Max Sandlin

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Chairman, let us balance our budget. Let us pay as we go. Let us pay off our debt and pay off the deficit. Let us support the Blue Dog budget. Following the plan offered by the House Republican leadership will succeed in balancing the budget by balancing it on our Nation's senior citizens, the veterans, the students, the farmers, the teachers, the economically disadvantaged. How in the world can the majority propose spending cuts in veterans health care during a time of war? And the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and virtually every national veterans service group shares my amazement. The Blue Dog substitute will cut the record deficit in half in 2 years, not the 5 proposed by the Republican leadership and balance the Federal budget by 2012 without relying on the Social Security surplus and without sacrificing our Nation's veterans and seniors. At the same time, the Blue Dogs provide both immediate and long-term tax relief to middle-class American taxpayers, small businesses, and family farmers. This tax relief consists largely of an acceleration of cuts already scheduled under current law. We need to pay for our war effort. We need to take care of our veterans, and we need to be honest in our budgeting and make sure we budget for the war effort. The Republican budget does not budget one dime for the war. That is the reason it is a trick. Let us pay as we go. Let us balance this budget.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Girl Scout Council of Red River Valley. With more than 3.8 million members, the Girl Scouts have served as one of the finest organizations dedicated solely to girls. For over 90 years, the Girl Scouts have instilled leadership skills and strong values, while helping girls realize their true potential and self worth. The Girl Scout Council of Red River Valley comprises 13 counties in northeast Texas and southeast Oklahoma. These include Bryan, Choctaw, McCurtain, and Pushmataha Counties in Oklahoma and Camp, Delta, Fannin, Franklin, Hopkins, Lamar, Morris, Red River, and Titus Counties in Texas. Over 2,500 girls are able to participate in year-round activities offered by the Red River Valley Council. These activities foster skills in business, communication, the environment, the humanities, science, sports, and personal health. Programs offered during the school year include the Engineering for Girls Club which gives 4th through 8th graders the opportunity to participate in activities relating to science, math, technology, and engineering. During the summer, girls can learn traditional outdoor skills at Camp Gambill, a 54-acre facility located in Sumner, TX. Mr. Speaker, as the Girl Scout Council of Red River Valley continues to grow and expand, I want to commend the council for its tireless work expanding opportunities for our girls in east Texas.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, today the House stands to make a choice. We can choose to support our widowed teachers or we can choose to oppose them. The choice is ours. It is as simple as that. I am appalled that our friends on the other side of the aisle would take a stand against our teachers and claim, as they have, that the teachers are engaged in a gimmick or a trick or a fraud. That is absolutely insulting to America's teachers. Obtaining spousal benefits is not a trick or a fraud. It is a payment for an entire lifetime of work by a spouse. It is a payment for an entire lifetime of a man and woman working together. Saying that teachers receive Social Security for working 1 day is simply not true, and our friends on the other side of the aisle know it. It is embarrassing for them to say that. The real fraud is that the Republicans have failed to address the GPO. Here is the way the Republican plan works. If someone works for an insurance company, there is no offset. If someone works for a pharmaceutical company, there is no offset. If someone works for an HMO, there is no offset. But if that person elects to be a teacher and educate our children, there is an offset and their spouse's lifetime of work is absolutely meaningless under the Republican plan. At least our friends on the other side of the aisle are consistent. They believe that neither veterans nor teachers should receive benefits they have earned. Teachers work hard. They follow the rules. They deserve their earned benefits. Section 418 was not included in the version of this legislation that the House passed with my support during the 107th Congress. I support other provisions of this legislation but cannot support H.R. 743 as introduced. Allowing section 418 to remain will strike at the very heart of public schoolteachers in Texas and at the very heart of our children. The greater issue of this bill is the failure of Congress to address the Government Pension Offset. Our Republican leadership stood on this very floor during consideration of H.R. 743 last April and testified to their commitment towards ending the GPO. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a representative of Congress and a supporter and champion of Texas teachers, read an excerpt from a letter of the Majority Leader to a constituent stating, ``I strongly believe that the GPO is an unfair and misguided piece of legislation. It undercuts the people who have spent their entire working life paying into the Social Security system by denying them their fair share of the hard-earned money they contributed. Married couples should be able to share those benefits with their spouses.'' The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means: ``Is there a problem with the offset? Of course there is. We just had a colloquy on the floor with the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Social Security, and there was an agreement we will seriously address the pension offset.'' The chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security of the Committee on Ways and Means: ``We absolutely need a full discussion of all Social Security provisions affecting public employees, which is why the Subcommittee on Social Security will have a hearing on these issues and legislative opportunities.'' Well, enough is enough, Mr. Speaker. Talk is talk. Enough hearings. This is an example of actions speaking louder than words. Surely the leadership, who only scheduled four suspension bills and H.R. 743 for this entire week, can find the time to vote to repeal the GPO and the windfall elimination provision. All they have to do is call up a vote on H.R. 594, a piece of legislation that has 285 bipartisan cosponsors. Here is the deal. Either we support the teachers, we support first responders, we support firefighters, we support police, we support public employees, or we do not. That is it. It is that simple. Put up or shut up. That is the deal. Until we vote on H.R. 594 to repeal the GPO, we cannot allow H.R. 743 to pass. We cannot be involved in changing the rules of the game right in the middle of the game. And truthfully, Mr. Speaker, this is no game. This is our retired teachers' livelihood. Our teachers should be rewarded, not punished. Let us stand up for teachers today. Let us vote for the Frost amendment and let us vote ``no'' on H.R. 743.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for the long- overdue energy conference report, while at the same time sharing my disappointment with the process by which the House leadership has brought this legislation to the floor. As we all know, one of the greatest problems facing the United States today is our lack of national energy independence. The United States' dependence upon foreign sources of oil is simply unacceptable for a country rich in natural resources and equipped with the capability to develop these resources as a means of increasing our national security. At the height of the energy crisis during the 1970s, the United States imported 46 percent of our oil supply. Today, it is estimated that we import approximately 55 percent of all energy used in this country. As America's energy consumption increases, our need to produce more energy rises as well. Unfortunately, supply is not meeting demand, and our increased reliance on foreign sources of energy has potentially disastrous consequences for our economy and national security. The energy conference report contains significant incentives for the exploration and production of oil and gas and represents an important step toward increasing our national energy independence. At the same time, energy independence cannot be attained through production alone. Though Congress should strongly encourage the production of energy sources such as oil, gas, and nuclear power, Congress should also incentivize businesses and consumers to produce energy with wind and solar power and conserve energy through innovative technologies. When used effectively, the Internal Revenue Code [``the Code''] can help to stimulate both the production and conservation of energy. Provisions in the Code such as section 29 and section 45 have stimulated the production of nonconventional fuels and wind energy, respectively, and the tax title of the energy conference report will extend these credits and encourage continued production from these sources for years to come. Further, the report's funding authorizations and tax incentives for investment in clean coal technology will benefit both consumers and the environment in the state of Texas. Texas consumes more coal for electricity generation than any other state in the country, with a significant amount of that coal mined in Texas. Unfortunately, while generation facilities must burn coal to provide the electricity that so many people take for granted, burning coal inevitably releases some pollutants into our atmosphere. Together with private industry, the Department of Energy's clean coal technology program is working to develop cleaner-burning technologies that will decrease emissions of nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and other airborne pollutants. Additionally, I am pleased that the conference report seeks to decrease our over-reliance on foreign sources of oil by repealing the current sunsets for the qualified electric vehicle credit and clean fuel vehicles deductions. Further, I appreciate the inclusion of a credit for the purchase of hydrogen fuel cell motor vehicles. I included a similar provision in my energy tax legislation, H.R. 1436, the Energy Independence and Security Act, and believe strongly that fuel cell technology holds enormous potential for the future. The federal government has an important role to play in the development and use of this clean, renewable energy source. Any balanced energy plan must acknowledge that Americans need to increase our conservation efforts in an attempt to move closer to energy independence. To that end, I appreciate the inclusion of incentives to homeowners to make energy efficient home improvements that decrease their consumption of energy. As well, the energy conference report's increased funding authorization for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program [LIHEAP] will directly benefit low-income Texans in my district who rely on LIHEAP aid to pay their utility bills. Last yeas, Texans received $50.1 million through this federal grant program, and this legislation should increase the amount of federal aid that Texas receives in the future. Further, I believe that the electricity provisions contained within the conference report will encourage the improvement of our country's transmission infrastructure by reducing the depreciable lives for transmission assets from twenty to fifteen years. Accelerating the depreciation period will provide additional resources for electric utilities to modernize their transmission systems, which should increase the reliability, safety, arid security of the national grid system. I am, however, extremely disappointed with the process by which the Republican leadership has brought this measure to the floor. It is well known by now that the Republican leadership and energy conferees in both Houses drafted the conference report without Democratic participation. Democratic legislators who, in some cases, have been involved in drafting complex energy legislation for several decades were prohibited from taking part in this process. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans' behavior throughout this process has been outrageous and inexcusable, and their actions demonstrate a contempt both for the democratic process and the constituents of the legislators who have been denied a voice over the past several months.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of pretty words from the Republicans tonight, but every one on both sides of the aisle knows that this bill is nothing but a sham, a charade, a shameless trick on America's seniors. America's seniors need help right now and yet the bill advanced by the Republicans does not even take effect until 2006. No coverage in 2003, no coverage in 2004, no coverage in 2005, and who knows what will happen in 2006. Our seniors cannot afford prescription drugs, and in the face of that challenge, the Republicans have presented a bill that requires seniors to pay out of their pockets over $4,000 of the first $5,000 spent on drugs. That is no benefit at all. Now, have the Republicans done anything to reduce the cost of drugs? No. The HMOs and the pharmaceutical companies will not let them do it. And this bill that is supposed to make drugs more affordable, there is no control over the prices charged by the pharmaceutical companies. Their greed is what got us in this situation in the first place. Do you think that philanthropy has suddenly invaded the boardroom of the pharmaceutical companies. Is that what you think? Amazingly, this bill prohibits, makes it illegal, against the law for the government to negotiate for lower prices with a pharmaceutical companies. They supply the product, they set the price, the seniors foot the bill, that is a sweet deal for them. And can the seniors save money by getting drugs from Canada or Mexico? Oh, no, the Republicans in this bill that was written by the pharmaceutical companies say no. And that is the way it is. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have the audacity to support a plan that lines the pockets of HMOs by taking $10 billion out of cancer treatment, leaving America's seniors both broke and dying. If this bill passes, it passes on the back of the America's seniors. The Republicans will have to answer. They can run in the middle of the night, but they cannot hide.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from New Jersey for leading this hour. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of talk tonight from our friends on the other side of the aisle about how they want to provide a prescription drug plan. I do not know about all that, but what I do know is this: the plan the Republicans have privatizes Medicare. That is what it does. It privatizes Medicare. It eliminates coverage for over 2 million Americans. It gives tax subsidies for the wealthy. It forgets to give real help to those of low income. It has a very high deductible, and, Mr. Speaker, as we know and as our friends on the other side of the aisle have been forced to admit reluctantly, it has a gap in coverage so large that our seniors would forget there is any coverage at all but for the fact that they have to continue to pay premiums each and every month even at a time when they are not getting any coverage. And our friends on the other side of the aisle have had to admit that on this floor before this Congress and before the American people. Mr. Speaker, maybe I was mistaken. I thought we wanted to provide a prescription drug plan to help America's seniors. I thought that was what we were working on. But I have kind of seen the light. Our Republican friends do not really want to have a drug plan that helps seniors. They want a plan written by the HMOs and the pharmaceutical manufacturing companies. And I can see why those companies and the Republicans want that plan. The drug companies want a drug plan because they supply the drugs and they set the prices. Sweet. What a good deal. They supply the product, and they set the price. And it gets better than that. The Republican plan forces seniors off of Medicare and shoves them permanently into the waiting arms of HMOs. The Republican plan is to move all of the revenue to HMOs and place all the burden on our seniors. And, Mr. Speaker, what is the big rush? As has been mentioned by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) and others, what is the rush? If we pass this Republican sham of a bill written by the drug companies, it does not even go into effect until the year 2006. This is 2003. What are we doing? How stupid do they think the American public is? What a sham. This is not a drug plan for seniors. It provides no coverage in 2003. It provides no coverage in 2004. It provides no coverage in 2005. And it just kicks in coverage in 2006. At least that is their planned coverage. Like I said, we are not in a rush to pass the bill; so why pass it today? Why pass it in 2003 and have no coverage until 2006? Maybe, I mean just maybe, it is because elections are coming up in 2004. Would that be why they are passing this bill? So our Republicans want to pass a bill in 2003 with no coverage. Then they want to brag about it in 2004 with a fancy name. They want to run on that when they are not even paying any benefits. And then who knows what they are going to do in 2006? As the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) has mentioned, we have got a whole new administration possibly. We have got a whole different Congress. We do not have any commitments. We are passing something in 2003 for 2006. That is ridiculous. In summary, the Republicans are telling seniors to sit down and shut up until elections are over and then they are going to deal with them. Sit down and shut up. Every Member of Congress claims to be committed to lowering the price of prescription drugs for our Nation's seniors, but the truth of the matter is that actions speak louder than words. I believe, as has been mentioned tonight, I believe the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) mentioned it, we passed a reimportation bill with overwhelming support this summer, bipartisan support, that would have finally granted our seniors access to the same safe, quality, low-priced drugs sold in 25 other nations including Canada. Now, this was part of a deal between the Republican leadership and one of its own Members to secure that Member's vote for H.R. 1 in exchange for a commitment to do something about lowering the cost of drugs. H.R. 1 passed by one vote due to that promise, and we all know it. We were all here on the floor. We all know where it happened: right over on that aisle. One vote, when the Republican leadership kept the vote open 45 minutes, contrary to the rules of this House, based on a promise to do something. But that was just a blatant lie, because here we are, the final conference bill that not only fails to include reimportation, but makes it harder to reimport drugs from other nations. To further ensure the drug companies' flourishing profit margins, this legislation specifically prohibits the Secretary of HHS from using the purchasing power of 40 million Medicare beneficiaries to negotiate for lower prices. What is that all about, Mr. Speaker? Why in the world would we put in legislation and say we are prohibiting the Secretary from negotiating for lower prices? I have never heard of such. What kind of business deal is that? Now, if the Republicans are so darn proud of this pitiful plan, I want to know why they meet in secret in the conference committee. Now, I have never heard an answer to that. The Democrats do not even get told where the meeting is. Now, I can understand they were embarrassed to bring forth a bill written by the insurance companies; I can understand why they are all embarrassed about that. They did not want the Senate to know, they did not want the House to know, they did not want the public to know. But to preserve their dignity, could they not have just changed or covered up the HMO letterhead and had a regular conference committee meeting where everybody participates, where everyone has an opportunity to have their say? And, Mr. Speaker, it is critically important to note, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) mentioned, it is important to note that we are presently debating and talking about a nonexistent bill. There is no drug bill. We are guessing at the content. The Republicans say, they say that they are going to produce an 1,100-page bill, and we will vote on it Friday or Saturday. Now, I would like to see a show of hands, Mr. Speaker, and see how many people in here are going to be able to receive, read, and understand an 1,100-page bill in just a few hours. I mean I see no one has raised their hand because that is ridiculous. So the Republicans are planning to pass an 1,100-page bill that is currently not in existence, that has been read by no one, that was written by the insurance company, that provides absolutely no benefits until 2006, but privatizes Medicare. That is the plan. Now, is that not special? Is that not special, Mr. Speaker? Now, much has been made of the fact that AARP endorsed this bill. Not so. Some of the executives of that organization did, but there was not a vote of the membership and, in fact, the AARP membership across this country is up in arms about it. This is a PR stunt by the executives, and that is who is leading that organization is a former PR man. Let me read to my colleagues, because we heard all about the PR dude, but let us hear what some of the people say. Mr. P.R. Latta in Raleigh, North Carolina, he is writing to AARP and he says, ``As you all know, I have on many occasions informed you AARP opposes privatizing Medicare and Social Security. All of you know I tried to tell it like it is. AARP at the national level is supporting the present prescription drug bill. This bill does not serve the seniors, and it privatizes the prescription drugs under the misused distortions of freedom of choice. ``The support of this bill makes it impossible for me to trust AARP at the national level, and their support of this bill, with its many faults, makes it impossible for me to represent AARP at the local level. ``Therefore, effective at the end of this meeting, November 20, 2003, I will resign as your legislative chairman.''

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly right. Many of these folks are going to find out, when Medicare is privatized, as is the plan; that is where we are headed, let us make no mistake about it, we will no longer have to see these groups coming up here to talk to Congress, because we are not going to have anything to do with it. It is privatized. It is all then going to be a matter of what the HMOs are going to pay, and they will just have to go talk with them. Let us look at what a few organizations have said. Again, the rank and file of AARP is opposed to it. Let us look at the Alliance for Retired Americans: ``The Alliance for Retired Americans categorically opposes the proposed Medicare bill being touted by Republican leaders on Capitol Hill. The Bush administration and Congress are callously using a much-needed and long-awaited prescription drug benefit to privatize Medicare. Under the proposed bill Medicare, as we know it, will cease to exist. They may say they are looking out for seniors, but they are really protecting the profits of the big pharmaceutical companies and ensuring profits to the insurance industry.'' That is the Alliance for Retired Americans. I have a list, not to read all of this, but the Medicare Rights Center: ``The bill under consideration does more harms than good.'' Families USA: ``The proposal does too much to destroy Medicare and too little to help the seniors who can least afford the medicines.'' The Transport Workers Union of America: ``The bill fulfills Newt Gingrich's dream of causing Medicare to 'wither on the vine.' It includes requirements and incentives to force people out of Medicare into private insurance plans; not only the ``premium support'' provisions, but the $12 billion slush fund for the President to bribe and coerce seniors into private plans.'' The Center for Medicare Advocacy: ``Even in its most limited form, the premium support or voucher ``demonstration'' will cause elders and people with disabilities to pay different amounts for Medicare in different parts of the country.'' UAW: ``Make no mistake, the issue before the Senate is not simply the nature of prescription drug coverage that will be provided to seniors. Rather, the conference report directly puts at risk the continued stability and viability of the entire Medicare program.'' TWU: ``In exchange for these devastating changes to the basic Medicare program, seniors will get a prescription drug benefit that will leave one-half of all seniors paying more out-of-pocket than they do now and turns over to private insurers the power to decide what drugs to cover, how much to charge, and whether to offer coverage at all.'' Mr. Speaker, I have an entire list. I am not going to go through it. But folks like the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, Alliance for Retired Americans, Medicare Rights Center, National Seniors Law Center, American Federation of Teachers, NEA, National Taxpayers Union, American Nurses Association, and the list goes on and on. Everyone knows that this is a sham. And when we start looking at it, and our Republican friends will hear that and they say, oh, that is just a bunch of activists and progressive advocacy groups that are against that. We heard them tonight talking about, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) mentioned, all this ideology and being conservative. Mr. Speaker, come on, let us get with it. The most conservative and fiscally responsible groups in this country oppose this bill. Cato Institute. Now, who is more fiscally responsible and conservative than them? Quote: ``The Medicare prescription drug bill to be voted on by Congress this week is a terrible mistake that will dearly cost our children and grandchildren. This is a bill for politicians.'' I am leaving some of it out. ``Sometimes the better part of valor is recognizing when you have made a mistake. Congress should recognize this bill as a mistake and go back to the drawing board.'' The Club for Growth: ``We oppose the Medicare prescription drug conference report. On balance the bill is too costly to taxpayers and would force millions of Americans into a government-run program greatly inferior to the coverage they have today.'' Heritage Foundation, that well-known activist group, liberal advocacy group: ``Of course, the agreement contains an unworkable and potentially unpopular drug benefit with millions of Americans losing part of their existing coverage. Instead of targeting benefits to seniors who need them, the Medicare conferees are insisting on creating universal drug entitlement to be delivered through the vehicle stand- alone insurance. Meanwhile, the politically engineered premiums and deductibles, coupled with their odd combination of doughnut holes and gaps in coverage, are likely to be unpopular with seniors.'' The National Taxpayers Union: ``The vote on final passage of the bill will be among the most heavily weighted in 2003. They say, ``There are many problems with the provisions of the final Medicare prescription drug legislation, but perhaps the worst is that it will add hundreds of billions of dollars in unfunded liabilities to a Medicare system already headed for bankruptcy.'' Citizens Against Government Waste: ``Congress is about to pass a bill that will add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. The bad news is this bill fails to reform Medicare. It may take away prescription drug coverage that you and your friends already have.'' American Conservative Union and others have similar comments. Mr. Speaker, it is clear, this secret nonexistent missive that is created by the insurance companies in this country is ridiculous. For the Republicans to cram this bill with no benefits down the throats of our seniors is unconscionable. Mark my word, Mr. Speaker, if this bill passes, if this bill passes, it will pass solely on the backs of the votes of our friends on the other side of the aisle. And the Republicans can answer to America's seniors for this travesty. It is on their backs and on their shoulders. It is their responsibility. We should work together to craft a bill that is voluntary, has a specified cost, a low deductible, and absolutely no gap in coverage. It should guarantee coverage under Medicare because seniors have already paid for that coverage. We do not need to help the HMOs. It is our responsibility as a Congress to pass that sort of bill. To even consider the Republican bill is a slap in the face to seniors all across America. It should be an embarrassment to this great institution.

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, my good friend from Arkansas (Mr. Ross) brings up an excellent point, and our friends on the other side of the aisle, the Republicans, continually say we need to offer a plan to seniors that is just as good as the ones that the Members of Congress have, and if it is good enough for Congress, then it is good enough for our seniors. I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Arkansas about that and ask him, does the plan presented by the Republicans match the plan in Congress, and do we in Congress have a donut hole? Is there any gap in coverage suffered by the Members of Congress?

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, do we want to privatize Medicare? That is the question. It is as simple as that. Do we want to make prescription drugs available and affordable for senior citizens, or do we want to give money to HMOs to operate a plan for their profit? That is the question. I rise today to join my colleagues in instructing the Medicare prescription drug bill conferees to reject the House-passed premium support provision, turning Medicare into a private voucher program, as well as the $6 billion wasted in the ill-conceived Kyl demonstration projects. We have a clear responsibility as Members of Congress to improve Medicare, not to destroy it. Yet, if we allow the Republican leadership to continue on their dangerous path toward privatizing Medicare, our seniors' access to affordable health care will be compromised beyond compare. Further, Medicare's promise of equity will be ended in a regional free-for-all in benefits and prices. The Republican leadership is playing games with the American public with their constant renaming of this ill-conceived proposal. We all know it. You can call it ``premium support,'' you can call it ``comparative cost adjustment,'' you can call it a ``voucher program.'' Heck, you can call it ``Ray'' or you can call it ``Jay,'' but it is the same thing. Starting in 2010, our seniors will no longer be entitled to a Medicare defined benefit. It is as simple as that. How is that fair? Importantly, contrary to what my good friend from Texas said, it is estimated that the average Medicare premium will rise by 25 percent under the Republican plan, and some up to 88 percent in rural areas. Mr. Speaker, as you know, over 80 percent of rural Medicare beneficiaries live in an area that private insurance companies have made a choice not to serve at all. Now, how is that fair? What about this Kyl demonstration project, Mr. Speaker? What is that all about? The Kyl demonstration project follows the same destructive path towards anti-consumer, anti-senior, anti-hospital, pro-private insurance company, HMO legislation. That is what it is. Under this proposal, private plans will be paid significantly more than it costs under Medicare to deliver the same service. Are we expected to believe that we are going to save money by spending more money for the same services? Is that what it is all about? Just think what Congress could do if we freed up this money. I am sure our cash-strapped hospitals at home would not mind the money, particularly those in desperate need of improved DSH payments. I can say with absolutely certainty in East Texas that the Atlanta Memorial Hospital, the East Texas Medical Center in Athens, Hopkins Memorial Hospital, Nacogdoches Memorial Hospital, Presbyterian Hospital of Greenville, Roy H. Laird Memorial Hospital and Titus County Memorial Hospital, they would be relieved and happy to receive this additional funding. We should ensure that we retain the House provision in H.R. 1 that prevents cuts in Medicaid DSH payments. Furthermore, we should include the Senate provision that provides critical DSH increases for 18 ``Low DSH'' States. Mr. Speaker, it is clear, our senior citizens and our hospitals and our rural communities need our help. The HMOs are doing just fine without us. I urge my colleagues to stand up for seniors, stand up for our hospitals, stand up for our rural communities, and vote in favor of the Cardoza motion. That is our obligation. That is our responsibility.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California (Mr. Becerra) for bringing this to our attention. Mr. Speaker, this is merely an issue of priorities. If we want to stand for our military, if we want to stand for our working families, if in this House we want to stand up for the children of America, if that is our priority, then we need to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) for advancing this motion, and we need to support and vote for the Becerra motion to instruct. Let us accept the bipartisan, the bipartisan Senate-passed child tax credit bill, and let us just get this bill done once and for all. Let us tell America what is important to the U.S. House of Representatives and that is our working families and that is the children of those working families. As Members know, Mr. Speaker, right now American working families are facing many challenges. We have record job losses in the country, and the current administration will be only the second administration in the history of this country to show a net loss of jobs during the administration. The other administration being the Herbert Hoover administration, which certainly is not very comfortable company. And those people in America that are lucky enough to have a job face challenges of their own. No health insurance, no prescription drugs, increasing education costs. Now, Mr. Speaker, on the other hand if an American working family, if you can call them that, is comprised of millionaires, the current tax scheme of the Republican majority may be a benefit to them. But heaven help the American worker, Mr. Speaker, if he or she earns between $10,500 and $26,625. Because, Mr. Speaker, if you earn over a million a year, you will save $93,500 in taxes in 2003 alone, nearly 100 grand. But, if you earn between $10,500 and $26,625, you are the target, as my colleagues know, Mr. Speaker, of the Republican scheme because you were deliberately and purposely excluded from the $350 billion tax law of the Republicans. There is no child tax credit for you. That is the message. Now, who does this affect? The Republicans, under their plan, say no child tax credit, no relief, no tax relief to the fighting men and women in Iraq, no relief for you, no relief to school teachers, no relief to policemen, no relief to firefighters, no relief to first responders, no relief to anyone making $10,500 to $26,625 a year. And, Mr. Speaker, that is a lot of people in this country. That is probably most of the people in my congressional district. And it is funny, Mr. Speaker, in these times of challenge, fiscal challenges, we have plenty of money for millionaires but none for the clerk down at the drugstore. We can give $93,500 for 1 year to the millionaire but nothing to the man fighting in Iraq or the woman fighting in Iraq. And what is funny, in a way, Mr. Speaker, is the administration has admitted this. You know Ari Fleischer, if you remember him, he was the White House Press Secretary when this went to conference initially, this is what he had to say: ``Everybody was aware in the conference of what was in and what was out. So that was all very well known to the conferees and the White House.'' Now, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Fleischer told the truth. No wonder he is out of the White House. They could not stand that candor anymore. Now, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means summarized the Republican attitude best when he said in response to a question regarding this matter, he said, quote, ``There are worse things than it not happening.'' Now, that charming statement was echoed by the majority leader when he stated bluntly in regard to the passage of the Senate child tax credit, ``Ain't gonna happen.'' Now, this was entirely consistent with his previous opinions, of course. Earlier he said there is a lot of things more important than that. There are a lot of things more important than that? Like what? I mean, like what, Mr. Leader? Mr. Speaker, under the Republican plan, as you know, over 12 million children are left with no benefits, none; 178,000 of those kids are children in farming families; 567,000 are children of nurses and orderlies; 337,000 are children of school teachers charged with educating our kids. And, Mr. Speaker, embarrassingly, the Republican plan hits minority children in particular by leaving out 2.4 million African American children and 4.1 million Hispanic children. Leaves them out. So, Mr. Speaker, we need to get our priorities straight and decide who we are standing for. If we can help out millionaires, and that is not always a bad thing, but if we can help out millionaires and we have the $93,000 to give to a millionaire in 2003 alone, then we have enough money for a child tax credit to working men and women in this country, especially to our military. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Becerra motion to instruct.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, October 30, 2003, I was unavoidably detained by official business. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall votes 580, 581, and 582.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey, and I appreciate the participation in this effort tonight. Mr. Speaker, it is a good thing that our government is handing out no-bid contracts for minor purposes such as rebuilding the country of Iraq, because if the government was giving out no-bid contracts for important things like buying stationery at the county courthouse through a no-bid contract, somebody would be going to jail. Now, like many of us serving in the United States Congress today, I began my career as a local government official. I was a county judge in Texas in charge of the budget and the finances of the county. In Harrison County, Texas, if we needed a piece of equipment for the road and bridge department or fuel for the county, or if we needed any kind of equipment for the county; if we even needed a case of stationery, Mr. Speaker, do my colleagues know how we got that property for the government? We got it through a competitive bid process. That is the law. Now, in examining competitive bids in Texas, the law says to consider several factors, among them the vendor's price, the quality of goods and services, and past performance of contracts. Mr. Speaker, we considered those things in Texas because it was and is the law. But more than that, requiring bids is fiscally responsible and guarantees that we get the best deal for the taxpayer dollar. Additionally, it guarantees that we get the best service and the best quality product. Mr. Speaker, in all of my years in local government, I never had one constituent or one company complain about the bid process. It was the law, it was expected, it was proper, it was good business. It is good for government. It is good for the taxpayers, and it is good for American business. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I was shocked and my constituents who I have heard from have been appalled to learn that our Federal Government is awarding no-bid contracts. Now, this is no-bid contracts, not for stationery, no, not for stationery or a few thousand dollars, but no-bid contracts for billions of dollars to rebuild Iraq. No bid, no competition, no oversight, no nothing, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the United States has the finest construction experts in the world. We have the best education, the best technology, the best expertise, the best equipment and workers that the world has ever seen. Products made in America are the finest quality products made anywhere. Our workers, our products can stand any test, can stand any bid. That is why we do not need no-bid contracts. We do not need these secret deals. We do not need smoky back-room politics for billions of dollars. Now, we do need transparency. According to the Associated Press today, the government issued a noncompetition, no-bid contract to Halliburton for $1.59 billion to help rebuild Iraq. Now, why was there no bid? Why these secret deals, Mr. Speaker? Why are there back-room politics for billions of dollars? Also today, the AP announced that the contract was extended at a cost of $400 million. Again, why no bid? Why secret deals? Why do we have these back-room politics? Mr. Speaker, Halliburton and its subsidiaries are some of the top construction companies in the world. They can clearly compete for these contracts on their own merits, on their own past. They do not need no- bid contracts. They do not need back-room deals. They can do it on their own. And the same could be said of Bechtel, which has been granted a multibillion dollar monopoly franchise on infrastructure reconstruction contracts. Bechtel too is a top-rate company with top- rate abilities and top-rate employees. They can make it on their own and they want to, and they have. So this is not really a criticism of Halliburton and Bechtel. No-bid contracts, Mr. Speaker, are really good work if you can get them. That is some good work. No, this is a criticism of an administration which makes billions of no-competition, no-bid contracts available. It is a criticism of an administration that has a personal financial interest in government contracts. Mr. Speaker, it has been reported extensively in the press that the Vice President currently receives compensation from Halliburton. The Vice President has said that not all of those reports are true, and he said that he has no financial interest in Halliburton. We have heard our colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), read into the Record information concerning compensation to the Vice President and, importantly, the amount of stock and options he owns. Now, there is an easy way to put this to rest. The Vice President should state unequivocally that he receives no compensation from Halliburton, no deferred compensation from Halliburton, he owns no stock, receives no dividends, owns no options, has absolutely no financial interest of any sort which would include both him and his family. That would put an end to this issue permanently. That would be the end of it. I think everyone in this House and everyone in the American public would agree that the administration and members of the administration should not have any personal interest whatsoever in government contracts, period. And we have to abide by those rules in the House. Next, we should establish a policy to bid out these contracts and award the bids to the best bidder, taking into account cost, quality, and past performance. I am sure Halliburton and Bechtel would get some of these contracts. I am sure they can. But that is the process we go through. In other words, let us take a business-like approach. I believe that is what Halliburton and Bechtel and the others really want. They want contracts. They do not want politics. They do not want criticism. That is our obligation to the American taxpayer. Because do we know who is paying these exorbitant prices for these no-bid contracts? It is you and me. It is the American taxpayer. Many of us in this body support making at least some of the rebuilding funds to Iraq as a loan to be repaid. Many of us believe that Iraq should at least use some of its own oil to rebuild its own country. But this administration says no. They say we have to give the money away, and, on top of that, waste it with no-bid contracts, the money that we are giving away. Now, Mr. Speaker, we all agree that the United States has a part to play in rebuilding Iraq, and that is a laudable goal. Of course, many of us also believe that we have a part to play in rebuilding America, and we should pay just as much attention to rebuilding American schools and American roads and American infrastructure; that is our first obligation. Let us get started on that today. But, Mr. Speaker, we can bet that the contracts in America will be done by bid. That is the proper way to do business, and everybody in this House on both sides of the aisle knows it. It is the proper way to do business. It saves money. It is good for us all. We should expect no less than that in Iraq, and we should expect no less than that of our current administration.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New Jersey for yielding. Mr. Speaker, one time the House majority leader said, ``American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery.'' I think I would have to agree with that. I enjoyed listening to my colleague from Washington as he gave the quote, and I have a copy of that quote, and I began reading it. Without going through that long quote again, it does have a lot of relevance to the situation our country finds itself in today and to our debate tonight, where the leader says, ``I cannot support a failed foreign policy. The President began the mission with vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. There is no timetable, no legitimate definition of victory, no contingency plan for mission creep, no clear funding program.'' Those are the very issues that we debate today, and those are legitimate questions raised by the majority leader. Those are legitimate issues. That is a legitimate debate. Those comments were about, of course, the war in Kosovo. And while I may not agree with all of those points, I certainly do not see it as unpatriotic to raise those issues, just as it is not unpatriotic to raise those same issues today. Just last week, Mr. Speaker, as we engaged in one of the most important debates of this Congress on the $87 billion supplemental appropriations bill to fund the military reconstruction efforts in Iraq, not Kosovo, the majority leader denigrated the Members of the House who had the audacity to question the administration's Iraq policy or to ask for an accounting or to ask for a justification for the spending of taxpayer money. Those, just like in the Kosovo effort, were legitimate questions, it raised legitimate issues, it was a part of legitimate debate. It was a different war; it was a different political situation, different politics. Legitimate debate, different politics. And yet, once again, our majority leader equated a failure to blindly go along with the administration policy to be unpatriotic, while in actuality many on this side of the aisle wanted to make sure that the funds went directly to our servicemen and servicewomen and to their protection, and not just to the beneficiaries of no-bid contracts. Recently, the majority leader said this ``isn't about patriotism. It is about judgment.'' Certainly, Mr. Speaker, judgment requires a presentation of the facts, and judgment is important. But, speaking of judgment, in a press release the majority leader complained about what he called the ``vociferous Democratic critics,'' from Kerry to Dean, and Daschle to Pelosi, claiming they used ``hateful rhetoric.'' Now, what sort of judgment is that, when we are talking about legitimate debate, legitimate issues, about funding, about how we make sure our servicemen and servicewomen are protected in the field, and to call that hateful rhetoric? We may not agree in this House on all the points of the war effort. We do not even agree completely within the confines of each party, Mr. Speaker. That is clear. But it is our duty to examine these issues closely and to account for the American taxpayer dollar. It is our duty to exercise the judgment that the majority leader was speaking about. But I am sad to say he seems to be suffering from a crippling short memory. In questioning the administration's policy in Iraq, the manner in which it is handling operations in Iraq and the examining of the accounting, I would be interested to know how the majority leader would now characterize his own comments on the eve of the war in Kosovo. Many of them have been set forth tonight, but in case some of us have forgotten the rhetoric that was ``spewed,'' to use that term at that time, he said in April that ``this is the President's war.'' These are the comments made while we are in war, comments made about our Commander in Chief: ``This is the President's war.'' Next he said, ``There is no national interest of the United States in Kosovo. It is flawed policy. It was flawed to go in. I think this President is one of the least effective Presidents in my lifetime. He has hollowed our forces while running around the world with these adventures.'' That is what he said in 1999 about Kosovo, in the middle of a military action. He said, ``American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery.'' That is what he said. He said, ``Bombing a sovereign nation for ill- defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world.'' That is what was said by the majority leader in the middle of a conflict. He said, ``Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my complete opposition to sending American troops to Kosovo. There is simply no vision to this mission.'' Later he said, ``It is clear that any deployment in Kosovo will simply drag on and go enormously over budget,'' some of the same comments being made today. Later he said, ``So what they are doing here is they are voting to continue an unplanned war by an administration that is incompetent of carrying it out.'' In April he said, ``It is very simple: the President is not supported by the House and the military is supported by the House.'' The quotes go on and on. I do not want to bore this House with quote after quote after quote after quote, but the point is made. Those were legitimate issues, legitimate questions, legitimate things to debate in the House of Representatives. And while I do not agree with many of those points, I agree that it is legitimate to talk about these things in the greatest deliberative body that the world has ever known. And no one at the time questioned the patriotism of the leader or anyone setting forth those positions. He had no problem in questioning the legitimate action of American policy when it suited his political fancy, but now there are problems for those that question the actions we are taking today. When anyone speaks out criticizing the lack of accounting, the lack of justification for spending money, the lack of a plan, those folks are attacked as unpatriotic. I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that we look at what was said recently, on March 27 of this year, by the leader when he said, ``Now is not the time to question the carrying out of the present war.'' A week earlier he said, ``Rhetoric does nothing more than demoralize the troops.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, if rhetoric demoralizes the troops, I wonder what a lack of planning does. I wonder what a lack of equipment does. I wonder what a lack of preparation does. I wonder what a lack of an exit plan does. I wonder what those sorts of things do. Those are legitimate questions. The point being, it is hypocritical to raise them in one war, and it is then later unpatriotic to talk about it in the other. Either our majority leader was not supporting the troops in 1999, or he is the one that is spewing hypocrisy today. We are obligated, obliged in this body, to have an honest and full- throated debate about all the issues that are being brought up and about the accounting of the public's money for the support of this war effort. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to remember what Mahatma Gandhi said one time. He said, ``Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress,'' and Mark Shields said, ``Debate and dissent are the very oxygen of democracy.'' Mr. Speaker, our country faces many challenges today, both from within and from without. From within we face challenges of addressing a budget with record deficits, record debt, and reckless budgeting. We face a challenge of making prescription drugs available to our seniors. We have the challenge of educating our children and giving them access to quality health care at affordable prices. From without we face the threat from nameless, faceless, hateful terrorists who are bent on destroying the freedoms that we believe in this country are unalienable, granted to us by the Creator and protected by our Constitution and our Armed Forces. All of these issues deserve and demand a full debate and a complete examination. To turn this debate, this effort, this war effort into a political platform, to criticize or to call names or to point at one side or the other and say you are unpatriotic for asking for an accounting, for a justification, for asking that we air out the issues in this war is beneath this House. Our troops and our country deserve a full and complete debate on these issues. Our country supports knowing what our plan is, what we hope to accomplish, how we are going to get out, and how much it is going to cost. That is a complete support of the troops and our efforts, and our House needs to support the will of the American public in those areas. Calling one side or the other unpatriotic is simply improper.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my full ongoing support for the brave men and women engaged in the war on terrorism. In this great nation, we made a solemn commitment to strike from the face of this earth those fanatics who threaten our freedom and our civilization with acts of unrestrained barbarity. It is our firm resolve to achieve a stable and lasting peace, and, accordingly, we must devote the necessary resources to achieve that noble aim. Since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, we as a nation along with our allies have been engaged in a broad and violent battle against terror--against radicals who target and kill innocent men, women and children in a misguided struggle with the West, with freedom, with equality, with democracy. This battle continues today on many fronts, including, most prominently, Iraq and Afghanistan. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, we are called upon today to fulfill our constitutional responsibility to appropriate monies for our national defense. In reviewing the President's $87 billion request, I believe our first priority must be to provide our forces in Iraq the resources they need in order to complete their security mission throughout the country, prevent militias from taking hold, and enhance troop safety and security while they are performing their vitally important mission. Mr. Chairman, I want to make clear at the outset that, while I have grave concerns about the lack of accountability provided for in this legislation, I plan to support the legislation, because it is critically important that we do not leave the war on terror unfinished and our troops on the ground in Iraq less than safe and secure. On that point, I want to commend the members of the Appropriations Committee for making two critically important improvements to the President's request. The parents and families of the brave men and women who are now in harm's way in defense of our freedom will doubtless be relieved that this bill requires the Department of Defense to provide Kevlar flak jacket inserts--basic body armor--to our troops. In addition, I am pleased that the Appropriations Committee included specific direction requiring the provision of portable jammers to block the radio signals used to detonate the remote-controlled bombs that have been repeatedly used to kill and wound our troops. For reasons that defy comprehension, the current civilian leaders at the Pentagon failed to provide adequate supplies of these two types of equipment even after it became terribly apparent this summer that shortages were costing American lives. I was recently appalled to read multiple press reports describing how parents and spouses of our troops found it necessary to purchase body armor to protect their loved ones whom we placed in peril. How is it that we can spend tens of billions of dollars to fight a war on terror while not providing for the basic safety and security of the brave men and women that we have placed in harm's way? I just don't understand. I doubt those families do either. In addition to perpetuating an unaccounted for and unexplained policy, this bill is also inadequate to meet the needs of our nation's armed services. The Administration failed to consult with the uniformed leadership of the Pentagon in preparing its request. As a consequence, this bill only provides a tenth--10 percent--of the Army's stated needs for spare parts, reconditioning and depot maintenance for critically important heavy machinery. As a result, thousands of pieces of equipment, such as Bradley fighting vehicles and M1 tanks, equipment that the uniformed leadership of our armed services designate as vital to our military success, will sit idle in unusable condition throughout this year and well into the next. In my district, despite the ongoing war effort and the Army's need, my constituents--men and women who have devoted most of their working lives to maintaining our military's equipment needs--at Red River Army Depot are still not working at full capacity. To allow some of our military's most effective equipment to lay fallow is foolish and short-sighted. The men and women working for our national security at the Red River Army Depot and other depot facilities across the country stand ready--as they have for decades--to ensure that our military has all its heavy equipment needs met, and we should do no less. Let us resolve to give our military all that its uniformed leadership says it needs, not less. Mr. Chairman, the Republican leadership of this House frequently comes to the floor of this great body to denounce waste, fraud and abuse. Yet it has acted with a single-minded passion to thwart every effort by members of this House to seek an accounting of our nation's ongoing operations in Iraq. I understand as well as any members of this House the dangers that we confront in the war on terror. There is no question that the United States faces daunting and unprecedented challenges in combating an enemy unlike any other we have ever confronted before. Nevertheless, the Congress of the United States has a sacred and constitutional obligation to ensure that the American taxpayers' money is spend wisely and well. The United States Congress is not the President's personal ATM and should not be treated that way. Mr. Chairman, this bill does not provide the necessary accountability. The taxpayers of this nation sent us here to deliberate and debate, to discuss and dissect so that we can arrive at policies and practices that produce the best return on our nation's investment-- at home or abroad. However, Mr. Chairman, the Republican leadership of this House is determined to quell any debate or discussion. The Republican leadership of this House insists that to question the wisdom of this legislation or of this Administration's policy is to commit acts bordering on traitorous. Such accusations are mean-spirited and disingenuous. We have no less than a constitutional obligation to carefully consider each and every component part of this legislation and of this Administration's policy in Iraq. It is our responsibility. The founding fathers of this great nation gave us an important power, the power of the purse. To fail to exercise that power, including the necessary oversight, is to fail the people who elected us. There is nothing unpatriotic about questioning his legislation or the Administration's policy. As a matter of fact, it would be unpatriotic not to do so. As members of this House, we are obliged to ensure that the legislation that we pass, that becomes law, does what it purports to do and does it effectively and efficiently. Unfortunately, the leadership of this House seems to have a different view of our obligations as members of Congress than the Constitution contemplates. Accordingly, one has to ask, Why? Why does the leadership of this House refuse to permit a full-throated debate of both the monies being spent on our ongoing operations in Iraq and the policy underlying the provision of those resources? Why are we in Congress not entitled to have the Administration's plans and proposals explained to us in detail--not the broad brush explanations that this Administration insists we must accept? The legislation we debate today allocates $87 billion to our operations in Iraq. Yet the Administration has not offered--and the Republican leadership of this House has not allowed--a full and complete explanation of how these dollars will be spent. That is not acceptable. I have every confidence that if we called upon each taxpaying family in this country to write a check directly to the government to pay for our efforts in Iraq, they would demand to know exactly where their money was going. Our constituents would not sign a blank check, and neither should we. Moreover, Mr. Chairman, the supplemental appropriations provided in this bill are borrowed money. This legislation, however, noble its purpose, piles another $87 billion on to our already crippling national debt--a debt that will be paid by our children and grandchildren, by the brave men and women now serving in Iraq and their children and grandchildren. Personally, I am certain that the taxpaying families in my district will demand to know exactly how their money and that of their children and grandchildren is used, and I demand to know the details for them. Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand why there is an $18.6 billion gift in this bill devoted to building Iraq's infrastructure, when the Administration cannot even find the monies to fully and appropriately equip our own military personnel. I cannot understand why the taxpayers of the United States need to provide $18.6 billion in grants to Iraq, a country with the world's second largest oil reserves. Nevertheless, the President insists that loans are out of the question. Again, Mr. Chairman, I ask, Why? The Administration says that loans to Iraq are not workable, because Iraq has an unbearable debt load already. The Administration believes we should borrow $18.6 billion from the American taxpayer to build highways, hospitals, schools, houses, and community centers in Iraq, because Iraq has too much debt. Is this the same Iraq that the Administration said could pay for its own reconstruction six months ago? It certainly makes you wonder. I object to borrowing $18.6 billion from the American taxpayer to build infrastructure in Iraq, when we neglect our own citizens here at home. The Administration expresses considerable concern about the debt burden of the Iraqis but ignores the continuing fiscal crisis that confronts our own government. It is reported that Iraq has $100 billion in outstanding debts from the Saddam era, which is less than one quarter of the amount the Administration has piled onto our national debt in this year alone. The vast majority--at least 75 percent--of Iraq's debts are owed to its oil-rich neighbors--poor struggling nations such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Mr. Chairman, it is farcical for this House to accept the proposition that Iraq is unable to bear any additional debt--despite being the world's second most oil-rich nation--because it owes approximately $75 billion to its oil-rich neighbors. Mr. Chairman, I am firmly committed to fighting through to victory over terror. The American people are resolved to secure themselves against the threat to our freedom and democracy represented by a few violent fanatics. I support and share that resolve. Nevertheless, I continue to question the wisdom of this Administration's plan to conduct the war on terror. Our troops are in the field. They are in harm's way. This Congress must not do anything to compromise the safety and security of these brave men and women. Mr. Chairman, I will support the bill before the House today, but not without serious concerns. As we continue the war on terror, I would hope that the members of this House from both sides of the aisle will insist on true and complete accountability from this Administration for the expenditure of these funds. It is our right and obligation to do so. Failure to do that is failing the American people.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2297, the Veterans Benefits Act of 2003; however, I cannot in good conscience cast my vote for this measure without expressing my serious disappointment in the leadership of this House and its continuing refusal to fulfill the promises this Nation has made to its bravest and most loyal citizens--our veterans. As a result of the War on Terror, we have troops deployed at points all over the world. In the name of freedom and liberty, we are in the process of creating more veterans, yet we cannot do justice by our Nation's current veterans. I refuse to remain silent while Congress puts forth a bill that does not go nearly far enough to help the men and women who risked life and limb at our government's request. H.R. 2297 does not fulfill the promises that our Nation made to provide for health care, education, housing and burial rights for the brave soldiers who fought our battles. This Republican Congress has paid lip-service to veterans' issues, but they follow up their patriotic rhetoric with legislation that can only be described as an insult. I am disappointed that the President and the Republican leadership of the House have on more than one occasion characterized funding for veterans benefits as a drain on our economy. The so-called Republican leadership refuses to live up to its obligations, including the elimination of the profoundly unfair disabled veterans' tax, also known as Concurrent Receipt. The Disabled Veterans Tax is shorthand for a practice whereby the retirement pay earned by veterans with service connected disabilities is reduced dollar for dollar by the amount those veterans receive in disability payments. To put it more bluntly, our Nation's veterans--the men and women who fought to preserve the freedoms we all enjoy--are forced to pay their own disability compensation. Veterans with service- connected disabilities are the only Federal employees subject to this offset and are essentially given no additional pay for their sacrifice. The perpetuation of the Disabled Veterans Tax is just one example of how we have let our veterans down. It is unconscionable that those who have fought for this country are relegated to second class status. The fact of the matter remains that when America makes a promise to those who wear the uniform, that promise should be kept. Military retirement pay is just compensation for a career of honorable service. By contrast, compensation for service-connected disability is designed to assuage the veterans' suffering, pain, and lost future earning power. I am confident that this bill will get overwhelming support from the Members of this House, because it gives veterans some relief; however, it is not the best that we can do. I will support this bill, because it is right that we provide for the men and women who so valiantly fought for us. That said, I cannot help but ask why those who so often wrap themselves in the American flag and the language and symbolism of patriotism for political gain refuse to be real patriots and stand up to the President's threat to veto a repeal of the Disabled Veterans Tax. Why is it that we can spend our country deep into debt by giving tax cuts to the richest one-percent and building infrastructure in foreign lands--while at the same time creating new veterans--but we still can't find sufficient money for education, veterans' health care and an elimination of the Disabled Veterans Tax? There is too much left undone. Sadly, despite its noble goals, this bill leaves many promises unmet and that is just plain wrong. It is time to fulfill our commitment to the Nation's veterans. We can do better than this, and I hope that in the future we will do better than this. How can America hope to retain its military might if we continually refuse to fulfill our promises to the servicemen and women who came before; the men and women who bravely served our country in its darkest hours, our Nation's veterans? Who will carry the banner of the American ideals and protect this great land, if this government lets fighting men and women fall by the wayside? Those who fought in two World Wars, in Korea, in Vietnam, in Iraq and every conflict before and in between kept their promise to this great Nation. They served us in the name of freedom, and they served us well. The next time the opportunity to do right by our veterans presents itself, I hope that the Administration and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will not diminish the greatness of these United States but rather will ensure that their deeds match their rhetoric in helping us keep America's promise to its veterans.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, we have a very important question to answer today: Should we provide prescription drugs for all seniors, or should we provide tax shelters for the few? That is our question. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in instructing the conferees on H.R. 1 to make our Nation's seniors our top priority as set forth in the Schakowsky motion to instruct. The prescription drug bill that is before us is supposed to help and not harm our seniors, and yet H.R. 1 has 12 million seniors in this country running scared. These are supposedly the fortunate seniors, the ones who work for companies that promised they would provide retiree health coverage if the employees put in the time required. But the flawed structure of H.R. 1 will ultimately destroy that commitment. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that up to 32 percent of retirees will lose their employer-sponsored coverage and drug benefits under the House bill. Thirty-two percent of America's seniors, the retirees, will lose their employer-sponsored coverage under the House bill. That is unacceptable. A separate study by economist Ken Thorpe came to similar conclusions and noted that in my home State of Texas, 280,000 retirees would lose coverage. That is one-quarter of a million seniors. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is just not exactly the kind of thing that you want to put in your constituent newsletter that you send back home. Now, this is ridiculous. Why are we pretending to fix one problem while causing another? The CBO has noted that H.R. 1 would provide, and this is a quote, ``provide a clear financial disincentive for employers to supplement the part D benefit.'' A disincentive. It blatantly discriminates against employers who provide retiree health coverage by providing better Federal subsidies when an employer drops coverage than when an employer retains coverage. What kind of reasoning is that? The Republicans like to say this is a voluntary benefit, but that implies, ``voluntary,'' that our seniors have a choice. I can say with full certainty that none of our seniors with retiree coverage would choose this detrimental program to be enacted into law. I know Texans would not. I know the 32 percent who will be losing their coverage would not. So let us spend our money wisely. Let us direct it at protecting our retirees' hard-earned benefits. We can do that by eliminating HSAs today. The majority claims we cannot afford, we cannot afford, to offer comprehensive coverage for our seniors' drug needs. But we can afford to allocate over $174 billion in tax cuts to the inclusion of Health Savings Accounts. That shows where our priorities are. HSAs will certainly help the wealthiest individuals for whom they offer yet another opportunity for another tax shelter. But for middle America, for the people I represent and most of us represent, HSAs will result in employers reducing coverage for American families by, one, increasing deductibles; and two, shifting cost to employees. Understand, there is no requirement to pass on the savings. We need prescription drugs for all, not a shelter for the few.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity today. We have an opportunity to make prescription drugs both available and affordable to our Nation's seniors. We have an opportunity to slam the door shut on the giant Republican-sponsored gap in coverage in their so-called prescription drug bill, aka the HMO Enrichment Act. We have an opportunity today to help people in need, not HMOs in want. How do we do that? We must close the gap in coverage in prescription drugs that has been invented and advanced by our friends on the other side of the aisle, and we can do that by supporting this instruction. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, the Republican drug plan provides absolutely no prescription drug coverage at all to our Nation's seniors between the amounts of $2,000 and $5,000; but even though they are receiving absolutely no coverage, they are required to pay a premium each and every month. Who wrote that provision, the HMOs? They expect to get paid a monthly premium every month like clockwork and provide absolutely no benefits to the seniors. That is outrageous, and how, oh, how, Mr. Speaker, can our Republican friends support such an outrageous position and favor the wealthy HMOs over our worthy seniors? How can they take that position? Mr. Speaker, some on the other side of the aisle say we cannot afford to make prescription drugs available to seniors. It is not that we cannot afford it. Let us be honest. It is that they do not want to do that because, Mr. Speaker, apparently we can afford huge tax cuts to the top 1 percent of American wage earners, but we cannot afford a prescription drug coverage. Apparently, we can afford to allocate $174 billion in tax cuts through the inclusion of HSAs, but we cannot afford prescription drug coverage. Understand, Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no requirement that the HSAs pass on savings to the employees. In fact, it is likely that employers will further burden American families by increasing deductibles and shifting costs to the employees; and understand, HSAs will not reduce the record number of uninsured in this country, and HSAs will not make prescription drugs more available for American seniors. It does none of that. In fact, just the opposite is true. While HSAs will help almost no one in America, if we use those funds, that $174 billion with a B, we could help address the prescription drug needs for everyone in America. Let us keep our priorities straight in this Congress. Let us do something to benefit all Americans, not just the wealthy. Please join me and America's seniors in supporting this motion to instruct by my fine colleague. We need prescription drugs for all, not just a tax shelter, Mr. Speaker, for the few.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to my colleague's motion to instruct conferees to include means testing in H.R. 1. Such an instruction is opposed by America's seniors and would be a horrible mistake for this body. Let us make no mistake about the nature of the gentleman's motion. It is simply another step along the Republican plan to completely destroy Medicare. It is as simple as that. Implementing means testing obliterates the fundamental tenet of Medicare as a universal insurance program for everyone in this country. That is the foundation of Medicare. That is what it is. Efforts to means test Medicare destroys that program. If this provision survives the conference, a provision that was soundly defeated in the United States Senate, our Congress would be the first in history to tax the middle class twice for their benefits. It is important to remember that means testing is not just for wealthy celebrities, as has been discussed. It applies to our Nation's middle class, to people making about $60,000 a year. In both the House and the Senate drug plans our seniors already have to endure large gaps in coverage, gaps where they get no coverage but they have to pay a premium. Under this provision many of our middle- class seniors will not enjoy catastrophic limit protection until they personally spend $11,000. That is not fair, and it equates to no plan at all. Further, when we talk about means testing, we cannot forget Medicare financing. Today, every Medicare beneficiary gets the same benefits and pays the same percentage of taxes into the program. This means those with higher incomes have been paying more into Medicare. This means that under this motion the very individuals that Congress wants to deny benefits to have been paying a larger proportion of the funds that sustain Medicare. Now, on a side note I find it very ironic that the majority, which claims to want to minimize the government's role in our citizen's lives, will be creating a significant new government bureaucracy through means testing, one that will threaten the privacy of our Nation's seniors. After all, in addition to this provision, the Medicare administrator will be sending the IRS the names and incomes of seniors who will then forward this confidential information on to private insurance companies. That is kind of inconsistent, especially with Congress's strict demands on hospitals regarding the privacy provisions of HIPAA. We do not need to embark on this dangerous path to dismantle Medicare. We do not need to give up the privacy of our seniors. Do not let the IRS send your private financial information to private insurance companies. We have to respect our seniors. We have to respect our commitment to our Nation's seniors. Our elderly need stability in their health care. They have earned it, and they deserve it. I urge Members to vote against this motion, protect our seniors, protect their privacy, defeat this motion, and let us focus our efforts on a strong Medicare and on a prescription drug plan that makes drugs available and affordable for all of America's seniors.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask several questions. Why does the Republican leadership in this House want to put an additional tax on our veterans? Why does the Republican leadership in this House oppose eliminating the disabled veterans tax? Why is it okay to eliminate taxes for millionaires in this country, our most privileged, but not eliminate tax for our veterans? Why is that, Mr. Speaker? Why? Mr. Speaker, as you know, under current law, disabled American veterans who are entitled to military retirement benefits have their retirement benefits reduced dollar for dollar by the amount they receive in disability payments. Now, they earn their military retirement, and they earn disability pay. However, these amounts are all set against each other. Why does the Republican leadership and the administration support such a situation for our veterans in this country? Military retirees and veterans with service-connected disabilities are the only Federal employees subject to this offset and are essentially funding their own disability benefits. They are funding their disability with their own money that they earned serving this country. As a result, the disabled veterans tax, that is supported by the administration and the Republican leadership, subjects our Nation's veterans to worse treatment than any other class of Federal retirees, bar none. The Bush administration contends that allowing military veterans to draw their earned benefits is too costly, and it competes with funding that we need for other very important matters, such as tax cuts for millionaires. A dollar is a dollar. While the Republican leadership has concluded that devoting $58 billion over 10 years to relieve an unconscionable burden for nearly 700,000 of our Nation's veterans is a budget buster, they see absolutely no problem of giving away approximately $90 billion over that same period to 184,000 people in this country that are making $1 million or more per year. The hypocrisy of that is shocking. It is galling, and it is shameful. The other body is doing the right thing. In its version of the fiscal year 2004 Defense authorization legislation, the Senate has provided for full and immediate disability payments without any offset from the military retirement benefit to which they are entitled. That is doing the right thing. Mr. Speaker, we can do the right thing in this House. We can stand up for the veterans against the Republican leadership, Mr. Speaker, and against the administration, and say we are going to do the right thing. We are fighting to pass bipartisan legislation on this side, H.R. 303, the Retired Pay Restoration Act, to help the more than 700,000 disabled veterans who are military retirees. We believe on this side that it is important that our disabled military retirees receive both the disability pay and retirement pay that they have earned and that they deserve. It is critical for the administration to stop penalizing our disabled veterans at the very time we have our military in harm's way. We have to stop penalizing disabled veterans, if we are going to fulfill our commitment to those who served the country. Let us respect our veterans. Let us do the right thing and give our veterans what they have earned.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of scheduling, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, is there an idea about what time we might know tomorrow about the upcoming week's schedule so that our Members can make their scheduling for airplanes or other modes of transportation and deal with their families and events at home?

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, in the event that we do meet late next week, during the week would our business that week be consideration of the Iraq supplemental appropriations legislation? And, if so, can Members be assured that we will have a fair process for consideration of that bill, a process that would allow full debate so that Members will have the ability to address all of their concerns of justification and accountability?

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I will reclaim my time. Mr. Speaker, it was indicated that there was hope to have a schedule available as soon as tomorrow for the month of October. As of right now, is there an expectation that we would have legislative business during the week of October 6, 2003, even though the other body has decided not to be in session during the week?

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I note that it was indicated that we could be working late into the evening next Friday. And, of course, that is contingent on many things. But I would like to know if there is a possibility that we will not be working late next Friday so that the Members can schedule their transportation needs, and also would request an answer to why we would be working late next Friday and confounding scheduling when we have not been working on Mondays and Fridays in the past.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the way this bill currently stands is nothing more than a misrepresentation and a bait and switch. The leadership has used smoke and mirrors to trick our seniors into thinking that they are getting a Medicare prescription drug plan and into thinking that our hospitals will be adequately reimbursed while, in reality, we are forcing our seniors to seek medication from private insurance companies and HMOs that will set the price and set the benefits and we are taking money away from our hospitals. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer this motion to instruct the conferees on H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003 and ask to remember our Nation's 9.3 million rural Medicare beneficiaries as they continue their critical deliberations. The legislation that I speak of today, as I mentioned, is much more than simply a drug bill, it is a testament to our commitment to quality-of- life issues for our Nation's seniors in our communities. Modern health care today requires a comprehensive system that depends on access to needed prescription drugs, certainly. It depends on physician care and hospital treatment. All of those needs must be addressed. When access is denied, treatment fails and people suffer. As H.R. 1 stands today, our rural communities all across Texas and all across the Nation will suffer. Everyone here knows that our Nation's rural hospitals are desperately in need of assistance. Over the past 25 years, Mr. Speaker, more than 470 hospitals across America have closed. That is unacceptable. That impacts primarily rural America. This is very devastating for rural citizens. Due to the fact that rural seniors have a lack of access to preventive care, that causes them to have higher incidences of chronic illnesses like heart disease, arthritis and things of that nature. Medicare is a significant source of payment for rural health care providers because of the higher proportion of seniors in rural areas. We must provide the strongest reimbursement aid possible by taking the best of the House and the best of the Senate bills. The House bill's rural assistance provisions contradict each other by offering funding through one avenue and slashing it through the market basket. This measure, as proposed by the House, denies hospitals $12 billion of desperately needed assistance, nearly $9 billion of which would go to rural hospitals, the hospitals with the most challenge. In my home State of Texas, over $420 million will be lost. That is all in the name of fiscal responsibility. That is a false savings, Mr. Speaker, and it is a savings that endangers the lives of Americans, especially in rural America. This cost-saving measure certainly will not save hospitals but it will cost them and their patients dearly. How much do we as a Congress expect our hospitals to endure? Our rural hospitals are barely scraping by on what Medicare and Medicaid already paid. In the name of patient safety, we ordered them to comply with Federal mandate after Federal mandate from EMTALA to HIPPA but then failed to grant the funding to ensure quality of care is provided. Let me tell the Members here no one will expect care to be provided if these hospitals close. It just will not be availability, and with that elimination of care will follow a massive elimination of jobs critical to our local economies and endangering our local families. Rural seniors in hospitals are getting a raw deal here, Mr. Speaker. We all know that. They are not looking for anything extra. They are just looking for something equitable, something fair. Join with me and do at least that much today for our hospitals, for our doctors, and for our rural patients in rural communities. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.