Max Sandlin

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Today, we stand. Reflecting on the chill of yesterday with the silence of death and the stench of terrorism in the air, we stand. We stand united. We stand committed. We stand determined. We stand confident. We stand, and we shall overcome. Edmund Burke once said, ``All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.'' Mr. Terrorist, make no mistake about it, we will act. We will be patient but deliberate. We will be open but focused. We will not seek senseless revenge, but we will insist on justice. And justice will be decisive, swift, compelling, horrible, and justified. Woe be to those that call evil good. Woe be to the terrorists who claim some sort of victory today. Woe be to the murderers who celebrate the killing of innocent people. You will soon be dancing to a very different tune. You terrorists will find no hysteria here. You will find no fear. We are in no ways tired. In fact, we speak with a united voice and stand behind our President who said that those who took part in this horrible act and those who harbor these criminals will be held accountable. Today, as we seek solace from the icy pain of yesterday, do not seek God in the churches, temples, or mosques of this country; do not seek justice in the halls of Congress or in our courtrooms. For God is in the streets and homes of America. Justice is in the wings of the world theater, preparing to be released in a focused fury. Harriet Tubman, once complimented on her humanitarian efforts, responded, ``'Twasn't me. 'Twas the Lord. I always told him, `I trust to you. I don't know where to go or what to do, but I expect you to lead me,' and he always did.'' We can expect that same leadership today. Thank God we live in America. May he bless this country and our efforts.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 7 in its current form. Churches and charitable organizations have always played an important role in our society. They operate food banks, provide services for victims of domestic violence, operate after school programs, and provide counseling services. Many of these organizations currently use federal grants or other sources of federal funds to operate these programs. Use of federal funds for these programs is allowed under current law. I believe faith based organizations should be able to work in partnership with the federal government to operate these programs as they currently do. Communities of faith in this country give of their time and money to help those who are less fortunate. We in the federal government can and should assist them in that mission when appropriate. While the motivation behind H.R. 7 is honorable in theory, the bill unfortunately has serious flaws. This bill would make it possible for religious groups to use taxpayer money to discriminate, not just on the basis of a prospective employee's religion, but also on the basis of his or her failure to practice that group's religious doctrine. No one should be required to be of a particular faith in order to obtain a federally funded job. Furthermore, the bill sets a dangerous precedent by allowing government agencies to convert funding for a program into vouchers to religious organizations. By providing such vouchers, the federal government would permit these organizations to use federal tax dollars for sectarian instruction, worship, and proselytization. In this country, we have a long history of supporting separation of church and state. We have a diverse religious make-up--something we celebrate, We must protect that diversity. By allowing religious institutions to receive federal funds without complying with federal laws, we discourage diversity. Mr. Speaker, a broad coalition of religious organizations, education organizations, and civil rights groups oppose H.R. 7 in its current form. These groups include the American Federation of Teachers, American Jewish Congress, the Baptist Joint Committee, the NAACP, the National Education Association, the PTA, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism, and the Union of American Hebrew Congregations. When this many religious organizations are opposed to the bill, maybe we should ask ourselves what is wrong with the bill.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this outrageous amendment. For patients, this amendment is a lose-lose situation. It is heads, the HMOs win, and tails, the patients lose. Just a couple of points. This presumption, do you realize there is a rebuttable presumption that creates a hurdle so high that patients will never be able to recover? I have been in this situation before. Do you know that courts will be giving written instructions to juries to say the insurance company won before and the insurance company ought to win again, and that is the burden you are putting on them. You are also increasing the burden on punitives. You are making it outrageous. You are increasing it to clear and convincing. That will never happen. The biggest fraudulent change of all was done in the dark of the night where the standard was changed from a proximate cause to the proximate cause. That was not done by accident, it was done to gut the entire bill. If someone dies from a heart attack, for example, and was denied treatment, the death will not be from the lack of treatment, it will be from the heart attack, and they lose. This entire bill has been gutted. We all know what happened. We worked 5 years on this bill, and last night it was undone in a matter of minutes, and we know what happened.

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, last night one could watch network TV or C-SPAN and by switching back and forth one could watch two shows, ``Let's Make a Deal'' and ``The Price Is Right.'' If one listened very closely in the middle of night, one could almost hear the White House say, Come on down. You are our next contestant. We still do not know what was behind doors 1, 2, or 3; and we are wondering what the grand prize was. We know this amendment was filed for political cover. Let us be straight about it. That being said, let us get to the facts. All of us are concerned about the high cost of medical care. However, medical malpractice does not contribute to that. An October 1992 study of the Congressional Budget Office concluded and said: Malpractice insurance premiums account for less than one penny of each dollar spent annually on the Nation's health care. A study funded by the Texas Medical Association, the Trial Lawyers' Association, the Texas Hospital Association said: Changing the medical professional liability system will have minimal cost savings impact on their overall health care delivery system in Texas. Many factors contribute to increased medical costs. This is not one of them. Vote no on Thomas-Cox. It is pure politics. We know it. It is nothing more and the patients lose. parliamentary inquiry

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, there is an old Charlie Daniels song that goes, ``The devil went down to Georgia. He was lookin' for a soul to steal. He was in a bind, he was way behind, and he was willing to make a deal.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, it seems that we have a similar situation in the House today. Only this time instead of betting a fiddle of gold, we are betting patients' lives in America. The administration has been in a bind; they have been way behind. When the House took up the patients' bill of rights 2 years ago, it passed with 275 votes in this House, with 68 of them coming from the Republican side of the aisle. That was a bipartisan patients' bill of rights. So the administration went down to Georgia and made a deal. In that deal, they sold out the patients. They tried to ensure that insurance company clerks made medical decisions in this country. They tried to ensure that insurance companies do not have responsibility for the decisions they make. They created a new legal standard in court that says, the insurance companies are right, the patient has to prove them wrong, and they increased the burden. Mr. Speaker, we have had enough of these deals. It is time to enact a real patients' bill of rights, one that gives some protections. There will be a Democratic caucus meeting at 11 o'clock, 345 Cannon, to discuss the patients' bill of rights.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, the word of the day today is disappointment. Let me ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, what are you afraid of? Once again in the middle of the night, the Republican leadership has produced a rule that blocks numerous Democratic amendments, it blocks discussion, it blocks debate, it blocks a balanced energy plan; and contrary to the representations made on the floor this morning, no Blue Dog perfecting amendment was offered to be in order. No Blue Dog amendment was to be voted on. No Blue Dog amendment is part of our decision this morning. It blocks an alternative for our perfecting amendment, and that is just not fair. In 1992, the last time Congress considered comprehensive energy legislation, we talked about it for days and for weeks. Congress was given the parameters of this debate only this morning. Now within a few hours we are expected to vote on a national energy policy affecting this country for decades to come. That shows a lack of leadership. It is very disappointing. The Democratic perfecting amendment includes a balanced, forward- looking energy policy for the country. It includes tax incentives for increased production of domestic, natural gas and oil production by our small, independent producers. It provides access to capital for refining capacity and natural gas distribution. It facilitates construction of the Alaska natural gas pipeline. But our plan is balanced. It does more: It requires the Federal Government to buy more energy-efficient central air conditioners; It strengthens the household appliance standby power efficiency standards; It directs the DOE to reinstate central air conditioning and heat pump efficiency standards issued by the last administration; It fully funds research and development of clean coal technology, not a game of bait and switch; It funds renewable energy at twice the rates of the Republican plan. Are these good provisions? We think they are. But we will never know because we are not going to debate them because we did not get the opportunity to present amendments. We were shut out from the process, shut out from the debate as the American people have been. I guess the public will never know. Vice President Cheney recently correctly said we cannot conserve our way out of this current problem. But neither can we produce our way out. We have to do both.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the Congress to help a young friend of mine, Anna Kate Gunn. I am also asking the Congress to help over 1 million other young children in this country who, like Anna Kate, suffer from the disease of juvenile diabetes. I hold in my hand a book of children from all over this country, all races, all creeds, all colors, all languages, faces of hope, faces that are looking to us to try to do the right thing, faces of other children with juvenile diabetes. Our country is too strong, it is too great, it is too powerful, and it is too rich not to help our children by stopping juvenile diabetes in its tracks right now. Mr. Speaker, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation just concluded its 2001 Children's Congress here in Washington. This year, 200 delegates representing all 50 States gathered to meet with policymakers to ask our support as we make decisions about legislation that will impact funding for diabetes research. Diabetes is a chronic debilitating disease that affects every organ system in the body. Type 1 diabetes or juvenile diabetes lasts a lifetime. Those who are stricken with this disease must take insulin just to live. However, insulin does not cure diabetes or prevent the possibility of its eventual devastating affects. Those affects include kidney failure, blindness, nerve damage, amputation, heart attack, stroke. More than 1 million Americans have juvenile diabetes. A new case of juvenile diabetes is diagnosed every single hour in this country. Diabetes shortens the life expectancy of these children by 15 years. It is the single most costly chronic disease. It totals more than $105 billion of annual health care spending in the United States of America. Anna Kate Gunn, my young friend from Texas, came by the office today with her parents and her grandfather, Gene Stallings, a well-known sports hero, former coach of the Texas Cowboys, of Texas A&M, of Alabama, of St. Louis. Anna Kate was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes when she was 11 months old. Now, at age 3, she endures three insulin injections a day and 8 to 10 finger pricks a day to check her blood sugar level. Without a cure for juvenile diabetes, Anna Kate will have to live with these injections, with these finger pricks for the rest of her life. One of the funding decisions we make in Congress will be a part that involves stem cell research, a critical part of research in this area. This breakthrough research holds great promise in the cure and treatment of many diseases afflicting Americans and many disabilities including juvenile diabetes. There are three sources of stem cells, embryonic, fetal, and adult stem cells. Each of these types of cells is very different from the others and all are needed to advance research. Specifically, embryonic stem cell research offers hope to the more than 1 million American children like Anna Kate who suffer from juvenile diabetes. These cells have the potential to become insulin producing cells because of their unique potential to differentiate into any human type of cell. It is necessary for researchers to understand how embryonic stem cells work before they can get the full affect of the adult stem cell research. Federal support for embryonic stem cell research is essential to the work that scientists are doing to create therapies for a range of serious and currently intractable diseases. By impeding embryonic stem cell research, we risk unnecessary delay for millions of patients, millions of children across this country who may die or endure needless suffering while the effectiveness of adult stem cells is evaluated. Certainly, there are legitimate ethical concerns and issues raised by this research. However, it is important to understand that the cells being used in this research were destined to be discarded. The cells used are destined to be discarded. They are destined to be discarded. Under these circumstances, it would be tragic to waste this opportunity to pursue the work that could potentially alleviate human suffering especially in our children. For the past 35 years, many of the common human virus vaccines have been produced in cells derived from the human fetus to the benefit of tens of millions of Americans. Clearly, there is a precedent for the use of fetal tissue that would otherwise be discarded. This is not a political issue. It is an issue of human responsibility. It is an issue of human decency. It is an issue of doing what is right by our children in this country. Furthermore, the American public overwhelmingly supports this research. In a poll conducted earlier this year, 65 percent of those surveyed said they support Federal funding stem cell research. It is the right thing to do. Stem cell research is still in the early stages. In order to receive the full benefits of the research, there must be additional study. Federal funding of this research ensures public oversight and accountability among researchers receiving Federal grants. These researchers will be required to adhere to strict guidelines that do not govern private research. Further, Federal funding will allow many scientists to expand the research in this critical area, thus hastening the discovery of therapies. Mr. Speaker, we fund many worthwhile projects in the United States Congress. Surely, we can advance funds to save the lives of our children in this country. Putting an end to public support of this research would have a devastating effect on the future of research in numerous diseases. Congress and the administration should allow this important research to continue, if not for the sake of science, for the sake of Anna Kate and children all across this country that are similarly situated. Please remember those faces looking at us, faces looking at us in trust and in hope. We cannot let them down. Mr. Speaker, let us do the right thing by America's children.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into a brief colloquy with the chairman. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the committee has included assistance for damages incurred by severe southern ice storms last winter. On January 8, 2001, President Clinton issued a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas due to the severity and magnitude of the damage caused by the ice storms. In Texas alone, the United States Department of Agriculture and the Texas Forest Service assessed damages to over 70,000 acres of non-industrialized private forestland with an estimated economic impact of over $46 million. I want to clarify that the committee recognizes that Texas private and public landowners incurred substantial damage resulting from the ice storms of December 12 to January 8, 2001.

Mr. SANDLIN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I also want to clarify that the $10 million provided for the U.S. Forest Service, State and private forestry account for emergency activities associated with the ice storm damages includes the States of Arkansas, Oklahoma and Texas. Additionally, I wish to inquire if the omission of the State of Texas from this section of the bill was merely inadvertent?

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership and diligence in bringing this bill to the floor. I appreciate the gentleman working on this matter.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, today, Congress will approve a significant tax relief package, outlining a fiscal path that promises lower taxes but creates a less certain budget picture. I believe Americans need tax relief, and I will support this tax cut bill because it is the best we can produce at this time. In many crucial respects, however, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act is flawed. In some cases, promised tax benefits are delayed for several years, while additional valuable tax credits for education and inducements for personal savings expire only a few years after enactment. Politics, however, is built on principled compromise between different policy positions and, in voting in favor of this bill, I will not let the friend of the perfect be the enemy of the good. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act provides significant tax relief for millions of Americans by correcting the marriage penalty and eliminating the estate tax. I support eliminating the estate tax and correcting the marriage penalty. The burden imposed on working families and some family businesses by these two taxes far outweighs the moderate revenue generated for the federal government. Although this bill addresses both of these items, the tax relief is either incomplete or delayed over an unreasonable length of time. I favor an immediate fix to the marriage penalty--a penalty that causes half of all married couples to pay an average of $1,100 in federal income tax--by doubling the standard deduction for married couples effective 2002. As an original cosponsor of legislation to eliminate this penalty, I have met with many married couples throughout my district who, as a result of committing to marriage, pay a higher percentage of federal income tax. Unfortunately, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act delays full implementation until 2005, putting off much needed relief for millions of families. Bipartisan majorities on several occasions have supported an immediate repeal, correcting this costly quirk in the federal tax code. A key priority I have championed since my first campaign for Congress is the elimination of the federal estate tax. One of the first bills I introduced as a Member of Congress was legislation to repeal the federal estate tax. Taxing a small business or family farmer after the owner has passed is the ultimate disincentive to small business and to a family's dream to pass down a business, profession, or craft to future generations. On three separate occasions over the past two years, the House of Representatives approved legislation to completely repeal the estate tax. During each vote, I stood with those who believe the government should not tax a life's hard work. Today, I again join my colleagues in pursuing the elimination of this tax. Although bipartisan majorities support the elimination of the estate tax, I am frustrated with the delaying tactics and extended timelines contained in the final bill. As part of a series of tricks to hide the true cost of the tax cut, Republican negotiators have stretched estate tax repeal over the next decade. In fact, complete repeal will not take effect until after 2011, outside the ten-year budget framework and thus removed from our budget Throughout the tax debate, I have stood with a coalition of fiscally responsible Democrats--the Blue Dog Coalition--emphasizing a responsible budget plan that retires the debt, strengthens Social Security and Medicare, addresses our common priorities and provides meaningful tax relief. The Blue Dog Coalition demands fiscal honesty and a candid assessment of the projected long-range federal budget surplus, which is at the root of our efforts to pass significant tax relief. Earlier this year, the House rushed through a tax plan prior to establishing clear guidelines to reduce our $5 trillion national debt. I opposed this approach. It is fiscally irresponsible to cut revenues before identifying important priorities in defense, education, healthcare, and setting a glide path toward debt reduction. As part of the budget process, the Blue Dog Coalition advocated for a fair and realistic budget plan before passing tax legislation. The tax package and budget plan, although not perfect, does provide a roadmap for reducing taxes and contains a commitment to fund important priorities. Although I support today's historic vote to lower taxes, I remain concerned that Congress has not put in place a mechanism to ensure that we do not return to deficit spending. A group of moderate Senate Members proposed the inclusion of a trigger provision, triggering each stage of the tax cut on successful debt payments with actual surplus funds. I support this common sense, fiscally responsible approach to lowering taxes because the 10-year $5.6 trillion projected budget surplus is built on unrealistic spending assumptions and economic growth rates. These projections have been wrong over and over again. In fact, over the last five years these projections were off the mark by an average of $58 billion a year. We do have a budget surplus this year--and a large projected 10-year surplus--but we also carry a crushing $5 trillion national debt racked up over 35 years of deficit spending. Tying future tax cuts to budget surpluses would act as an insurance policy making certain that Congress does not backslide and return to an era of fiscal irresponsibility. This bill provides tax relief for millions of Americans. Phasing out the marriage penalty, increasing the child tax credit, and expanding the earned income tax credit are three provisions within this bill that especially benefit working families. I am glad both sides agreed to include these beneficial cuts. I have outlined my concerns where Congress could have worked to craft a better bill. Phasing in significant portions of this plan next year and creating a mechanism guaranteeing that tax cuts do not occur at the expense of deficits are a few of my concerns. Although these reservations give me pause in enacting this tax plan, I believe that on balance, this bill will reduce taxes on American families, encourage savings, and give Americans greater control over their financial future.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, on May 8, 2001, after extensive negotiations, the Senate agreed to a ten-year budget plan that provides for the consideration of significant tax relief and sets in place a responsible spending plan. I was glad that the Senate acted in a bipartisan manner passing a budget that offers immediate tax relief for millions of middle-class families by shifting part of the benefits to lower-wage earners. The Senate's action demonstrates that when both sides are prepared to compromise the American people win. It is unfortunate that the House Republican Leadership refuses to follow the example set in the Senate and work with Democratic Members of Congress in constructing a balanced and fair tax package that benefits America's working families. I support tax relief. I support lowering the tax burden on married couples by eliminating the marriage penalty and I favor the immediate doubling of the Child Tax Credit from $500 to $1,000 per child. We should extend tax relief for working families who pay more payroll tax than income tax and make the Child Tax Credit refundable. Unfortunately, today's vote only offers a solution to part of the problem of high taxes. The House Republican Leadership has chosen to resurrect a tax bill that provides nearly half of the benefits to the richest one-percent of Americans. I agree that we need to lower the burden of income taxes on many families, but I fail to understand why, when presented with the opportunity to address other important tax items, the Republican Leadership fails to work with Members of the other party. The Senate has chosen the path of compromise and embraced the spirit of bipartisanship in crafting a budget that makes room for a tax cut and also meets our obligations. I am disappointed that the House Leadership insists on jamming through an irresponsible tax cut that fails to offer relief for millions of married couples or small businessman. We can do better and it is my desire for Congress to ultimately pass a balanced and comprehensive tax relief package. Today's vote is not the final word on providing long-term tax relief to American families. Congress will have an opportunity to consider a package of tax cuts that is fair and that includes relief for millions of other Americans. I sincerely hope that the House Republican Leadership will choose to work with their Senate colleagues in a constructive fashion to incorporate additional balanced tax proposals that encourage savings, help married couples, and allow family businesses to plan for the future.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this budget conference report. As we near the end of the school year, we expect our children to put forth their best effort in school and pass the final exams. The American people have the same expectation of this Congress. As we put forth our finishing touches on the budget agreement, they expect us to pass. Unfortunately, this report earns a failing grade. I hoped the conference would reach an agreement that I could support. Unfortunately, there was no conference. There was no bipartisanship. The alleged bipartisanship was nothing more than a sham. Not everyone was included. Had there been a true bipartisan effort, we would have met our obligation to our most vulnerable citizens and earned a passing grade from the American public. We have an obligation to our children. In this country, that obligation requires us to provide them with the best public education that is possible. But this conference report fails to meet that obligation. It does not increase education spending. It does not increase investment in education to our children. In fact, it provides $21 billion less than President Bush requested for education spending. We have an obligation to our parents for prescription drugs. This conference report does not provide funds for a prescription drug benefits. In fact, it raids the Medicare fund to pay for money already set aside. That is robbing Peter to pay Paul. I urge my colleagues to oppose this report.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, in the words of President Reagan, there they go again. Fresh from the missing page debacle, we are back with more of the same. It seems that pieces of paper are not the only things missing as we appear here today. The administration and the leadership talk a very good game. They tell us they want to increase education spending, they tell us they want a prescription drug plan for seniors, they tell us they want funding for disaster relief. But the numbers say something entirely different, because they just do not compute; they just do not add up. The American public will not be fooled. Because, in fact, it seems there is a lot more missing than two pieces of paper. Missing: there was $21 billion in education funding missing from this budget. This budget, as filed last week, provides even less money than the President requested in his budget; $21 billion less than requested. The leadership talks a good game about a bipartisan education bill; and that is all well and good, but having a bipartisan bill and talking about it does not do much when a good-faith effort is not made to fund education for our children. Missing: The explanation. The explanation of how to adequately fund a Medicare prescription plan is missing from the budget. President Bush has suggested that we spend about $115 billion on a program to help seniors. Everyone else in the country seems to acknowledge that it will take at least a minimum of $300 billion to provide anything close to a fair and adequate benefit for senior citizens, but this budget fails to pay for such a benefit. Missing: Another $5 billion is missing to cover natural disasters. In the years that I have represented my district, we have been hit by tornadoes, floods, droughts, ice storms. My citizens depend on FEMA, and FEMA has provided relief for the citizens of my district. However, this budget completely X's that out. This $5 billion is important and should not be dropped due to a procedural dispute. Mr. Speaker, much more is missing than two pieces of paper. Much more is missing than two pages in this budget. The priorities of America are missing. The greatness of America is missing. I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to recommit.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, we need to ask ourselves, who built this country? Who built this country? It was built by people that got up every morning and made a sandwich and threw it in the pail, went to work, built a product, sent their kids to school, and lived the American dream. It was built by men and women, our veterans, who traveled the world in the cause of freedom, who took the red, white and blue, the symbol of freedom, brilliant with color, signifying the American way of life. It is now time for us to honor our senior citizens. It is time to honor our veterans. It is time to keep our promise and make sure that prescription drugs are available, accessible and affordable to the American public and particularly to our senior citizens. The cost of prescription drugs continues to escalate. I am pleased, as are many of my colleagues, to see that the White House has recognized that this is a very, very serious problem in the United States and we must do something about it. However, we need to move toward a real prescription drug benefit. Unspecified benefits that have been sent over by the White House are not adequate, and I think we need to tell the administration that placing the Medicare surplus in jeopardy to pay for these benefits is a complete nonstarter. In this time of alleged surpluses, certainly we can address issues that are important to our senior citizens, some of our most vulnerable citizens in this country. If indeed we have a surplus, then certainly we can share that surplus with those that built this country. If, in fact, we will continue to develop some of the finest pharmaceuticals that the world has ever seen, those pharmaceuticals have to be available to American citizens. Pharmaceutical companies have done an excellent job in developing drugs that have increased our life span, have given us a better quality of life, have allowed us to be with our families for a longer period of time. Most drugs have been developed on the backs of the American taxpayers. Research and development dollars are deductible, as they should be. It has been shown that as research and development dollars increase, the development of beneficial drugs increase and our public benefits. There are also Federal grants for the development of drugs. That is as it should be, and we all share in the benefits. Mr. Speaker, if these drugs are developed with American taxpayer dollars, as they are, then these drugs have to be available to American taxpayers, particularly to our senior citizens. They should not be just available to our friends in Canada. They should not be just available to our friends in Mexico. They should not be available to everyone except for the American taxpayer who helps develop these drugs. All of us, as we travel our districts across the country, hear stories from our constituents about the availability, accessibility, and affordability of prescription drugs. Gilmer, Texas, is a small city in my district. I was approached recently by a man who had some heart medication. He showed me the medication, made in the United States, packaged in the United States, FDA approved. That drug can be manufactured in the United States, package it, ship it to Mexico and sell it and make a profit, both for the seller and for the pharmaceutical company for \1/2\ of what that same drug cost in Gilmer, Texas. He could get a prescription for this heart medication for 30 days for the same cost as he could get the medication for 360 days in Mexico. Now something is just not right about that. We also did a study in my district recently that showed on average senior citizens paying 101 percent more for prescription drugs than the preferred purchaser, such as HMOs, the insurance companies. Now that is not the result only of bulk purchasing. That is the result of a systematic and targeted effort by the pharmaceutical companies to raise prices to those people who need these drugs and those people who can least afford the increase. So senior citizens in my district, and I would assume it is the same across the country, are paying twice what the HMOs pay for the same drugs, twice plus a little bit more; and that is just not fair. One estimate shows that more than one in eight of older Americans have been forced to choose between buying food and buying medicine. That is outrageous. We have the greatest, most powerful and richest country that the world has ever seen; and to have our senior citizens choosing between rent and food and pharmaceuticals and clothing is just not right. We cannot put up with it in this country. We cannot stand idly by while senior citizens take one prescription and not the other, while they cut their pills in half, while we have spouses sharing medication and say I will take one pill one day, you take a pill the next day, or say we are going to have to live on macaroni and cheese this week because we have to get the medication. Some are having, for example, three to four to five prescriptions; and they take two to three and not the others. That is just not right. We cannot do this in this country. We cannot ask our senior citizens who sacrificed their lives, who built this country up, who gave up opportunities to fight in wars, we cannot now ask them to suffer and allow citizens in other countries to reap the benefits of the research in this country. Our seniors deserve better. As I said, we appreciate the fact that it has now been recognized as a serious problem by the administration, but let us keep our promises that we have already made. Let us keep Social Security inviolate and keep it off budget. Let us make sure that we keep that Medicare surplus where it is to answer the needs of Medicare. While we have a surplus, we can use the surplus money to address the needs of senior citizens for prescription drugs. We can do no less in this country. We have a moral and a legal obligation to do that. As I have talked to my friends across the country from other districts, I have seen that this same problem exists district by district, State by State, all across this great country that we call America. It is our obligation to answer that call and to do something now, to do something immediately, to do something definitive that covers all Americans, especially all senior Americans; not targeted groups of Americans, not just Americans that are below the poverty level, not just those involved in some kind of catastrophic illness, but we should all share. If the stock market is going to continue to have records, everyone should share. If we are going to continue to say we have a budget surplus in this country, everyone should share in those efforts, everyone should share in the benefits of that surplus. So, as we move forward, we are asking for a definitive program, not just a notation in a budget, not just an indication that there is a problem, not just a statement that, well, we think that probably more than likely, under most circumstances, it looks possible that we may be able to address prescription drugs with some contingency in the budget. We need to identify what we can do, how much it is going to cost, put it in the budget. And we need to do it. We need to answer it. We need to be definitive. Nothing else is adequate. Nothing from the White House, nothing from the Congress, nothing else is adequate, but to say, here is a need and here is how we are going to address it. We can do it. We have 435 people in here working hard. We have 100 people in the Senate. We have knowledge about these issues. We know what the issue is, we know what the need is. Let us not play around. Let us not do smoke and mirrors. Let us not say we can do this tax cut or that tax cut or give away this money or that money before we meet our commitments to the people that made this country great.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives votes to loosen the noose of estate taxes that choke many small-businesses, family farms, and ranches. As a nation of entrepreneurs and small businessmen, where multigenerational businesses form the backbone of many communities, the estate tax is too often an insurmountable obstacle to those who wish to carry on their families' way of life. As an original cosponsor of legislation designed to repeal the estate tax, I understand the despair of families faced with selling portions of a farm or business to settle the estate of a deceased family member. By voting to phase out this tax, Congress is removing an obstacle faced by thousands of East Texas businesses, farmers, and families. Eliminating the federal estate tax is a top priority, because this tax is a burden on small businesses, family farmers, and growing families who can least afford the sting of additional taxes. Back in 1997, during my first term in Congress, I introduced legislation intended to eliminate the estate tax. My desire to eliminate the estate tax was sparked during my travels throughout East Texas and the conversations I had with the family farmers and small businesses facing ruin at the hands of this measure. Two years later, after the people of the First District of Texas decided I deserved a second term, I again introduced legislation that would completely repeal this tax. Today, as I begin my third term in Congress, we are prepared to phase-out the estate tax and protect multigenerational businesses and families from unfair taxation. Today's action, however, is only a partial victory for those subjected to this tax. In a perfect world, Congress would vote to repeal the estate tax effective this year. Instead we are passing a modified, multi-year phase-out plan that won't be fully effective until 2011. Earlier this year, Congress had an opportunity to speed up the pace of estate tax repeal. However, the Republican leadership muscled through an irresponsible tax rate cut plan that drains a substantial portion of the predicted surplus. By pushing through a tax cut skewed largely to the rich, the Republican leadership is now forced to offer an estate tax bill that does not provide for complete repeal until 2011. Therefore, I will also support the Democratic alternative. This alternative provides substantial tax relief by raising the effective exclusion to $2 million per person effective in 2002. Although the Democratic alternative does not completely repeal the estate tax, the legislation does provide relief from the estate tax faster than the Republican alternative. By joining several of my colleagues in voting for both bills, I hope to send the message that both sides must work together in crafting a bipartisan product that completely and quickly eliminates the estate tax. Mr. Speaker, today Congress is taking the first step in removing barriers to multigenerational businesses and farms that are an important part of my community. I sincerely hope that in the coming months, Congress can work together in a bipartisan manner to pass fair and effective tax relief that benefits working families, small businesses, and family farmers. By repealing the estate tax, Congress is taking an important first step to carry out this goal.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of legislation designed to bring fairness to the tax code by removing the penalty many married couples now face when paying Federal income tax. Correcting the marriage penalty is a commonsense answer to a quirk in the tax code that costs American families an average of $1,100 a year in additional Federal tax. As one part of a larger tax cut proposal, I believe that eliminating the marriage penalty is perhaps the single most effective way that Congress can provide balanced and fair relief. As an original cosponsor of this bill, I have met with many married couples throughout my district who do not understand why their tax burden is higher simply because they file jointly. By passing this bill, Congress will remove the inequity faced by many of these families and provide real tax relief to thousands of people throughout east Texas. Our efforts to provide tax relief also reflect the values of our fellow citizens. At the very least, Congress must be neutral in our treatment of the institution of marriage and remove any obstacles that discourage marriage. Congress regularly uses legislation to discourage one kind of behavior and encourage another, all the while being careful to balance the interests of our divergent country. By passing a law that will end the practice of penalizing marriage, Congress is making a sound decision that will produce incalculable benefits. Today, along with eliminating the marriage penalty, Congress is considering a provision to double the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000 for each child under the age of 17. Mr. Speaker, the original law providing for this credit was one of the first votes I made as a Member of this body--it is also one of my proudest. By doubling the child credit, Congress is building on the sound economic policy of the previous administration. Along with the earned income tax credit (EITC), the child tax credit is one of the best tools working families have to lower their tax burden. Designed for working and middle class families, the child credit is the counterpoint in our efforts to eliminate the marriage penalty. I do have only one disagreement with today's effort to double the child tax credit--it is not phased-in fast enough. Although the credit will double, the phase-in is over too long a period--5 years. I believe the phase-in should be faster, particularly given indications that our economy is slowing. Enacting this provision over the next 2 years, rather than the proposed 5-year phase-in, would provide a quicker stimulus and greater infusion of tax dollars back in the pockets of taxpayers. Therefore, I also support legislation that would instruct Congress to provide more of the proposed tax benefits during this fiscal year. I support long-term tax relief, but it is a mistake for Congress to pass only long-term tax measures when the need for economic stimulus is urgent. Congress will have the opportunity to address this concern throughout the tax writing process, and I sincerely hope, that as with today's debate, a bipartisan agreement can be reached to provide substantial tax relief this year.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the budget resolution reported by the committee and to support the Blue Dog budget alternative. The Republican budget is completely inadequate. It is inadequate in its treatment of priorities that this House has time and time again said are important. It is inadequate in its treatment of our senior citizens. It is inadequate in its treatment of agriculture. It is inadequate in its treatment of defense. It is inadequate in its treatment of education. And it is inadequate in its treatment of the national debt. The Republican budget is an exercise in fuzzy math. They have based their numbers on 10-year projections. These types of projections have proven time and time again to be completely inaccurate. In fact, just yesterday, we learned that the Administration now plans to spread their tax cut over 11 years instead of 10 because of the uncertainty of the numbers. The Comptroller General has testified that ``no one should design tax or spending policies pegged to the precise numbers in any 10-year forecast.'' We simply should not gamble our parents' and our children's futures on such uncertainty. The Blue Dog budget does not. The Blue Dog budget is a five year budget and is far more reliable than the 10-year Republican budget. The Social Security and Medicare surpluses are already committed to paying benefits we have promised our seniors. But the Republicans would raid those surpluses and shorten the solvency of both, thereby eventually requiring either severe benefit cuts or tax increases. Not only do they not provide any additional resources for Social Security reform beyond the funds already committed to Social Security, they would privatize Social Security and invest a portion of the trust fund in the stock market--something we should all question after the performance of the stock market in the last couple of weeks. In contrast, the Blue Dog budget allocates an additional $350 billion from the on-budget surplus that would be available to finance reforms to make the Social Security system financially sound for future generations without affecting current and near retirees. The Republican budget makes a mockery of the need to provide prescription drug coverage for our seniors. They actually propose to pay for prescription drugs out of the Hospital Insurance trust fund and take money away from hospitals and/or make the Medicare HI trust fund go broke sooner. In contrast, the Blue Dog budget saves 100% of the Medicare HI trust fund to provide benefits promised under current law. We set aside half of the surplus outside Social Security and Medicare for debt reduction, which will have the effect of protecting the Medicare trust fund from being raided even if the surplus projections deteriorate. The Republican budget would harm the hard-working farmers in my district. They would force important agriculture programs to compete with defense, prescription drugs, and other priorities for limited funds in the strategic reserve that could be wiped out if the tax cut exceeds $1.62 trillion or surplus projections deteriorate--either or both of which seem likely under current conditions. In contrast, the Blue Dog budget would provide $9 billion in assistance payments to farmers this fiscal year and increases the agriculture baseline by $12 billion for each subsequent year. These funds would be available to improve farm income, conservation, export, rural development, and research programs as recommended by the farm and commodity organizations. The Republican budget provides less than half of the defense funding the Blue Dog budget would provide. The Republicans have chosen to play a dangerous game with our national defense by providing minimal funding for defense programs in this budget and waiting to make the tough decisions. When they get ready to decide defense spending priorities, those priorities will have to compete with agriculture, prescription drugs, and other priorities for limited funds in the ``strategic reserve.'' Never mind that this reserve could be wiped out if the tax cut exceeds $1.62 trillion or surplus projections deteriorate--both of which are strong possibilities. The Republican budget does nothing to meet the President's stated goal of leaving no child behind. It barely increases education funding above inflation! It would not continue to progress we have made on smaller class sizes. It would not provide adequate funding to restore dilapidated schools and build new schools. It would not address many of the education priorities that we have identified in recent years. In contrast, the Blue Dog budget would allow for an increase in the maximum Pell Grant award and provide funding to help schools meet the increased accountability of education reform, comply with IDEA, and meet other local needs. Furthermore, the Blue Dog budget provides funding specifically for the Hunger Relief Act, a program to increase nutritional assistance to low-income working families with children. Studies have shown that children who come to school hungry don't learn at their full capacity. By providing nutritional assistance, we help children to learn. Finally, the Republican budget shows that they are not serious about debt reduction. They would leave too much debt for our children to pay off. They do not allocate one dime of the on-budget surplus outside of Social Security and Medicare to debt reduction in the first five years. That means that all of their debt reduction would occur in years 6-10-- the time when the surplus projections are most unreliable. In contrast, the Blue Dog budget devotes half of the on-budget surplus outside of Social Security and Medicare--$370 billion over the next five years--to reducing the publicly held debt. We would reduce the publicly held debt by more than half over the next five years--from a projected $3.148 trillion at the end of FY 2001 to $1.57 trillion at the end of FY 2006. Mr. Chairman, the priorities reflected in the Republican budget simply are not the priorities of the American people. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the Blue Dog budget and rejecting the Republican budget.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, the American public is not fooled by the charade before us today. Many in this Chamber claim that we have a $5 trillion surplus. The fact is this: We have a $5 trillion debt. Only in Washington, D.C., only here in the Nation's capital can a $5 trillion debt somehow magically transform itself into a $5 trillion surplus. That is new math at its finest. I do not know about you, but where I went to school in Texas, that just does not add up. According to my figures, in order to have a $5 trillion surplus, we would need to have $10 trillion in the bank. But as our friend Chris Farley might have said, ``We don't have Jack Squat.'' We need tax cuts in America. I support tax cuts in America. The Blue Dogs support tax cuts in America. But let us be responsible. We need a budget before we have tax cuts. We need to do what every family farmer does and every family business. Every family in America has a budget first. Mr. Speaker, let us formulate a budget first. Then we will give America the tax break that it deserves.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to talk about today's vote on tax cuts and in so doing lay out what I believe is a responsible and balanced approach to fiscal policy. We have heard a great deal from the Republican Leadership and the Bush Administration about the importance of passing massive tax cuts now. Last week, the President came to this chamber to make his case for tax relief and I must say I found myself agreeing with a great deal of what he said. I support tax fairness for America's working families. We need tax relief and I support lower taxes--including complete repeal of the Federal Estate Tax and elimination of the Marriage Penalty. It is, however, because of my desire to enact significant tax relief coupled with the fact that I am interested in working with President Bush on the items in his agenda, that I am so disappointed in how the Republican Leadership has chosen to proceed. To pass any massive tax cut without first setting a budget framework is simply irresponsible and does not set a positive tone. Debating, voting, and passing a budget resolution that balances the priorities of Congress and the President is not an argument about process or rules. Rather, it is the foundation from which all subsequent debates between Congress and the White House follow. To act on a tax proposal before enacting, let alone debating, a budget framework severly restricts Congress's ability to address other priorities, particularly strengthening Social Security and Medicare and paying off the national debt. The submission of a budget blueprint by President Bush setting out how he proposes to balance priorities within an overall budget is an important first step. Congress should take the next step of adopting a budget resolution that balances the President's priorities with those of Members of Congress in both parties. The large projected surpluses by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) are as tempting to squander on new spending programs as on passing a massive tax cut. We must remember that it was not that long ago official forecasts predicted crushing budget deficits, which would make today's debate over the size of a tax cut seem reckless. A budget resolution, therefore, puts Congress on record to adhere to set spending levels. Rushing ahead with tax cut legislation before we have reached an agreement on a fiscally responsible budget framework that honestly balances all of the tax and spending priorities of both parties would be irresponsible and could have severe negative consequences for the budget and the economy. A bipartisan budget is imperative because the budget sets the tone and tenor for the year, the Congress, and this administration. President Bush has spoken often of the need to change the tone in Washington and his early actions demonstrate a commitment to bipartisanship. As a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of Members who support enacting a fiscally responsible budget plan, we have asked the President to insist that Congress consider a budget resolution before tax cuts. I am disappointed that to date all we have gotten from the White House is a budget outline, short on specific budget figures. Silence from the White House has lead us to where we are today--voting on a massive tax cut before anyone fully understands how such a measure impacts the budget. By putting the cart before the horse and passing a tax cut before a budget is in place, the President has squandered an opportunity to capitalize on the goodwill of his first few months in office. Although I am disappointed by the handling of today's debate by the House leadership, I still believe that Congress can work together to pass significant tax relief. I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stop playing politics with tax cuts. The American people deserve tax relief; however, they expect Congress not to abandon the sound fiscal policies and risk a return to deficits. We can provide affordable tax cuts, strengthen Social Security and Medicare, and pay off the national debt, but we must be careful not to squander this momentous opportunity through irresponsible fiscal policy.

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, Herbert Hoover said, ``Blessed are the young for they shall inherit the national debt.'' We do not need another Herbert Hoover. Americans deserve tax cuts. We can afford tax cuts. We support tax cuts. But it is irresponsible to consider a tax bill before we have a budget. Not only is that course irresponsible, it is contrary to the law. The Congressional Budget Impoundment Control Act of 1974 says that a budget must be enacted before consideration of a tax bill. Congress makes laws and expects the public to follow the laws. We should do no less in the United States Congress. Finally, make no mistake about it: across-the-board seems to indicate that everyone will share. That is a serious misnomer. Most people believe that they will share. The truth is under the Republican plan, across-the-board means 44.3 percent of the relief goes to the richest 1 percent of the people, and that is just not fair. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my friends watching in Texas to look at their friends to the left and look at their friends to the right, behind them and in front of them. They have not seen one person who benefits by this plan. Not one person in Texas. We tried this trickle- down before. Trickle-down dried up at the Red River. Mr. Bush, Senior, knew what to call it. He called it voodoo economics. Here we go again.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, country singer Alan Jackson croons, ``Who says you can't have it all?'' We need tax cuts in America. We deserve tax cuts in America. We support tax cuts in America. But the American public is not fooled by the charade that is before us today. It is time to do what the American people do every day. It is time to do what American families do, American farms, American businesses. We simply must know what our budget is before we pass massive tax cuts in this country. There is no other responsible way. Because make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, if we pass massive tax cuts without a budget, there is absolutely no way to address prescription drugs, to address education, to address military readiness in this country. The only way to do that is to spend the Social Security Trust Fund. That is just not right. In closing, let us reflect on the musings of President Herbert Hoover, he of fiscal fame, who said, ``Blessed are the young, for they shall inherit the national debt.'' Mr. Speaker, we do not need another Herbert Hoover. We do not need anything like that. We need responsibility. We need discipline. We need a budget, Mr. Speaker.