Max Sandlin

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Along this same line, I would like to point out that all of us here completely support law enforcement, the Texas Rangers, the Department of Public Safety, our police; but they are acting under the direction of a misguided and a wrong-headed speaker of the House in Texas, Tom Craddick, in conjunction with the majority leader here, the two Toms, the Tom Toms, and they are beating drums, sending these folks out. And our Department of Public Safety folks, they have little choice of what to do. But let me bring out a couple of other things that have happened. El Paso Police entered the home of Representative Joe Pickett where his 17-year-old daughter was at home alone, and his wife, who was a block away, quickly returned to the house. Representative Joe Menendez's wife found her car vandalized, parked right in front of the governor's mansion. A senior staff member, and this is particularly troublesome to those of us who protect the Constitution, a senior staff member of Representative Elliott Naishtat's office was told it was a felony to withhold information on the whereabouts of that legislator, and when asked what law was broken, the staff member was shown a copy of the House rules. Police searched Representative Patrick Rose's car, which was left at a friend's house hours after the lawmakers were found in Ardmore, Oklahoma. The friends said law enforcement had staked out the house where the car was parked prior to the search. Listen to what the Corpus Christi Caller-Times said: ``The wife of State Representative Jaime Capelo, Democrat, Corpus Christi, looked out her kitchen window Tuesday and noticed a blue four-door vehicle driving past. The driver looked at her home as he passed. The vehicle pulled up next to a white Chevrolet pickup parked down the street. `I asked him why he was watching my house.' The man identified himself as a State trooper and told her that officials in Austin had called his office and told the troopers to follow her.'' Told the troopers to follow her. This is nothing but police state activity. It is something that we should be concerned about. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from San Antonio (Mr. Gonzalez).

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Beaumont, Texas (Mr. Lampson).

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from Houston (Mr. Bell).

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak regarding H.R. 1350, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. It is with great regret that I feel compelled to vote against the IDEA reauthorization bill. I had looked forward to voting on a bill that finally provides adequate resources for students with disabilities, their families, and teachers. I had looked forward to voting on a bill that would continue to protect the unique needs of children with disabilities. Unfortunately, the measure offered by the majority failed on both these counts and does a disservice to the teachers and the children that they serve. I am profoundly disappointed that once again our Congress has failed to live up to the funding promises of the original Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, passed in 1975. The original bill recognized our federal responsibility to help states provide a free and appropriate public education to students with disabilities. While the original law promised to fund 40% of states' costs to educate these special needs children, Congress has never funded more than 18%. Without appropriate funds, schools are caught in a failing balancing act, trying to provide adequate resources to students with disabilities while also meeting the needs of typical students. I know the rural schools in the First District of Texas simply cannot wait any longer for the relief they so badly need. We should have finally committed ourselves to fulfilling the promise of IDEA with mandatory funding for these students. Anything less is unacceptable. I am also deeply concerned regarding the discipline provisions in H.R. 1350 for children with disabilities. No one believes that teachers and principals should not have the right to discipline students. However, this bill eliminates protections that children with disabilities deserve in consideration of their limitations. Current law requires schools to determine whether a student's actions were the result of a disability before determining a punishment. This new bill does not do so and puts more students at risk for suspension or expulsion. It is important that we retain protections for the best interests of these children, and remember the challenges they endure. This IDEA bill also fails to protect families who feel their school system is not complying with their children's needs. Previously there was no statute of limitations on parents' rights to file grievances against the schools. This new bill requires that they do so within one year of the incident. Often times parents aren't aware of the rights that their children are entitled to under IDEA and do not fully understand what services would best suit their child. While we should discuss the need for closure on potential liability for schools, certainly parents should have more than one year to appeal their schools' decisions. My mother was a school teacher for 30 years and has well impressed upon me the challenges of teaching children with disabilities without the resources to back it up. I have talked with parents of special needs children at length about the struggles they face in getting their children the services they so badly need. Our parents and teachers desperately need our help and this bill fails to meet the mark. For these reasons, I cannot support the IDEA re-authorization bill, but will continue to fight in Congress to give our communities the educational resources they deserve.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1559, the fiscal year 2003 Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act. I applaud the swift bipartisan effort that has brought this vital legislation to the floor so quickly. I also congratulate my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for resisting the Administration's effort to wrest from the Congress its constitutional prerogative of overseeing all monies drawn from the Treasury. Our founding fathers rightly understood the need for accountability among the branches of government--even in times of crisis. The funding provided in this bill is critical to ensuring that the brave men and women in our armed services have the tools and resources necessary to accomplish a swift, sure and decisive victory over tyranny and oppression in Iraq. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1559 and for the full and continuing support for our troops deployed in the war on terrorism. The best of America, and thousands of the best from my home state of Texas--our men and women in uniform, active duty and reserve components alike--are now in harm's way in Iraq, on the high seas and at the far corners of the world. These brave Americans now risk their lives to confront the oppression, tyranny, and terrorism that plague and threaten the world and our nation. One of America's finest tradition is our ability to draw together in support of our men and women in uniform when they are actively engaged in the defense of our freedom. American forces in the Iraqi theater fight not for narrow interests or for reasons of national pride. American soldiers, sailors, aviators, and Marines are engaged in combat today so that our people do not live in a world in which tyrants armed with weapons of horror hold free nations hostage, and in doing so threaten freedom itself. Accordingly, it is our solemn obligation to stand solidly behind our soldiers, sailors, aviators and Marines and to give our men and women in uniform the full and complete support they must have in order to prevail in this war and come safely home. This wartime supplemental appropriations bill is an appropriate first step in fulfilling our obligation. However, Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I am concerned that this bill is incomplete. It is merely a down payment on the war in Iraq and, more broadly, on the war on terrorism at home and abroad. The noble effort currently underway to liberate Iraq from a tyrannical regime is but one front in the global war on terrorism. The Department of Homeland Security has elevated the national threat level to ``High'' because of its belief that there is a high risk of terrorist attacks against U.S. targets as a consequence of the war in Iraq. Despite this level of alarm, the bill being considered by the House today does not provide adequate resources to secure our own communities against the very real threats the government has told us we face. H.R. 1559 does not provide the tools and resources needed by the brave men and women on the front lines in the event of a terrorist attack against our local cities and towns. We should ensure that state and local civil defense teams are established and equipped to meet the needs of our communities in the event of such a tragedy. We should provide all the necessary resources so that the firefighters, police officers and emergency medical personnel can effectively respond to any and all threats to the peace and security of our citizens. H.R. 1559 does not provide sufficient resources to secure our nation's ports and infrastructure. In virtually every one of our towns across this country is a water- treatment facility that ensures that each of us has safe drinking water. Virtually all of these water-treatment facilities are vulnerable to terrorist attack and so our most basic necessity of life--water--is not adequately secured. Despite this, the Administration did not seek and this bill does not provide one penny to better secure our water- treatment facilities. In addition, our nation's ports are vulnerable, as are dams, bridges and tunnels throughout the country. Even so, this bill does not provide the resources needed to secure our country's critical infrastructure. In a time during which the threat of the horrific use of weapons of mass destruction is very real, we have to step up and ensure that our state and local governments have the tools they need to respond effectively to chemical or biological terrorism. We must ensure that our front-line defenders have adequate training and are properly equipped to secure the safety of our friends and family at home. While H.R. 1559 is a thoughtful, measured response to the needs of our armed forces on the field in Iraq, it does not provide tools that are critical to adequately secure our local communities--the places where Americans live and work, where we raise our children and care for our families. I support H.R. 1559 as a first step, but I believe that we have a solemn obligation to do more. The preamble to the Constitution spells it out as well as one could: We are obliged to ``insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.'' Mr. Speaker, I will vote for H.R. 1559 in full and complete support of the brave men and women of our armed services in harm's way so far from home. But, Mr. Speaker, I also urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do more--to vote to secure our cities and communities against the very real threats that they face every day during these uncertain times. Mr. Speaker, we must ``secure the Blessings of Liberty'' here at home with the same vigor and with the same measure of devotion that we have shown to bringing freedom to the people of Iraq.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 522, the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2003. I appreciate the efforts of Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank to bring this important bill to the floor, and I thank them for their continued support for this legislation. I would also like to thank Chairman Bachus and Ranking Member Waters of the Financial Institutions Subcommittee for their leadership on this bill. In my East Texas district, deposit insurance aids community bankers in attracting and maintaining core deposits, which are often used locally to fund mortgages, development projects, student loans and small businesses. H.R. 522 will increase deposit insurance coverage from $100,000 to $130,000 and will index this limit for inflation in future years. With a declining rural population and customer base in many areas of the country, including my district, raising the coverage limit will help small-town bankers keep up their core deposits. The current $100,000 coverage ceiling can force bank customers in rural areas to move deposits over that amount outside of their region or state. This should not have to be the case, particularly for our older citizens. As the AARP noted in its recent letter of support for this legislation, existing coverage limits have unfortunately created a situation where ``the alternative is to bank at more distant institutions or invest in the more volatile securities markets.'' To help remedy this problem, H.R. 522 will increase coverage for certain retirement accounts to $260,000, which will help keep customer deposits, especially seniors' funds, in local institutions. The bipartisan Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act is reasonable, necessary legislation that will promote growth and stability in rural communities while maintaining consumers' confidence in the banking system at the same time. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on final passage of this legislation.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, today the House stands to make a choice. We must choose to support our widowed teachers and public employees, or we choose to oppose them. The choice is ours. I am appalled that our friends on the other side of the aisle would take a stand against our teachers and claim that the teachers are receiving full spousal benefits and are engaged in a gimmick or a trick or a fraud. 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 of work is simply not true, and our friends on the other side of the aisle know it and it is embarrassing for them to say that. The real fraud in this is that the Democrats on the Committee on Ways and Means offered to fix this section by using the language of the Republicans if they would address the GPO. The Republicans said no. Clearly the Green amendment points out the total absurdity of the GPO. It is quite simple. Here is the way, the Republican plan. If someone works for an insurance company, no offset. If someone works for a pharmaceutical company, no offset. If someone works for an HMO, no offset. But if that person is a teacher, there is an offset and their spouse's lifetime of work is absolutely meaningless. At least our friends on the other side of the aisle are consistent. They believe that neither the veterans nor the teachers should receive the benefits that they have earned from a lifetime of work. We saw that yesterday and we are seeing that today. Teachers work hard, they follow the rules. They are being rewarded for a lifetime of work with their spouse. We should not be involved in changing the rules of the game in the middle of the game. Let us stand up for our teachers. Our teachers should be rewarded. Our teachers should not be punished. Let us support the Green amendment and do what we ought to do in this House.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong opposition to the Fiscal Year 2004 budget resolution. The Republican budget is completely divorced from reality, and operates under the fantasy that our country can afford a tax cut of $1.35 trillion as the United States embarks upon a necessary mission to liberate Iraq. The attempt to proceed with new tax cuts during a time of war is without precedent in American history, and for good reason; past administrations and Congresses have understood that our country cannot have its cake and eat it too. The Republican budget resolution does not take into account our country's current economic and military situations, and is stubbornly stuck in the past. The majority's efforts to pile new tax cut upon new tax cut are not without costs or consequences, and many groups in our society and in my district in East Texas will pay for these efforts. In their attempts to provide new tax cuts while simultaneously balancing the budget, the majority will succeed only in balancing the budget on the backs of our Nation's senior citizens, veterans, students, farmers, and economically disadvantaged. How the majority can propose spending cuts in veterans' health care during a time of war is beyond me, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars and Paralyzed Veterans of America share my amazement at that effort. Further, Chairman Nussle's original FY04 budget required nearly every authorizing committee to cut 1 percent in spending from last year's levels. The reconciliation instructions to the House Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce committees would have resulted in cuts of $260 billion and $110 billion, respectively, over the next decade. These draconian cuts would have drained funds from both Medicare and Medicaid, and would have balanced the budget at the expense of seniors and the poor. The original Republican budget was so harmful and irresponsible that it had to be changed before it came to floor for consideration. Yet even after the Republicans ``improved'' their budget, the majority required spending cuts of $169 billion, with much of that total being slashed from the federal government's share of Medicaid funding. These required cuts are outrageous, and undermine the majority's persistent claims of pursuing an agenda of compassionate conservatism. Mr. Chairman, I believe that tax relief is important, and I have supported the president's efforts to cut taxes in the past. I was one of only 28 House Democrats who voted for the president's $1.35 trillion tax cut package in May 2001, and one of only 9 House Democrats to support an effort to make these cuts permanent. Since the time of those votes, however, our economy and fiscal situations have deteriorated significantly, and the United States is now engaged in a potentially lengthy and costly war. Our country simply cannot afford to press ahead with the effort to pass new tax cuts, totaling $726 billion, on top of the continuing effort to make the president's 2001 tax cuts permanent. I am pleased that the Rules Committee made in order the Blue Dog budget alternative, and I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to take this opportunity to support a responsible budget. By allowing the Blue Dogs to offer our budget substitute, the Republican leadership has finally acknowledged that the House needs to have an honest debate on a sensible alternative to the majority's unrealistic and irresponsible budget resolution. The Blue Dog substitute will balance the federal budget in ten years without relying on the Social Security surplus and without sacrificing our nation's veterans and seniors for new tax cuts. At the same time, the Blue Dogs provide both immediate and long-term tax relief to American taxpayers. This tax relief consists largely of an acceleration of cuts already scheduled under current law, with the exception of rate cuts in the top two marginal brackets. It is both reasonable and necessary to defer reductions in the top two upper brackets until the costs of our current war effort are paid for and the federal budget is back in balance. Further, the Blue Dogs are committed to sticking with the president's overall funding levels for defense and non-defense discretionary spending. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join the Blue Dogs in our support of the president's total funding levels, and I urge every member of the House to support the reasonable, responsible Blue Dog budget alternative.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, 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 national security. At the same time, we have to acknowledge that energy independence cannot be attained through production alone. Though Congress should strongly encourage the production of energy sources as diverse as oil, gas, wind and solar power, we should also encourage the increased conservation of energy. I believe the United States needs a balanced, forward-looking energy policy for the 2lst century. For this reason, today I am introducing legislation that will provide needed incentives for the increased production of oil, natural gas, wind and solar power by our small, independent producers, as well as measures to encourage increased conservation of energy. My bill would provide tax incentives for independent oil and gas producers to maintain production from marginal wells and develop nonconventional fuel sources such as coalbed methane and natural gas from tight sands formations. Further, my legislation would spur development of energy from renewable sources by providing a tax credit for residential solar energy production and electricity generation from wind and other sources. 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, my legislation would provide incentives to homeowners to make energy efficient home improvements that decrease their consumption of energy. Additionally, my legislation would encourage the production of cars powered by fuel cells and hybrid engines. Fuel cell technology holds enormous potential for the future, and the Federal Government has an important role to play in the development and use of this clean, renewable energy source. The United States will not achieve energy independence overnight, and we must acknowledge that it will take years before America attains a greater level of energy independence. My legislation will move our country in the right direction and bring us closer to the day when we can reduce our dependence upon foreign sources of energy and increase our national energy independence.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the Committee on Rules for making in order the Blue Dog budget alternative, and I urge Members on the other side of the aisle to take this opportunity to support a responsible budget. By allowing the Blue Dogs to offer our budget substitute, the Republican leadership has finally acknowledged that the House needs to have an honest debate on a sensible alternative to the majority's unrealistic and irresponsible budget resolution. The Republican budget operates under the fiction that our country can afford a tax cut of $1.35 trillion as the United States embarks upon a necessary mission to liberate Iraq. The attempt to proceed with new tax cuts during a time of war is without precedent in American history, and for good reason. The Republican budget resolution does not take into account our country's current economic and military situation. It is stubbornly stuck in the past. In their delusional attempt to provide new tax cuts while fighting a war and simultaneously attempting to balance the budget, the majority will succeed only in a failed attempt to balance the budget on the backs of our Nation's senior citizens, our veterans, our students, our farmers, our economically disadvantaged. How in the world the majority can propose spending cuts in veterans health care during a time of war is beyond me, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the Paralyzed Veterans of America share my amazement. Our good friend indicated that they were doing everything for veterans. It is very funny that the veterans organizations do not agree with it and do not adopt that posture. The Blue Dog substitute will balance the Federal budget in 10 years without relying on the Social Security surplus and without sacrificing our Nation's veterans and our seniors. At the same time, the Blue Dogs provide both immediate and long-term tax relief to American taxpayers. This relief consists largely of an acceleration of cuts already scheduled. Further, the Blue Dogs are committed to sticking with the President's overall funding levels for defense and nondefense discretionary spending. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join the Blue Dogs in our effort to support the President and support his total funding levels. I urge every Member of the House to support the reasonable, responsible Blue Dog budget alternative.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, somebody in this Chamber needs to stand up for the doctors and somebody needs to stand up for the hospitals. Malpractice premiums are choking America's physicians, and H.R. 5 is nothing but a sham because H.R. 5 does not mention one time, from front to back, soup to nuts, does not ever even mention malpractice premiums. We need to do something about those premiums for the doctors. We need to do it now. We need to do it today. H.R. 5 will not do it. And how about frivolous lawsuits? Frivolous lawsuits need to be ended. If a suit is filed with no basis in law or in fact, it should be dismissed at the cost of the plaintiff and the plaintiff should be sanctioned. But what does H.R. 5 says about frivolous lawsuits? It does not say one thing. That is a shame. That is outrageous. We are only talking about benefits for insurance companies. We are talking about caps. The only people protected are insurance carriers. The only people celebrating today are executives in tall buildings owned by insurance companies. This is not good for doctors, it is not good for hospitals, it is not good for patients. Let us stand up for them. Let us do the right thing.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for yielding time and I thank him for his important efforts in this regard. We can say that H.R. 5 was filed in that it calls attention to a very serious problem we are facing in the United States of America, and that problem is that the insurance carriers are absolutely gouging America's physicians and hospitals and other health care providers. The irony is that H.R. 5, while calling attention to that problem, does absolutely nothing to solve the problem. We hear much coming from the other side about frivolous lawsuits. There is not a Member of this House that supports frivolous lawsuits and, in fact, if the other side was interested in getting rid of frivolous lawsuits, they would have put something in this legislation to take care of it. The Democrats support putting in specific provisions that say, if a suit and a claim has absolutely no basis in fact, no basis in law, no reasonable extension of law, that suit should be dismissed, the plaintiffs should pay the costs, and the plaintiff and the plaintiff's attorney should be sanctioned by the court for filing a suit without merit, period. If the other side was that interested in getting rid of frivolous lawsuits, they would have that in their legislation. However, they have ignored that. Also, I think it is quite unusual that the claim is: Malpractice premiums are skyrocketing; we have to do something to help the doctors. Madam Speaker, the only people that are not at the table in this debate, the only people that are not affected by this law, the only people who are not subjected to any restrictions by H.R. 5, and that is the insurance carriers. The insurance carriers will get everything they want. It is a great payday for them, because they want a cap of $250,000 to limit what they will pay to aggrieved parties. However, they will not agree, they will not discuss, they will not even consider the possibility of lowering premiums. That is absolutely outrageous. This is not a debate between doctors and lawyers; this should be doctors, lawyers, patients, consumers, pointing the finger at the insurance companies and saying, if you want this relief, you have to do something when you get it. But we know they are not going to do it. Do we know why we know? We know because we look at history. Historically, in the States that have caps their premiums are higher than in the States without caps. Now, go figure. That is because when the insurance carriers know that they have a limit, it is carte blanche. When they lost money, as the gentleman from New Jersey mentioned, in the stock market, they have a way for the government to help them get that money back or a quasi-government function; they just send a letter to our doctors. They send a letter and they say, you need to pay us more money. Now, oftentimes we will hear folks on the other side of the aisle talk about MICRA in California. MICRA has not been a success, and MICRA is not what limited the cost of malpractice premiums in the State of California. MICRA was passed in 1975. Rates continued to go up. Doctors continued to have problems. Do we know what happened? In 1988, the voters of California, who do not support MICRA by the way, the voters of California passed Proposition 103. Proposition 103 was not malpractice reform. Proposition 103 did not say we have to limit what families get for the death of their children. Proposition 103 said we are going to regulate insurance and we are going to roll back the rates 20 percent. Well, it is no surprise when we say we are going to roll back the rates 20 percent that rates go down. That is what it was designed to do. That is what happened in California. That is the only thing that has been a success. MICRA has had nothing to do with it. Do not be misled in this House either. MICRA is not H.R. 5. There are many, many significant differences between MICRA and H.R. 5. MICRA limits only, and puts a cap only on personal injury damages as a result of malpractice. The Health Act protects HMOs, it protects manufacturers of defective products, it protects; in fact, anyone engaged in any stretch of the imagination in the health care industry will be protected from civil rights violation claims, anti-fraud violation claims, anti- consumer claims. You name it, they are protected. It is just payola to the carriers and the HMOs. The HMOs did not get the protection they wanted in the Patients' Bill of Rights. They have not gotten that deal done yet. So now they are back. Now they are back. Let us make no mistake about it: $250,000 is not pain and suffering. Madam Speaker, $250,000 is what the other side says that you get for the loss of your child. How much is the loss of your child worth? How much is the loss of a limb worth? How much is going blind worth? I do not know, but my friends on the other side somehow looked into a ball and they said, we know how much it is worth. If your child is dead, like Miss Santillan, that is worth $250,000 minus the cost and attorneys fees, thank you very much, next case. We have case after case after case. I yield now to the gentleman from New Jersey, because he might want to talk about some of these specific cases that I know he has some information about, or maybe the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee) has some information she would like to share.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce legislation that actually addresses the skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance premiums of such concern to physicians and other health care providers all across our Nation. The ``Medical Liability Insurance Crisis Response Act of 2003'' takes significant steps directly to address the insurance premium crisis that plagues what is otherwise the finest health care system in the world. First, the bill proposes a partial repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson Act to limit the antitrust exemption currently covering the medical malpractice insurance industry. Second, the bill addresses the current economic strain faced by many health care providers by requiring the prompt payment of undisputed claims by health insurance carriers and penalizing those carriers who fail to comply. Third, the bill authorizes the creation of a National Nurse Service Corps Scholarship Program to address our health care system's dire nursing shortage. It takes steps to improve recruitment, retention and education of our Nation's nurses. Fourth, the bill proposes medical malpractice liability reform by requiring mandatory mediation of all malpractice claims before trial, by taking steps to prevent the filing of frivolous medical malpractice claims through the imposition of sanctions and other measures, and by requiring that plaintiffs in medical malpractice litigation to file an affidavit of merit prior to the commencement of any litigation. Fifth, the bill directly addresses the medical malpractice insurance problems confronting our Nation's health care providers. It creates an Advisory Commission on Medical Malpractice to conduct an examination of current problems and, within one year, to provide to the Congress specific legislative and regulatory recommendations to solve the problem. It further freezes medical malpractice insurance rates during the period of the Commission's study. The bill provides significant disincentives to medical malpractice insurance carriers to address the current problems of industry exodus and renewability of coverage. It requires medical malpractice insurance carriers to offer coverage to any physician with no medical malpractice claims during the previous three years and imposes significant disclosure obligations on carriers to allow more informed monitoring of the industry with the goal of averting similar crises in the future. In addition, it limits the ability of carriers to raise malpractice insurance premiums without a clear demonstration of business necessity. Sixth, the bill expresses the sense of Congress that states should consider additional and alternative methods to address medical malpractice insurance rates. Finally, the bill provides tax incentives to physicians who practice in high-risk specialties or medically underserved areas to encourage them to maintain their current practices and provide improved access to our Nation's health care system.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise today to express my strong opposition to section 418 of the Social Security Protection Act. Under section 418, an individual would be required to work in a Social Security-covered job for his or her last 5 years of employment to be exempt from the GPO. Both the increase in time and the offset itself are absolutely ridiculous. Under a provision of current law, known as the ``last day rule,'' an individual is exempt from GPO if he or she worked in a job that was covered by Social Security on the last day of employment. According to the GAO, extending the employment requirement to 5 years will save only $18 million per year, greatly to the detriment of public workers, especially our school teachers. Section 418 was not included in the version of this legislation that the House passed, with my support, during the 107th Congress. This is not the same bill as last year. I support the other provisions of this legislation, but cannot support H.R. 743 as introduced. Technical corrections are necessary. This is a correction that will strike at the very heart of public school teachers in Texas and public employees in other parts of the country. Mr. Speaker, I hope this legislation will finally focus Congress' attention on the need to repeal the government pension offset. I urge the Committee on Ways and Means to examine the GPO and its harmful impact on seniors in my district and all across the country.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, there is a phrase that famously set atop President Truman's desk stating, ``The buck stops here.'' Mr. Speaker, looking at the administration's fiscal year 2004 budget, nothing could be further from the truth. President Truman's phrase implies that real leaders have to make tough choices. Real leaders do not assure the American people that our country can afford a war of indeterminate length and massive new tax cuts simultaneously. In fact, the budget is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Did you know that in spite of an imminent war, not one single dime, not one penny, not anything is budgeted for the looming war? That means the entire budget is nothing but a farce. Though our country's anticipated effort to disarm Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction is necessary, and certainly we support our military 100 percent in their efforts, any future action in Iraq which is likely to come will by necessity increase our Federal spending and expand our deficit and the national debt for years and years and years to come. In addition to war with Iraq, which appears nowhere in the budget, the White House is pushing full steam ahead with its $388 billion plan to exempt dividend income from individual taxation. That may be good long-term planning and certainly no one supports taxing anything twice; that is poor policy. But the question is, can we afford it right now today at this time in the face of record deficits? The only realistic outcome of the revenue losses and increased government spending included in the President's budget is massive increases in the national debt. In the interest of bipartisanship, to quote another popular former Republican President, Mr. Reagan, ``There you go again.'' Just 8 months ago, the House passed an increase in the statutory debt limit by a single vote. Now, here we go again, having to raise the debt limit for the second time in 12 months. Last June, Congress had to raise the debt limit by $450 billion, to $6.4 trillion. Amazingly, this increase in the debt limit was $300 billion less than Treasury requested. Our debt is currently over $6 trillion and we are spending over $1 billion a day in interest. In fact, 180 of every $1,000 that east Texans send in to the government goes to interest payments alone. That is outrageous. It is unacceptable. Treasury and the majority party in the House will not even specify, will not tell us what their desired increase in the debt limit is. It is feasible it will be over $7 trillion. At what point? When will the majority realize its fiscal irresponsibility in burying this Nation under a mountain of debt? John Adams said, ``Facts are stubborn things.'' What are the facts? Just 2 years ago, we had a projected budget surplus of $5.6 trillion. Those predictions of surpluses are long gone, and they have been replaced with projections of deficits and higher debt levels for as far as the eye can see. In fact, our financial condition changed to the worst, $8 trillion in 24 months. Equally amazing is the fact that as a direct result of the President's fiscal year 2004 budget, total spending in interest alone to finance the debt will increase from $332 billion in 2002 to nearly $500 billion in 2008. Further, the higher debt levels embedded in the President's budget will result in $1.1 trillion more in spending on interest payments on the debt than the government projected just last year. That is simply a waste of money. It seems all fiscal discipline has blown out the window with this budget and any hope for our children and grandchildren to live in fiscally prosperous times. Instead, we are saddling future generations with accumulating debt payments. Just how much will a family have in net cash savings if this administration's tax cut and budget is passed? If the President's current tax cuts and spending plans are enacted, the average American family of four will pay approximately $6,500 a year in higher interest payments, far outstripping any negligible tax savings. In addition to the higher long-term interest rates Americans will face as a result of government borrowing in the capital markets, national priorities like health care, Social Security, and homeland security needs will be underfunded as the Federal Government pays more and more and more money to finance our national debt. An exponentially rising debt has consequences and is financed by sacrificing our seniors and our children, sacrificing Social Security, sacrificing Medicare, and sacrificing education. Congress needs to hold increases in the debt limit to no more than $100 billion at a time until Congress and the White House have worked together to balance the unified budget by the end of the decade and to include PAYGO rules and discretionary spending caps.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, the House needs to pass a reauthorization of the welfare reform bill. Welfare reform was designed to help people by getting them a job, not handing them a check. CBO estimates that implementing the work requirements of the Republican bill will cost States $11 billion. It makes absolutely no sense to impose an unfunded mandate on our States. This mandate will cost my State of Texas $688 million at a time when we are facing a budget deficit of $10 billion in the State. That is irresponsible and that is simply a tax increase on our citizens. On a more personal level, American families want jobs and the quality education and training to get good jobs. The Republican bill eliminates vocational educational training as a work-related activity and increases work participation hours for mothers with children under 6 years from 20 hours to 40 hours. It is irresponsible. Let us do the right thing. Let us forge a working partnership with America's families as envisioned by the Cardin amendment. We need to be an asset, not a stumbling block to helping our citizens obtain the jobs and the dignity they deserve. Let us support State governments. Reject the Republican bill and support Cardin-Kind-Woolsey.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentlewoman from Texas, for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, this weekend our Nation was shaken with the news of a terrible tragedy. After a 16-day mission into space, just 16 minutes from home, seven brave astronauts unexpectedly changed their course and returned to the heavens. In what was hoped to be a joyful day of homecoming, it became a day filled with grief as these brave explorers lost their lives 40 miles above the piney woods of east Texas. Yesterday in Houston many of us said good-bye to the pioneers of our time who manned the Space Shuttle Columbia's 28th mission. We expressed our condolences and sympathies to the families left at home, to NASA, to President Bush for the loss to our Nation, to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel and Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee of India. We all share a tremendous sense of loss. Earlier Saturday morning, thousands of pieces of the Space Shuttle Columbia rained down in a rain of sorrow in parts of Texas and Louisiana. Miles and miles of debris scattered over east Texas, and over 1,000 pieces of wreckage blanketed Nacogdoches County in my district. County officials, first responders, and volunteers in Nacogdoches and surrounding counties quickly pulled together and deployed to identify and secure the remains of the Columbia, the physical reminder of the crushing loss of human life. These great Americans in east Texas became first responders for the entire Nation. They have done an incredible job, working night and day to locate every piece of evidence that might provide a critical link in determining the cause of this terrible tragedy. The entire country is proud of their work and commitment. Additionally, the community at large has come together to pay its respects to these courageous explorers and the mission of the Columbia, respecting the hallowed ground they now share with these fallen soldiers of scientific discovery. The Columbia seven were equipped with high ambitions and their mission of scientific research. These explorers, our modern-day Christopher Columbuses and Lewis and Clarks, strove to break new ground to find answers to questions that have been impossible to find here on Earth. They devoted their mission to understanding prostate cancer, discovering new methods for refining gasoline, studying meteorological patterns, and experimenting with optical materials. These seven brave humans wanted to leave the Earth a better place, and they have. In their honor, we vow not to abandon the goal to which they have dedicated their lives. Throughout our history, we have risen to the call for progress in space exploration. Ever since Congress passed the National Aeronautics and Space Act in 1958 and subsequently President Kennedy called for man to walk on the moon, our Nation's eyes have been focused towards the stars. We will remain a nation of explorers and continue to push the limits of science and space discovery. Few experience the glory of slipping the bonds of Earth and touching the face of God. The Columbia seven touched the face of God and then slipped into His embrace. They are true American heroes, not because they died, but because they lived. We value the contribution they made.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for H.R. 16, which authorizes salary adjustments for the federal judiciary during fiscal year 2003. Before the 107th Congress adjourned sine die, the House failed to authorize a necessary pay adjustment for the federal judiciary. The continuing resolution that the House passed on November 13, 2002, did not include the 3.1 percent cost-of-living adjustment for FY 2003 that federal judges were supposed to have received on January 1, 2003. The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 assures federal judges an annual adjustment based upon the Employment Cost Index [ECI], and Congress's failure to live up to its promise under that Act could have dire consequences for our legal system. It is imperative that Congress takes every action necessary to ensure the viability of the federal judiciary. In his 2001 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist stressed the importance of annual pay adjustments and requested that Congress increase salaries as a means of attracting and retaining qualified judges. Federal judicial salaries are relatively small compared to the salaries that are earned by experienced attorneys in private practice. Relatively low judicial pay, combined with a complicated and lengthy judicial confirmation process, acts as a disincentive for qualified, dedicated attorneys to join the federal judiciary. When judicial vacancies go unfilled, the American legal system suffers. It is inexcusable that the House failed to pass the FY 2003 Commerce, Justice and State appropriations bill, which contains the necessary authorization and appropriation for a federal judicial pay adjustment, during the 107th Congress. While Congress managed to give itself a pay raise for the current fiscal year, the federal judiciary was hung out to dry. Mr. Speaker, our system of justice is among the best in the world, and as the peoples' representatives, we should do all that we can to ensure the future viability of the judiciary. I am pleased that the House has finally considered this long-overdue legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, in the waning moments of this Congress, the House of Representatives almost adopted a bill that would have devastating consequences to teachers and public employees across the State of Texas and the country. Instead of helping teachers and government employees secure a better retirement, H.R. 4070, Social Security Program Protection Act of 2002, as amended, would have left hard working teachers worse off rather than better off. In these uncertain economic times, this Congress should be adopting legislation to make sure everyone has access to the retirement benefits they have earned over a lifetime of work and service. Two little known amendments to the Social Security Act are dramatically and unfairly slashing the retirement benefits of hundreds of thousands of Americans--teachers and other public school employees, firefighters, police, social workers, and other civil servants--who are being penalized for their public service. These provisions are just plain unfair, and I am committed to working to end the injustices of these two provisions. The Government Pension Offset, GPO, requires that an individual who receives a pension from work that was not covered by Social Security has his or her Social Security spousal benefit substantially reduced. The law allowed an exemption from the GPO if he or she worked in a job that was covered by Social Security on his or her last day of employment. Under the Senate-passed version of H.R. 4070, an individual would be required to work in a Social Security-covered job for the last 5 years of employment to be exempt from the GPO. The amendment is being characterized as closing a loophole. This is not a loophole but rather a mechanism for individuals to obtain the benefits for which they have paid. It is an unnecessary and unjust hurdle. Instead of raising the bar to achieve these earned benefits, Congress should be eliminating the barriers completely. In addition to the GPO, teachers and certain other workers are subject to the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP). This provision unfairly harms public servants by reducing--sometimes by as much as 55.6 percent--the Social Security benefits of federal, state, and local employees who retire from government jobs that are not covered by Social Security. For teachers, the cost is significant. The Government Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination Provision affect at least one-third of America's education workforce, concentrated in 15 states, including my home state of Texas. But, because people move from state to state, there are affected individuals everywhere. I know from personal experience the penalty hard working teachers pay. My own mother, who spent nearly 30 years serving as a teacher in the public schools, has been adversely affected. We need to attract more people to teaching and public service. Adding onerous and additional unfair requirements to obtaining their retirement benefits will not solve the crisis we are having in attracting and retaining teacher professionals. Since my election to Congress, I have worked to eliminate these two provisions. On March 1, 2001, I introduced H.R. 848, the Social Security Benefit Restoration Act. This bill will bring equity to retirement benefits. It will eliminate the public sector penalty and will allow civil servants to draw full Social Security benefits. I am also a cosponsor of H.R. 2638, the Social Security Fairness Act. This bill eliminates the Windfall Elimination Provision as well as the Government Pension Offset. Finally, I, along with an overwhelming majority of Members, have cosponsored H.R. 664, which also eliminates the Government Pension Offset. My bill and the other legislation to eliminate these unjust provisions have been languishing in the House Ways and Means Committee. These bills are but another example of the long list of things the Republican leadership of the Congress has failed to address. To pass a bill that would make retirement less accessible for those who teach our children is unconscionable. We need to be doing more to strengthen the teaching profession and not adopt laws that make teaching less attractive to current and prospective teachers. When the 108th Congress convenes next year, I will reintroduce my bill and work with my colleagues to eliminate these unfair provisions. Thousands of Texans who have devoted their lives to teaching and public service are entitled to the benefits they have spent a career earning. Basic fairness demands that Congress repeal these provisions and allow teachers and other public servants to collect all of their retirement benefits.s

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, once again, this body is abdicated its responsibilities by passing a 6-week continuing resolution to keep the Federal Government running through November 22, 2002. The Republican leadership has failed the American people by determining Members of Congress do not need to pass the remaining 11 Fiscal Year 2003 appropriations bills, the Fiscal Year 2003 National Department of Defense Authorization Conference report, and a meaningful prescription drug benefit for seniors. This is only a small fraction of the work that this body still needs to complete before we adjourn. Instead of addressing pressing needs, the majority party has decided to disregard our constitutional responsibilities and go home and leave the people's business unfinished. I voted against this resolution, as I did the last, because we need to be here working and solving the vast economic problems facing this country. Again, I supported a continuing resolution that would have funded the Federal Government for one additional day. This would have forced us to remain here and address the critical issues facing our nation. Our domestic problems are not insurmountable. I will not accept the fact that this Republican- controlled Congress cannot simultaneously address national security needs while also addressing pressing domestic problems. When united in action, we can solve the problems facing everyday citizens. America remains mired in economic doldrums. The stock market continues its decline. I read that mutual fund analysts joke that people should not open their 401(k) statements because of devastating declines in values. Hundreds of thousands filed for unemployment claims at the end of last month, and consumer confidence fell to a 9 year low. In addition to the hundreds of thousands of new unemployment claims, hundreds of thousands of out-of-work Americans have or will soon exhaust their unemployment compensation. The Republican majority has not brought any legislation to the floor to extend unemployment insurance for those who desperately need these benefits. We will get paid for the next 6 weeks but millions of our constituents will no longer have any safety net. Because the majority has failed to do its job, countless individuals will not be able to feed their families, seek new employment, or pay their upcoming winter heating bills. The Republican majority has told working Americans that their problems do not matter. In addition to not addressing legislation to assist unemployed workers, the House has again failed to fund important initiatives in education, healthcare, and veterans programs--leaving society's most vulnerable members at risk. This continued lack of action means schools cannot plan for next year, health care providers wonder if they will have funds to remain open, seniors will go without a comprehensive prescription drug plan, and veterans will continue to see unacceptably long waits for access to care. By ignoring the situation, the majority acts as if this administration's failed economic policies have not had devastating consequences for average Americans. This Congress just has addressed the most compelling national security issue facing the Nation. It is time that we face the economic crisis facing America--rising unemployment, increasing job insecurity, growing budget deficits, and the lack of affordable health care. By postponing action on passing the remaining 11 appropriations bills, the majority undermines the ability of the government to carry out its basic missions. By adopting continuing resolution after continuing resolution, we are completely ignoring our responsibility to the Nation and its citizens. Issues such as the fight against terrorism, protecting basic services for our veterans, increasing enforcement of our security laws and making funding available to local and State governments for infrastructure investment cannot be addressed without proper appropriations. Because the majority has failed to do its job, the people of East Texas and the country will pay the price. Republican economic policies have been devastating for this country--ignoring those polices will not make them better. Congress' inaction touches every part of our daily lives. In a stunning act of indifference, Congress will take 6 weeks off leaving millions of Americans without hope that we will address the problems they face every day. It is for this reason that I, in good conscience, could not support another weeklong continuing resolution.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the House of Representatives passed yet another continuing resolution to keep the federal government running through October 18, 2002. Once again, Congress was forced to pass a continuing resolution funding the federal government because this body has failed to do its most basic work. Instead, the majority party has decided to abrogate our constitutional responsibilities and go home and leave the people's business unfinished. I voted against this resolution because we need to be here working and solving the vast economic problems facing this country. I supported a continuing resolution that would have funded the federal government for one additional day. This would have forced us to remain here and address the critical issues facing our nation. Our domestic problems are not insurmountable. I will not accept the fact that this Republican-controlled Congress cannot simultaneously address national security needs while also addressing pressing domestic problems. When united in action, we can solve the problems facing everyday citizens. In the course of the last two weeks, the stock market has plummeted to a five-year low, another 417,000 Americans filed unemployment claims at the end of last month, and consumer confidence fell to a nine year low. In addition to the hundreds of thousands on new unemployment claims, hundreds of thousands of out-of-work Americans have or will soon exhaust their unemployment compensation. The Republican majority has not brought any legislation to the floor to extend unemployment insurance for those who desperately need these benefits. Because the majority has failed to do its job, countless individuals will not be able to feed their families, seek new employment, or pay their upcoming winter heating bills. In addition to not addressing legislation to assist unemployed workers, the House has failed to fund important initiatives in education, healthcare, and veterans--leaving society's most vulnerable members at risk. The lack of action means schools cannot plan for next year, hospitals wonder if they will have funds to remain open, seniors will go without a comprehensive prescription drug plan, and veterans will continue to see unacceptably long waits for access to care. By ignoring the situation, the majority pretends that this Administration's failed economic policies have not had devastating consequences for average Americans. This Congress just has addressed the most compelling national security issue facing the nation. It is time that we face the economic crisis facing America--rising unemployment, increasing job insecurity, growing budget deficits, and the lack of affordable health care. By postponing action on passing the remaining eleven appropriations bills, the majority undermines the ability of the government to carry out its basic missions. By adopting continuing resolution after continuing resolution, we undermine our law enforcement agencies to combat terrorism, prevent the Immigration and Naturalization Service from increasing inspections and patrols, threaten efforts to improve homeland security, prevent new grants to first responders, weaken our ability to respond to bio-terrorism, provide basic services to our veterans, increase enforcement of our securities law to catch corporate misdeeds, and force state and local governments from making critical public infrastructure investment. Because the majority has failed to its job, average Americans pay the price of our inaction. Republican economic policies have been bad for this country--ignoring those policies will not make them better. Congress' inaction touches every part of our daily lives. Yet, Congress will take another week off--leaving millions of Americans without hope that we will address the problems they face every day. It is for this reason that I in good conscience could not support another weeklong continuing resolution.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, we are poised today on the brink of armed conflict, not knowing what the future may hold but confident in our position and in our resolve. We sincerely pray that war is not necessary. We realize that it may be. These closing hours and minutes of the 107th Congress may be our last chance for true and meaningful debate and deliberation. Can we as a reasonable people, supported by the international community, avoid the horrors of war, the stench of death, or rather does the protection of our country and the belief of the unalienable rights of all people, does common human decency require us to press forward in the face of certain American casualties? Two questions face the American people: Is Iraq's threat imminent? Is an unprecedented first strike the proper course to take? On a positive note, the President has indicated that approval of the resolution does not mean war is imminent or unavoidable. Additionally the U.S. has indicated support for a three-pronged resolution: number one, Iraq must reveal and destroy all weapons of mass destruction under U.N. supervision; two, witnesses must be allowed to be interviewed outside of Iraq; and, thirdly, any site the U.N. wants to inspect must be open without delay, without preclearance, without restriction, without exception. These are reasonable and rational rules that are required to maintain international peace. Absent Iraqi compliance, it appears necessary to vest in the President the flexibility and authority to protect the American public and international community by military action if necessary. But there is also a responsibility to exhaust all other options prior to risking the lives of young American sons and daughters. That is why we must use the most powerful military weapon that we have, diplomacy. That is why we must use all resources at our disposal to encourage the international community to pressure Hussein into compliance. But if all reasonable efforts fail, we must answer our duty to ensure the security of our country and those that we represent. Certainly questions remain. It is particularly important to have a clear goal, a clear plan, and a clear exit strategy when American lives are at risk. Additionally, the President must address the issue of sacrifice. There is no short-term solution to the long-term problem, and there will be a cost to be paid in dollars and in American lives lost. Presently, another cost is being assessed, the cost of waiting, the cost of allowing Saddam Hussein to build an international killing force, the cost of world instability. As the President has indicated, the riskiest of all options is to wait. So let us exhaust all diplomatic efforts. Let us make every reasonable effort to avoid conflict. But at the end of the day we may be called on to make a tremendous sacrifice by using our might to preserve what is right. Our cause is clearly just. Our responsibility is clear. We will have to walk by faith and not by sight, trusting that in the end we will choose the right course.