. I voted to protect seniors, children, low income workers, and Texas. While I strongly support the goal of the legislation to balance the Federal budget, and while I voted for the balanced budget agreement of 1997, I could not support this legislation. I support Medicare reform to extend the solvency of the Medicare Program. However, this bill cuts Medicare by $115 billion and still only extends the program for only 8 years, not the 10 years called for in the budget agreement. The proposed changes saddle health care providers with over $100 billion of the cuts, potentially leading to a deterioration in the quality of care. In addition to these cuts, Medicare premiums for the average beneficiary would rise by over $15 per month, placing an unbearable burden on many seniors vulnerable to rising costs. In addition to higher premiums for Medicare beneficiaries, this bill also hits another senior group by cutting veterans' benefits. The legislation reduces veterans' benefit cost of living adjustment [COLA] by rounding down and by limiting future increases. We have created laws to protect workers from abuse in our society. However, the Budget Reconciliation Spending Act specifically exempts from these laws workers who are trying to leave the welfare rolls for jobs. These workers would be denied worker protections against discrimination and sexual harassment and not allowed time off for family and medical leave to be with their families in times of need. We should be giving these workers more reasons to find a good job, not giving them more reasons to stay on welfare. Workers in my district would be further harmed by this legislation because of provisions to privatize food stamp and Medicaid eligibility. Aside from concerns regarding a profit-seeking company determining the Medicaid eligibility of an impoverished family, this provision would jeopardize the jobs of State employees everywhere. These people work hard at their jobs, do an excellent job, and do not deserve to lose their jobs in order to reach a questionable goal. Finally, the State of Texas bears a disproportionate share of Medicaid savings under the House reconciliation proposal regarding disproportionate share hospital [DSH] payments. Texas alone represents over 13 percent of the cuts to the DSH program, and will have DSH payments cut by 40 percent in the year 2002. Texas has the third largest Medicaid population in the country and is disproportionately affected by legal and illegal immigrant populations. DSH payments to Texas are used to serve the uninsured population, especially in rural areas. Many people in this population, with no other options for health care, could be denied basic health care services if this provision is included. I want to see a balanced budget. I have made a pledge to the people of east Texas to work for a balanced budget. Unfortunately, I cannot support a balanced budget that balances the budget on the backs of seniors, children, workers, and Texas health care funds. This bill is bad for the American working families, bad for the American economy, and bad for America. I urge my colleagues on the conference committee to compromise on a bill that benefits working Americans instead of one that harms them.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall vote No. 223, the Weldon amendment, I would like for the Record to reflect that I was in the House, in the Chamber available to vote; I signaled the Chair to vote. As I approached, the vote was closed despite my signaling. I want the Record to reflect that I would have voted ``aye.'' I was available to vote, in the Chamber. Amendment Offered by Mr. Traficant

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes today to commend a school in my district that has bucked the trend, thwarted conventions, achieved the unlikely, and taken great leaps to eradicate drug use among its students. The school is Redwater High School in Redwater, TX, a suburb of Texarkana. Members from all quadrants of the community have come together in unified support of this program and of their teenagers who are struggling against a sea of drugs and gangs. In a sincere attempt to preempt the spread of drugs through their community and schools, businesses have given money and endorsements, parents have given their time and their hearts, and students have given their word and their enthusiasm. The result is that 100 percent of the class of 1997 at Redwater High School has volunteered to be tested for drugs and every one of them has tested drug free. Four fathers in the Redwater community, concerned for their children's health and well-being, initiated this unique program, called DADS, which stands for Dads Against Drugs in School. They decided that, since there are so many incentives for students to do drugs in society today, from peer pressure to movie glamorization, they should offer students greater incentive to stay drug free and a chance to prove that they are drug free. The program gives all Redwater students a chance for a voluntary free drug test at school with random followup tests. If they test drug-free, they receive a DADS photo ID card, which entitles the student to discounts at area businesses such as restaurants and clothing stores. No students who test positive for drugs will be criminally prosecuted as a result of their drug test. Instead, the students receive counseling from the school and, when appropriate, mentoring from volunteer fathers. As Redwater Superintendent Joe Dan Lee says, ``This program will reverse the peer pressure attitude among kids by giving them something to show for being drug free.'' To me this program represents many aspects of what is right in our communities today. They used only $5,000 in government grant money for the program and funded the rest of the effort with community time, dollars, and concern. Through this program, the community has dedicated themselves to becoming a drug-free community, set high expectations and standards, and taken important steps toward protecting their children from the dangers of drugs. They have done this without cracking down, threatening their students, hiring more police officers, or punishing more children. Instead of frightening them away from drugs, the parents, teachers, and community leaders have strengthened the support network for students and given them reasons to stay off of drugs, averting trouble before it begins. I don't want the experience of Redwater High School to be an isolated incident. Schools across the Nation can replicate this effort if parents, teachers, businesses, and community leaders join efforts to help our children combat the peer pressure to become drug users. Keeping our students off drugs is one of our most worthwhile causes and an effective method of keeping our students away from a variety of other troubles. If, with this program, we keep just one student from the downward spiral of drug use to delinquency, I would consider it a success. I think, with 100 percent of the seniors testing drug free, that the first year of this program was an enormous success. I am proud of this community for their initiative, ingenuity, and determination. I am proud to see so many members of the community come together to work for this cause. Most of all, I am proud of the Redwater High students and especially the Redwater High graduating class of 1997 for being 100 percent tested and certified drug free.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, in this country today, obviously, we have a problem with juvenile crime. It seems to me that we must decide what to do about that problem and who should do it. The Democratic alternative addresses those issues. As a former judge, I have heard thousands of juvenile cases. Many times we must deal seriously with juveniles. Some must be incarcerated. However, as the father of four children, as a former youth baseball, basketball, and softball coach, as someone active in the Boy Scouts of America, I can tell my colleagues that the children of America are worth saving. Just like they must be responsible for their acts, we must be responsible, the U.S. Congress, for providing opportunities for children to stay out of the system. We know what does not work. We know that. We know that spending more and more tax dollars to build more and more facilities to lock up more and more children without hope is not the answer, but we have to provide alternatives. We need to incarcerate some juveniles, but we need to provide for education. We need to provide for intervention. We need to provide for community support, and the Democratic alternative does that. Who knows best how to handle these problems? Who knows best how to handle things in Texas, in New York, in California, in Mississippi, in Iowa, in Illinois, in Massachusetts? People in those communities do, that is who does, not Washington. Under the substitute legislation, local communities receive local grants to solve local problems. Let us let local teachers, local preachers, local parents, local friends handle local problems in our States. One point I have not heard discussed is the fact our friends on the other side of the aisle are attempting to model the juvenile system after the adult system. Like it is some model. Is that not dandy? The adult system has not worked either. Treating juveniles and modeling the juvenile system after a failed adult system is certainly ridiculous. It is time for a new approach. Our States do not need to change, our local communities do not need to change, Washington needs to change.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, today in this greatest of all countries we obviously face a problem, a problem of juvenile crime. I rise as the father of four children, a youth baseball, basketball, softball coach, a former judge, a former chairman of a juvenile committee in Texas. Based upon that experience, I am convinced of one thing. Our focus in this Congress and in this country should be on one thing. We have kids with problems. We do not have problem kids. If we send our children to school hungry, needing medical care, with no hope for a quality education, they will not succeed. We cannot expect them to succeed, and neither would we succeed under those same circumstances. As a former judge, I have heard thousands of juvenile cases. Thousands. I agree that we need to teach children and juveniles to be responsible. Some children absolutely must be incarcerated. But if we think that by merely incarcerating children that we are going to solve these problems, we are wrong. If we think it will serve as a deterrent, we are fooling ourselves. I will tell my colleagues one thing I learned as a judge. Children are fearless. They are fearless. They make no connection like adults do between the commission and what happens. I have heard a lot of talk tonight about there is nothing that happens on the first offense or second offense. I do not know about anywhere else, but in Texas that is not so. That is absolutely not so. Treating children as adults and spending more and more and more tax dollars to prosecute children and locking them up without addressing the problems that are underlying those juvenile problems is just false investment and it simply will not work. If we are committed to solving the juvenile problem in this country, we need to sponsor legislation that creates jobs, that puts families first, that sponsors education, that supports intervention. Do we need to be tough on crime? We sure do. I have compared H.R. 3 and the Democratic substitute. I have noticed the Democratic substitute, the Juvenile Offender Control and Prevention Act, extends the age at which juveniles may be incarcerated, expands the use of Federal juvenile records and funds police officers, but it is balanced in a way that H.R. 3 is not. These are local problems, these are local programs funded by local families. We do not need a Washington mandate to tell Texans what to do about Texas problems. It will not work.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank Representative Connie Morella, Representative Louise Slaughter, and the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues for holding this special order on women's health and for raising the awareness of women's health issues through the past 20 years. I also come to you today to address issues of great concern to me as a husband, father of two sons and two daughters, concerned citizen, and diligent representative of east Texans. We have made tremendous strides in the area of women's health this century, but we have far to go. Women's health is more vulnerable than men's health for a number of reasons, ranging from demographics to specific diseases, and we must continue to recognize that women have special health care needs. While health care costs are soaring for the entire population, women earn, on the whole, less than men. Women of reproductive age pay 68 percent more out-of-pocket health care costs than men, a larger percentage of women hold part time and clerical jobs without health insurance, and women tend to live longer than men. As a result, women are disproportionately affected by rising health care costs. Pregnant women in particular face significant costs and high risks. In 1991, only two-thirds of black, Hispanic, and American Indian women received early prenatal care. Because this segment of the population is so vulnerable, Congress created the supplemental nutrition program for women, children, and infants, called the WIC Program, 23 years ago. Since then, WIC has proven very effective at improving women's health and reducing health care costs. Pregnant women on Medicaid who participate have better health, are more likely to receive prenatal care, and have children with better learning abilities, higher rates of immunization, and better weight. The General Accounting Office has calculated that every dollar spent in the WIC Program saves $3.50 in Social Security and Medicaid benefits. Congress has threatened to reduce funding for this essential program below the President's request. The proposed budget cuts of $36 million could cut 180,000 women and children out of the program, leaving women with improper nutrition and potentially impairing the development of as many children. We will soon be voting on this issue, so let us make this commitment now to save money for the Government and show compassion for this vulnerable group in our population. In addition to economic vulnerability, women face unique risks simply because of their gender. Though awareness of breast cancer risks has risen for years, the death rate has not fallen and the incidence rate has risen steadily. Now, one in eight women will develop breast cancer in her lifetime; 2.6 million women are estimated to have the disease, and economic costs from medical expenses and lost productivity due to breast cancer have risen to $6 billion annually. These women are daughters, sisters, mothers, grandmothers, friends, and colleagues, and we owe it to them to redouble our efforts to detect, treat, and prevent this devastating disease. We must extend our efforts to educate and reach out to those women who are not now receiving regular mammograms, especially lower income women who have been proven to be less likely to receive a mammogram. And we can extend coverage of Medicare to cover more frequent and earlier mammograms to detect and remove breast cancer at a lower cost and with less damage. We have to make this commitment to the women of America. What is good for the women of this country is good for the country as a whole. We cannot allow these health risks to go unchallenged, and we must make improving the health of women a goal for this Congress.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, Frank Tejeda was a quiet and reserved man who truly embodied the spirit of all Americans. The grandson of Mexican immigrants, Tejeda, grew up on San Antonio's tough south side; a place he loved and a place that was always home. Frank Tejeda was an achiever, whether it was in his beloved south side neighborhood, a Vietnam jungle, ivy league universities, or the Halls of Congress. He was a leader, someone others looked up to and revered. Tejeda, who died Thursday after a long battle with brain cancer, was 51 years old. At 17 years old Tejeda was expelled from school. Tejeda then joined the Marine Corps and soon found himself on the battlefields of Vietnam, something that would shape the rest of his life. During his Marine service, Tejeda earned a Bronze Star, the Commandant's Trophy, Marine Corps Association Award, the Colonel Phil Yeckel Award, and a Purple Heart. His proudest achievements were his military accolades. The Marines were a way of life for Frank Tejeda and his service to his country did not end when he left Vietnam. Frank stayed in the Marine Corps and later went to officer candidate school where he earned the highest academic average in the history of the corps. Even in Congress, Tejeda was still a marine. He served as a major in the Marine Corps Reserve Capital Hill Unit. Sadly, his greatest military accolade might have come posthumously as he was awarded the Silver Star by Navy Secretary John Dalton at his funeral Monday. The former high school dropout later returned to school and achieved academic prowess that some probably thought impossible. He earned his undergraduate degree at St. Mary's University. He then received his Juris Doctorate from Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California-Berkeley. As great as these accomplishments were, his thirst for knowledge didn't let him stop there. Instead, his quest would take him to the two most hallowed universities in our Nation. First, he graduated with an L.L.B. from Yale and later he received his master's in public administration from Harvard's famed Kennedy School of Government. Frank wanted to take his knowledge and help people less fortunate than he. He ran for the Texas Legislature and was first elected in 1976. He quickly made a name for himself in Austin where he was a strong advocate for minority issues and fought hard for his beloved south side. He served 10 years in the Texas House before winning election to the Texas Senate in 1986. In the senate, he helped draw the district he would eventually represent in Congress. In 1992, Tejeda sought to be the first person to represent the newly drawn 28th Congressional District. The district encompasses south San Antonio and extends all the way to the Mexican border. His popularity on his native south side being what it is, no Democrat or Republican filed to run against Tejeda in either the primary or general elections. He received 87 percent of the vote against a Libertarian that November and was sworn into Congress in January 1993. In Congress, Tejeda served on the National Security and Veterans Affairs Committees. Tejeda fought hard for a strong military and issues important to veterans. He was a strong advocate for Texas and Texas jobs. He continually fought for Kelly Air Force Base even after it was announced the base would close. Never wanting to lose touch with the people he represented, Tejeda went home to San Antonio every weekend. Tejeda was a strong family man and a man of faith. Frank left behind his mother, Lillie Tejeda, his sister Mary Alice Lara, his two daughters and his son Frank Tejeda III. Although, Frank may no longer be with us, his presence is still being felt by not only San Antonians and Texans, but by all Americans. As our recently reelected President addressed our entire Nation he could not help but fondly reflect on the service this man of a humble background gave to our Nation. His presence was felt in the gallery as the Nation viewed his mother and sister, the way Frank would have wanted to see them, standing strong. Frank Tejeda also touched me with his presence, although I didn't serve with him long. I am glad to say I knew this man who touched so many lives in a positive way. Frank Tejeda was a true Texas and American hero. I feel it is only proper that he was born and lies in the shadow of the Alamo.