Max Sandlin

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we ask ourselves: What are we doing here today? What have we been doing recently? During the day we waste our time on mostly ridiculous nonbinding resolutions while major economic issues are needed to be addressed. Where is the debate on Social Security? What are we doing about economics? What about our education reform? Where is some real pension reform legislation? What about a real prescription drug plan for this country? What about health care, Medicare? What about these issues? What are we doing; and importantly, where are we on the budget? Mr. Speaker, today, as we stand here today, it marks the first day of the fiscal new year. As Alan Jackson, a country western singer, says, Who says you can't have it all? Well, apparently not our friends on the other side of the aisle. While most New Years are a cause for celebration, this particular fiscal new year is anything but joyous and provides us with a very sober opportunity to examine the sorry state of our country's fiscal health: $6.15 trillion in debt, $1 billion a day interest payments, increasing obligations, decreasing investments, and broken promises. The Blue Dog Coalition has worked hard to sustain the Federal budget surpluses that our country has enjoyed for the last several years. Make no mistake about it, we have huge deficits, we have huge debts. Those deficits are growing day by day. Right now, as our friend Chris Farley would say, we do not have Jack squat. The deteriorating state of our Nation's fiscal situation is well known to Members of the Congress and to the public, though it is worth recalling exactly how drastically our budget surpluses have turned into budget deficits. Just last year, in 2001, the CBO projected that the Federal Government would run a 10-year budget surplus of $3.4 trillion, excluding the Social Security surplus. The CBO now predicts that the government will run a 10-year budget deficit of $1.5 trillion, a staggering reversal of approximately $5 trillion. Further, the CBO estimates that the Federal Government will run a unified deficit of $157 billion in fiscal year 2002. When the Social Security surplus is excluded, however, the CBO projects a deficit of $314 billion. For the current fiscal year, which starts today, the CBO estimates a unified budget deficit of $145 billion and a deficit of $315 billion when the Social Security surplus is excluded. Now, while Members of both parties argue over the specific reasons for the shift from surpluses to deficits, the fact remains that the Federal budget is now in the red and will remain in the red for the foreseeable future. Further, though our country's anticipated effort to disarm Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction is necessary, any future action in Iraq will increase Federal spending and almost certainly expand deficits in the near future. In light of our current and anticipated deficits, the Blue Dogs believe that the Congress must take several vitally important steps to return our Federal budget to fiscal health and fiscal responsibility. For starters, the other body needs to extend the pay-go provision of the Budget Enforcement Act, which expired just yesterday. Our country is in real danger of suffering from a budget hangover in the aftermath of this fiscal new year. As we all know, pay-go restrains the natural tendencies of Congress to overspending by renewing enforceable spending limits. As called for in the Blue Dogs' ABC budget plan, Congress can take the necessary first step towards reestablishing balanced budgets and possibly budget surpluses. As Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan noted recently in his September 12 testimony before the Committee on the Budget, ``The pay-go rules served as useful tools to control the deficits. In essence, the rules provided a means for advancing the broader good of sound fiscal policy over narrower interests.'' Chairman Greenspan went on to assert that ``now is not the time to abandon the discipline and structure that worked so well for so long. The framework enacted in the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 and extended several times must be preserved.'' But the pay-go rules to which Congress has adhered for the past decade are not an end to themselves. They serve only as a means to very important ends. The people of east Texas in my district have felt the negative impact of the national economic downturn, and seniors in my district need assurances that Congress will not end up raiding the Social Security fund to make up for budget shortfalls. During 2001, Congress and the President promised to secure the Social Security Trust Fund surplus in a so-called lockbox. The Democrats proposed a true lockbox. The Republican lockbox had a trap door and is nothing more than a figment of their collective imagination. Our country's anticipated budget deficits will siphon money out of the Social Security Trust Fund for years and years and years and years to come. Last year a number of Blue Dogs, including myself, introduced the Restore Fiscal Discipline and Safeguard Social Security Act. This legislation, which would require Congress and the President to have a midyear review if the CBO projects ongoing deficits during its annual budget reestimates in August, is an important step toward ensuring the continued existence of the Social Security Trust Fund. Unfortunately, the Blue Dogs' efforts to offer this measure on the House floor were repeatedly denied by the Republican House leadership. Budget deficits have consequences and are financed by sacrificing national priorities like Social Security and Medicare. The Federal Government is projected to borrow nearly all of the Social Security surpluses to pay for the deficits in the remainder of the budget. We are scheduled to borrow nearly all of it, $964 billion over the next 5 years, and more than $2 trillion over the next 10 years. Mr. Speaker, deficit spending to compensate for a downturn in the economy and a war in Iraq should not jeopardize the retirement security of our Nation's seniors, who in most cases have contributed to the Social Security system for all of their working lives. In addition to preserving Social Security for current and future generations, the Blue Dogs continue to work for fiscal discipline in an effort to lower long-term interest rates. Congress has a significant role to play in keeping the growth of long-term interest rates in check through the enforcement of fiscal discipline. According to Alan Greenspan in his testimony, ``If you watch the way markets behave, long-term interest rates, both real and nominal, are affected in a significant manner by the long-term fiscal outlook, and when you change the long-term fiscal outlook or, more exactly, when the markets perceive a change in the long-term fiscal outlook, interest rates react immediately.'' Lower interest rates represent a de facto tax cut for millions of American families and serve as an effective economic stimulus as families and individuals save money on their mortgages, save money on their car loans, save money on their credit cards payments, save money on all consumer debt. It is the best tax cut of all for American families. The Blue Dogs remain committed to strong economic growth which does not represent party labels and it benefits all Americans. Fiscal responsibility includes transparent budgeting, paying down the debt, balancing the budget, and keeping our commitment to respect our seniors and invest in the children of America. Let us give the budget debate the time it deserves. Let us do it now. Let us stay here hour to hour, day to day, week to week and, yes, month to month until the important work of the people is complete. We need a prescription drug plan. We need legislation to protect pensions and to jail corporate thieves. We need a true Patients' Bill of Rights. We need to protect Social Security from privatization. To address these needs we need a firm financial foundation. Mr. Speaker, to address these needs we need a fiscally responsible budget. Let us do it. Let us do it now. Let us take the time to do the people's work.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 566, I move the House do now adjourn in memory of the late Hon. Patsy T. Mink.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, someone needs to stand up for American physicians. Somebody needs to stand up for the American health care system. What is the problem? Malpractice premiums have skyrocketed. What is the answer proposed by our friends on the other side? It is H.R. 4600. Let us make no mistake about it, H.R. 4600 is a hoax, it is a sham, and our friends know it. It is a sham on the American medical establishment by the insurance carriers, who want to limit their exposure but will not commit to reducing premiums. Please read the bill. H.R. 4600 limits the amount that carriers pay for legitimate claims, but it has absolutely no provision requiring reducing premiums; none, zero, zilch, nada, nothing, and they know it. It is a scam. In fact, Mr. Speaker, in States that have enacted caps, in States that have enacted caps, the malpractice premiums are higher than in States that have no caps. But the carriers do not want to tell us that. Why? That is because their interests are in conflict with the medical community. I want to ask a question: Do the words ``Patients' Bill of Rights'' ring a familiar note? What causes the problems? It is not physicians, it is not patients, it is not even the lawyers they are talking about; the problem is the market. St. Paul recently, in announcing it was exiting the market, said they paid too much in claims; but, oh, yes, they forgot to mention they lost $108 million in Enron. Every time the market goes down, they claim a medical liability crisis. How convenient is that? The truth is that the carriers are asking doctors, hospitals, and patients to pay for their bad investment decisions. It is as simple as that. They know it. We have asked the insurance carriers to put in this bill a requirement to reduce premiums. They will not do it. They will not talk about it. That is because they know they are going to raise the premiums. It is a scam on the entire system. There are a lot of other problems. At least 31 States have found portions of this bill to be unconstitutional. It does limit economic damages because it gets rid of joint and several liability. They know that. They know it limits economic damages. Let us just get right back to it. It boils down to this point: It helps the insurance carriers; it does nothing for the physicians and nothing for the patients, and they know it.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the House is finally considering this bipartisan legislation to establish Federal oversight of the rent-to-own industry. Contrary to what we have heard today, many of my poor constituents, my consumers, have absolutely no access to consumer products without the rent-to-own industry. As we have all heard today, currently there is no Federal oversight or regulation of the rental purchase industry. The lack of a Federal consumer protection statute for this growing industry is inexcusable; it is unconscionable. While H.R. 1701 may not be a perfect piece of legislation, it represents a vast improvement over the inadequate status quo that has been referred to today. According to an April 2000 Federal Trade Commission staff report, the rent-to-own industry serves approximately 3 million Americans and generates nearly $4.5 billion in revenues. It is time for Congress to enact a Federal statute governing this growing industry that will subject rent-to-own merchants to Federal oversight and reasonable minimum standards for contracts and point-of-rental disclosures. By establishing a Federal floor for rental purchase agreements, H.R. 1701 will strengthen consumer protections in 32 States, including the State that I am from in Texas. At the same time, I have read this measure and this measure does not preempt State statutes that provide consumers with even tougher protections for consumers, including disclosures intended to give rental purchase consumers all the information necessary to make intelligent decisions. They can make those intelligent decisions, and they do have more protections. This is pro-consumer in Texas and across the country. Ironically, the opponents of a uniform Federal standard for the rent- to-own industry, which would regulate the industry under the Truth in Lending Act, are usually the most forceful advocates of Federal protection for consumers. Far from being a weakening of consumer protections, as some opponents of this measure contend, H.R. 1701 merely codifies rulings by both the Federal Reserve Board and the Internal Revenue Service that treat rental purchase tax credits as lease sales. This is pro-consumer, it is pro-protection. It increases the ability of consumers to have information to make intelligent decisions about the purchases they have, and it gives the poor, the disadvantaged, the unfortunate the opportunity to have access to consumer products that they could get absolutely no other way. I urge my colleagues to pass this long overdue measure. Let us get some regulation in this industry. Let us help our consumers. Mr. Chairman, as an original cosponsor of the Consumer Rental Purchase Agreement Act, I am glad that the House is finally considering this bipartisan legislation to establish federal oversight of the rent- to-own industry. As we have all heard today currently there is no federal oversight or regulation of the rental purchase industry. The lack, of a federal consumer protection statute for this growing industry is inexcusable, and while H.R. 1701 may not be a perfect piece of legislation, it represents a vast improvement over the inadequate status quo. According to an April 2000 Federal Trade Commission staff report, the rent-to-own industry serves approximately 3 million Americans and generates nearly $4.5 billion in annual revenues. In Texas alone, the rent-to-own industry generates nearly $500 million in annual revenues and employees 7,500 people. It is time for Congress to enact a federal statute governing this growing industry that will subject rent-to-own merchants to federal oversight and reasonable minimum standards for contract and point-of-rental disclosures. By establishing a federal floor for rental purchase agreements, H.R. 1701 will strengthen consumer protections in 32 states, including Texas, that currently afford consumers weaker safeguards than those contained in the Consumer Rental Purchase Agreement Act. At the same time, this measure does not preempt state statues that provide consumers with even tougher protections for consumers, including disclosures intended to give rental purchase customers all the information necessary to make intelligent decisions. Ironically, opponents of a uniform, federal standard for the rent-to- own industry, which would regulate the industry under the Truth-in- Lending Act, are usually the most forceful advocates of federal protections for consumers. Far from being a radical weakening of consumer protections, as some opponents of this measure contend, H.R. 1701 merely codifies rulings by both the Federal Reserve Board and Internal Revenue Service that treat rental-purchase transactions as lease sales. I urge my colleagues to pass this long-overdue measure on behalf of rental-purchase consumers across the country.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am afraid with this amendment we are headed down a dangerous slippery slope and setting a dangerous precedent. My good friend and colleague mentioned that he wants to build an efficient, lean, mean machine, and therein lies the very danger. In protecting our citizens and our civil liberties, we do not need a lean, mean machine. That is not what is anticipated by our Constitution; that is not what law enforcement in this country is about. Soldiers do not need to be reading Miranda rights with automatic rifles in hand; that is not their purpose. That is not what they are trained for. That is not what they do. In this country we have posse comitatus, we have had that since 1878, and it makes it a crime to deploy Federal troops as enforcers of civilian law. That has worked in this country for 124 years. The United States has always recognized a great importance in the separation between the duties of the military and the duties of our domestic law enforcement. There is a good reason why it has stood that test of time. The military has a role in protecting our country. Domestic enforcement has a role in protecting our country, but they are separate roles. I noticed this morning that The New York Times had this to say, and I quote: ``The idea of military forces roaming the Nation, enforcing the laws sounds like a bad Hollywood script or life in a totalitarian society.'' Further, I notice that Tom Ridge, the homeland security chief, said in a radio interview that this expansion, this abandoning of posse comitatus would ``go against our instincts as a country.'' There are good, practical reasons for keeping the military out of our domestic law enforcement. The mindset is completely different. In our country we have professional, well-trained law enforcement officers, police that are taught to observe constitutional protections for our citizens. They know about the procedure of criminal law. Soldiers, on the other hand, are trained in the use of force, not the niceties of procedure. Both of those roles are necessary in our country; both are important. Neither role should be mixed. The Christian Science Monitor said that the military exists to protect our country, not to run it. Clearly, the military and civilian forces should cooperate, they should work together in anticipating threats and responding to threats, but they must be separated. The Armed Forces should not be involved in domestic police tasks that are best left to the law enforcement professionals of this country. Mr. Chairman, posse comitatus has stood the test of time. This is not a totalitarian State; this is not a police State. We have domestic laws that protect our citizens; we have military to protect our shores. That has worked, it has stood the test of time. Our country is strong and secure because of the hard work of our military in protecting our borders. We have freedom fighters all across the world right now protecting freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. We have police that are keeping our homeland safe here in America. They are working well together, but they are recognizing the fact they have separate roles. Mr. Chairman, I feel like that the amendment we are considering today would blur that line, would mix that line, and we would have the military roaming the country, as The New York Times says, trying to enforce the laws of our Nation. Mr. Chairman, while this is a permissive amendment, as was mentioned by my friend and colleague, permissive is too much. It is never okay to violate the Constitution. It is never okay to send the military roaming across the land enforcing domestic laws and arresting our citizens. It is never okay to have a soldier without training in procedure attempting to protect the constitutional rights of our citizens who are innocent until proven guilty. We have rights under our Constitution. Permissive is way too broad. Let us respect posse comitatus. Let us make sure our military does its job and observes its role. Let us make sure that our domestic police know their role and are able to stand up for the Constitution. We can protect our Constitution, stand up for our citizens, and still fight terrorism all across the country. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the vision and leadership of the leaders of Lamar County, Texas, the commitment of its citizens and the recognition of the success that can occur when the federal and local governments work together for the common good. Tomorrow, on July 19, 2002, the Lamar County Commissioners Court will save a building in Paris, Texas, that reflects the history of this community. Further, the Court will give the building new life and a new public purpose. In a matter of hours, Lamar County will approve the purchase of the historical Paris Post Office from the United States Postal Service. This building will be used for courtrooms, office space, and other public purposes. The building will be a center of justice and local government for generations to come. Our nation is a nation of laws. Our constitution is strong, enduring and based on principles of right and wrong. We believe in freedom, justice and certain unalienable rights that are extended to all people. Many of these issues are considered daily in courthouses all across America. A courthouse is more than bricks and mortar. A courthouse is a physical testament to the commitment of the American people to the principles we hold dear. Times change. Society changes. Other buildings may come and go. But a court house remains--visible, strong, and permanent. A courthouse reassures our citizens that our law is here today, was here yesterday and will be here tomorrow. In addition to being used a courthouse, this historic building will provide the citizens of Paris and Lamar County with additional public space to be used in a way that is deemed appropriate by the community and its leaders. Those uses may change from year to year. This is as it should be. A building such as this recognizes both the stability of our society and the changing needs of that society. I think it is entirely fitting and proper that the United States House of Representatives recognize and commend Lamar County Judge M.C. Superville, and County Commissioners Michael R. Blackburn, Rodney C. Pollard, Carl L. Steffey, and Jackie Wheeler for their vision in making this opportunity available to the citizens of Lamar County. The acquisition of this facility by Lamar County is an excellent example of what can be accomplished when we all work together. I appreciate the commitment of the local citizens and the generous attitude of the United States Postal Service. Both were necessary to complete this project. As a result of their efforts, the public has been well served.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, by now we are all well aware of the recent wave of corporate accounting scandals and the consequent need for systemic reform in this country. Though WorldCom is only one of several high-profile cases of corporate abuse, the sheer size of WorldCom's alleged accounting ``error'' and the ease with which the company perpetrated this fraud have served as the catalysts for long overdue and much-needed reform. According to the Wall Street Journal, public pension funds, such as the teacher retirement system in Texas, mutual funds and insurance companies in my home State of Texas, hold approximately $870 million in WorldCom bonds that are virtually worthless as a result of imminent Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing. Simply, the type of corporate behavior that has led to WorldCom's meltdown is outrageous. It must end right now. WorldCom's financial situation, when considered in the context of other recent corporate accounting scandals, raises the troubling question of these scandals' immediate impact on investor confidence, and potentially long-term impact on investors' faith in the integrity of our capital markets. Access to accurate financial information is essential to the proper functioning of the markets, and as corporate America seems unwilling thus far to enact reasonable financial reforms, Congress must reform the system.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, our nation's doctors and hospitals face funding challenges. Today, to help address these challenges, I introduced the Health Benefits Claims Prompt Payment Act of 2002. We have heard a lot about the need to stop the declining payments from Medicare, especially since the proportion of patients on Medicare continues to grow. Further, doctors and hospitals face great uncertainty as to when they will be paid by health care plans for services rendered. As a result of this uncertainty, doctors and hospitals have no guarantee that they can pay their own obligations in a timely manner. That's unfair. That's bad business. This week, several congressional committees began the arduous process of considering Medicare legislation. Among the provisions that have received widespread bipartisan support in that legislation are payment updates for hospitals, doctors, and other health care providers. These provisions attempt to address the decrease in Medicare payments to doctors and other providers by 5.4 percent this year. They also help to address similar hospital funding shortfalls, especially in rural areas where hospitals are paid less than their urban and suburban counterparts due to the use of a biased and outdated formula. While these changes will not fully address the decline in payments and the funding shortages from Medicare that our providers face, they are a good first step. But, addressing the Medicare funding problems is not enough. Doctors and hospitals need to be paid, and paid on time, by the private group and individual health plans. On-time payments are critical for doctors to pay their own bills and for the longterm financial survival of medical practices and hospitals. Several states have passed legislation to ensure prompt payment for health care claims. However, the shortsightedness of politicians in some states--as in my home state of Texas--has prevented such legislation from becoming law. Even in states where laws are on the books, doctors and hospitals face possible federal ERISA preemption of state laws--meaning that without a federal ``prompt pay'' law, health plans will continue to be able to manage their cash flow on the backs of doctors and hospitals. Today, I introduced the Health Benefits Claims Prompt Payment Act of 2002. This legislation will ensure that doctors and hospitals are paid ``promptly'' for the health care services they provide to participants in private health care plans. Failure to pay such claims on time would result in interest penalties being imposed on health plans. This bill also specifically protects a state's right to provide doctors and hospitals with even more certainty--allowing states to impose harsher penalties or stricter standards on the payment of claims. The Health Benefits Claims Prompt Payment Act of 2002 is one way to help ensure that doctors and hospitals can focus on what they do best-- treating patients and practicing medicine.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today concerning H.R. 1979 and in support of the Oberstar-Lipinski amendment which will strike an improper and egregious provision in an otherwise good bill. This amendment addresses fundamental questions of fairness in allocating scarce resources. This is an issue of national security. Do we allocate funds for national security? Or, rather, do we use these limited funds to reimburse private airports for control towers that have already been built? In today's climate, are we not obligated to anticipate and fund present and future needs first? The Aviation Trust Fund, which collects revenues from a variety of sources, provides the dollars for airport improvement programs, the main source of Federal aid to airports. The trust fund is being quickly depleted at a time of increased demand. AIP funding is a finite resource, and the Federal Government places restrictions on its use to maximize safety and security. It is not a reimbursement fund for private airports. Allowing private airports that have already constructed towers to be reimbursed is a poor use of limited AIP funds. Decisions to build these towers were made at a local level without the expectation of a Federal commitment to the project. In fact, it was clear that there would be no such Federal participation. And as we say in Texas, a deal is a deal. Time and time again, our friends in the majority tell us we have to do more with less. We do not have sufficient AIP funds for all the worthy projects across the country. We should not reimburse a handful of private airports who clearly did not need Federal assistance in the first place to lay claim to a limited amount of security dollars. This provision is estimated to cost $30 million. That is $30 million not available to a new and unmet need. What airport security project will go unfunded? Which Member wants to see a critical safety improvement delayed because the funds are going to reimburse a few select airports? Mr. Chairman, our aviation infrastructure needs are great and will continue to grow. We cannot let any funds be spent that do not add to the future of the system, but merely pass for past improvements.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this legislation. The elimination of the Marriage Penalty Tax has been a priority of mine since I first got elected to Congress. In 1997, as a Freshman Congressman, one of the first pieces of legislation I cosponsored was a bill to eliminate the marriage penalty tax. When the Federal Government first levied income tax in 1913, all taxpayers filed individual tax returns and the rate schedules did not differentiate between singles and married couples. By basing a married couple's federal income tax entirely on the separate income of each spouse, the original tax code resulted in married couples with the same collective income paying different level of taxes. In 1969, Congress enacted legislation establishing a tax framework for married couples, similar to current law, that produced a ``marriage penalty'' and a ``marriage bonus.'' The ``marriage penalty'' results in some married couples paying more in taxes than they would as unmarried individuals filing separately. The ``marriage penalty'' is an archaic tax that punishes working families. While the tax code actually gives a ``marriage bonus'' to couples with only one working partner, the ``marriage penalty'' is applied to couples where both partners work. The average penalty is over $1100. That translates into mortgage payments, car payments or child care for East Texas families. Last year, on March 29, 2001, I voted for the Marriage Penalty and Family Tax Relief Act, which increased the standard deducation for married couples filing jointly to twice the basic standard deduction of single filers over a four-year period, beginning in 2005. However, as we all know, the version that was signed into law, as part of the overall tax cut package, re-establishes the marriage penalty in 2011. This is simply not acceptable to me or to the millions of couples who are hurt by the marriage penalty tax. I believe that passage of last year's tax bill was a good step toward eliminating the burden of the marriage penalty tax. However, the sunset is a setback for true, long- term relief. Today, I am pleased that we have the opportunity to vote once again on permanent repeal--making sure that the marriage penalty tax will not rear its ugly head again in 2011. I believe that, no matter what, we must make the marriage penalty tax repeal permanent. Doing so is good for working families--those where both parents are working to make ends meet. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight. And the Democrats rise tonight, to stress the importance of maintaining a Federal commitment to support Amtrak. I, along with 150 of our colleagues, support providing Amtrak with the $1.2 billion it needs to maintain its current success on into 2003. A working national passenger rail network is essential for east Texas and America, but the Federal Government must provide resources for capital improvements if Amtrak is to continue to service the Nation at affordable, competitive rates. According to Amtrak, without this funding Amtrak will be forced to eliminate nearly all long-distance passenger trains by October 2002, which would be disastrous for rural America. Rural America and east Texas support a national rail service. We do not approve of shutting down rural routes while funding only a northeast corridor commuter route. Under Amtrak's proposal, service between Boston and Washington will remain, while lines like the Texas Eagle route will be shut down if Congress fails to provide sufficient resources for fiscal year 2003. Amtrak's long-distance passenger line provides critical transportation options for rural areas like east Texas, allowing rural residents as great an access to transportation as residents of fully urbanized areas. In many cases, Amtrak's Texas Eagle is the only means east Texans have to travel long distances. If Amtrak is forced to close its long distance lines, the main links between Texas and cities would be severed, crippling the local economy and retarding rural development in my district and across the Nation. Mr. Speaker, the people of east Texas use and support Amtrak. Ridership of the Texas Eagle line and revenue from the Texas Eagle line has increased by 9 percent since January, 2001, exceeding budget projections. These positive developments have been achieved through bold steps taken by the people of East Texas to do everything in their power to keep the Texas Eagle line running and bold steps from Amtrak to reduce its management to maximize efficiency. In March, Amtrak announced that its CEO and president George Warrington was resigning to move on to another project after raising Amtrak's revenues to a record $2.1 billion for the 2001 fiscal year. Capitalizing on this vacancy as a new opportunity, Amtrak's board hired David Gunn to continue improving Amtrak's record. This new administration lead by Mr. Gunn is making radical changes to increase its ridership and revenues to achieve fiscal responsibility in a common sense way. Mr. Gunn has wide experience with the commuter rail industry both in America and in Canada serving as the president of the New York City Transit Agency from 1984 to 1990 and the chief general manager of the Toronto Transit Commission from 1995 to 1999. He carries with him an exceptional international reputation based on his ability to unite labor, business, local communities and governments to successfully improve financial stability and plan for the future. With this strong track record, Mr. Gunn brings to Amtrak the ability to overcome its financial difficulties through progressive policies and realistic plans for the future. Just yesterday, Amtrak's governing board approved changes to consolidate authority and remove unnecessary oversight. These measures include cutting the number of vice president titles from 84 to approximately 20, clearly assigning the authority over cars and locomotives to five people when 16 currently share the responsibility, and consolidating Amtrak's three operating divisions and its mail and express business into the company headquarters in Washington. The new streamlined chain of command will vastly improve Amtrak's decision making and efficiency. But any attempts to solve Amtrak's crisis will be for naught without strong Congressional support to match Amtrak's bold new policies. Now, Amtrak's opponents argue that the Federal Government has bailed out Amtrak before to no effect, and that private passenger lines are the only solution. Not so. In 1997, Congress reauthorized Amtrak for 5 years at $5.2 billion. However, only $2.7 billion was actually appropriated, barely 52 percent of the money. This does not constitute a bail out. In fact, this latest figure is only the continuation of a decades old pattern of underfunding Amtrak while at the same time demanding that it become profitable. In essence, under the guise of supporting Amtrak, Congress has instead set it up for failure, providing Amtrak with just enough money to survive another year but not giving it the capital to develop necessary infrastructure projects that could make it self sufficient by 2001. No other publicly funded transportation system in America, much less a comparable national passenger rail system in the world has succeeded without significant public capital investment to modernize systems, enhance security and fund long distance service. In fact, no private passenger line could succeed under those same circumstances. Privatization of long distance passenger service would be tantamount to termination of long distance passenger rail service. It would result in the loss of rail service in many rural communities and would result in the lay off of many, many dedicated Amtrak employees. Only short distance commuter routes would remain. The people of East Texas need and deserve access to a national rail network as much if not more so than communities in the Northeastern United States. They do not need a multitude of new rail bureaucracies without adequate resources. Importantly, if Amtrak is to be reduced to servicing the Northeast corridor alone, as a regional transportation network, it should operate without Federal support. With proper funding Amtrak can succeed. H.R. 4545 will provide that funding. With $1.9 billion Amtrak can make necessary changes. America and East Texas deserve a strong passenger rail system and I will continue to fight for Amtrak.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oregon. Mr. Speaker, safety is the issue and it is the only issue, and as has been indicated by the gentleman from Oregon, identifying the low bid is not. The administration's executive order stating that air traffic control is not an inherently governmental function is totally misguided and it is another slap in the face at our hard-working, dedicated Federal employees, and it places in jeopardy the safety of the American traveling public. The President's senior staff has stated the administration has been considering privatizing the operation of the Nation's air traffic control system. That would be a huge, costly, and dangerous mistake. If ensuring the safety of our Nation's skies is not inherently governmental, then I would like to know what is. Currently, public employees make sure our streets are safe, they make sure our coastline is secure, our borders are protected, so why does the administration believe that public employees should not ensure the safety of our skies? As has been indicated by the gentleman from Oregon, the events of September 11 proved how important it was to have experienced staff in our control towers. They brought down 5,000 planes in less than 2 hours without any problem. Our Nation's controllers were able to do this because they are highly trained professionals whose only mission is safety. We do not need to turn this job over and the safety of our friends over to the lowest bidder. It seems that the administration is intent on contracting out critical government responsibilities to the lowest bidder. That is not a savings. In our current environment, we face countless unknown threats. We need people in our government whose first mission, whose only mission, is security and safety, not corporate profits. The administration states that private systems would be more cost-effective; they would be more efficient. Recent examples in Great Britain, Canada, and New Zealand have proven just the opposite. The administration offers no reason for this order and can provide no justification for privatizing air traffic control. Managing air traffic control services is not a for-profit business and should not be run like one. The bottom line is safety; the bottom line is not profits. As a member of the Subcommittee on Aviation of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I listened to countless hours of testimony, along with the gentleman from Oregon, detailing the complete disregard for safety and security with which private airport screening firms operate. After much deliberation and over the House Republican leadership's objections, the vast majority of this Congress determined that the screeners, given their importance to aviation and national security, should be Federal employees. Now, the administration wants to strip air traffic control functions from public employees and contract it out to the lowest bidder. We should not promote someone whose only criteria is the lowest bid. Our professional controllers require years of complex and comprehensive training. Does the administration really expect private companies to make this substantial investment in human capital? Our air traffic control system is the envy of the entire world. It handles more traffic and manages the most congested airspace in the entire world. The men and women who operate this system are among the finest employees the government has. The country is facing a crisis in air traffic control. Thousands of controllers will be retiring soon, and Congress needs to adopt policies that will keep these talented, hard- working people as controllers for as long as possible. We should not be adopting policies driving these dedicated people from service. On its very face, this action by the administration flies in the face of reason. The President's action has no justification, except to serve business at the expense of the traveling public. We need to focus on the safety of American travelers, not on profits to the lowest bidder. Ask yourselves this: Just how important are the lives of your family? Do you really want to trust them to the lowest bidder? Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, the administration, as the gentleman from Oregon who also serves on the committee knows, has brought forth absolutely no testimony, no evidence of any sort showing that there is a need to move this from a governmental function into a private function. In fact, if the gentleman wants to follow the reasoning presented to the committee, it is exactly the opposite. If we want to say that the private companies were not doing a good job of screening the baggage and we agreed to move that into a governmental function with government employees because of the danger presented to the traveling public, why then should we move the opposite way and say our extremely efficient, well-trained and hard-working government employees that keep our skies safe, that are the envy of the entire world? Why should we move that from a position of government trust where we are protecting the public into the lowest bidder, the person that comes in that says, I can do it the cheapest would be the person that would get the job. I think the American public deserves more than that, and I think the administration needs to bring testimony or evidence to show why the cheapest instead of the best should get the bid.

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, there is no one in the United States Congress who has done more for rail or to focus the attention of Congress and the administration on rail than my good friend from Oregon, and I know it fits in well with his livable communities agenda and trying to save energy and having a complete travel and infrastructure system of rail and air and water and otherwise. I think it is important, as the gentleman mentioned, that as we are trying to protect one sort of transportation, as we are trying to say, let us invest in rail, let us do something to make it safer, let us use rail as a viable alternative, that at the same time we are backing away from aviation; and we are saying, we have a system that works, we have a system with professional folks, we have a system that brought down 5,000 planes in 2 hours with no problems, we have the envy of the world; but we want to change that. We want to strip these professionals, these Federal employees that have only safety, that is their only criteria, we want to strip them of that responsibility, and we want to put it out on the market to a private company who says, How can I cut costs? How can I pay as little as possible to these employees? How can I make sure they do not have benefits? What can I do to get this so low and so stripped down and so poorly administered that I will get that contract? Because they look at it as profit, and our government employees that have worked so hard and trained so hard look at it as an obligation to safety for the traveling public, to safety as part of our national security. Certainly, since September 11, we need to look at rail and air and help them, not do something to back away from our obligation.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this legislation. The elimination of the Estate Tax has been a priority of mine since I first got elected to Congress. In 1997, as a Freshman Congressman, one of the first pieces of legislation I introduced was a bill to eliminate the estate tax. In every Congress since then I have reintroduced this legislation and I am committed to legislation to permanently end the estate tax. All over Northeast Texas I have heard horror stories from many family members who have been forced to sell all or part of their family business or family farm just to pay the estate taxes. Family-operated farms, ranches and businesses are the backbone of the Northeast Texas economy and the estate tax threatens their continued existence. Currently, only about 30 percent of family businesses make it beyond one generation and that isn't what America is all about. In 1997, I also supported the Taxpayer Relief Act, which increased the unified credit--the general estate tax exemption allowed under most circumstances--from $600,000 to $1 million over 10 years between 1998 and 2008. It also included a new exemption for family-owned farms and small businesses, ensuring that the total amount exempt from tax credits for these family-owned businesses would total $1.3 million. That was a good first step toward the American dream of building a business and passing it on to future generations. But, we still needed to do more. Last year, on April 4, 2001, I voted for legislation that would phase out the estate, gift, and generation-skipping taxes over the next 10 years. However, as we all know, the version that was signed into law-- as part of the overall tax cut package--re-establishes the estate tax in 2011. This is simply not acceptable to me or to the family business- owners and family-farmers who are hurt by the estate tax. I believe we have made great strides over the last 7 years to help family businesses and farms escape from the burden of the estate tax. However, the sunset is a setback for true, long-term relief. Earlier this year, on April 15, a day when all Americans are focused on the taxes they pay, I introduced legislation to permanently repeal the estate tax. I wanted to signal the need to do more. Today, I am pleased that we have the opportunity to vote once again on permanent repeal--making sure that the estate tax will not rear its ugly head again in 2011. I believe, that no matter what, we must make the estate tax repeal permanent and that doing so is good for economic growth and is good for the American dream. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, it is hard to stifle the truth. It has a way of coming out. But our friends on the other side of the aisle have tried all day to gag the United States Congress so that we cannot debate the issues and we cannot discuss the truth. But today the truth has leaked out, drip by drip. The truth is we all support the United States troops. There is no question about that. But the truth also is that we are poised to invade Social Security trust funds for the next 10 years to the tune of $1.5 trillion through 2012. That is the truth. The truth is the Republican plan is to spend $2.25 billion in trust funds for other programs in 2003 alone. That is the truth. The truth is our friends on the other side of the aisle should hang their heads in embarrassment. They have been caught in a procedural and political shenanigan that they employed to use American taxpayer dollars to target and influence specific political campaigns in New York and Pennsylvania. That is the truth. That has nothing to do with our troops. That has nothing to do with national defense. They are funding programs in rural hospitals in New York and Pennsylvania located in vulnerable Republican districts. The rest of America is excluded. That is the truth. There are 1,300 hospitals in this country that will be disadvantaged by this legislation. The only way to make them whole, to put back the money that they are taking away so that they can be returned to current funding levels, is to raid Social Security funds. That is it. That is the truth. The current bill runs up America's credit card while stealing from America's senior citizens' Social Security. To compound the problem, the Republican plan will require stealing. It will require stealing additional Social Security funds just to keep hospital funding at current levels. You have to do it. You have to take it. There is no other way. That is the truth. But Republicans do not want Americans to hear this debate. That is what you have been about all day. They stifled the issues. Now they want to stifle the process. They say they want an open debate, but mark my words, Mr. Chairman, within the next few hours the Republicans will stop all debate on the issues. They will stop all debate on the process. They want to gag America. They do not want America to hear the issues. That is an arrogant use of procedural excess and they should be embarrassed. Mr. Chairman, in Texas we are known for plain speaking. I want to say this to my friends on the other side of the aisle. This comes straight from the Texas Rangers: No party in the wrong can stand up to a party in the right who keeps on a-coming. And, by golly, we are going to keep on a-coming.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1577.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, we need to pass a welfare reform bill that allows American families to have respect and hope for the future. The goal of the original welfare reform bill was to move people permanently off the welfare rolls and into good-paying jobs. However, the bill proposed by our friends on the other side of the aisle does not accomplish that goal. If we really want to support the dignity of American families and support family values, we need to give families the tools through education and training to get off welfare and break the welfare cycle. The States need flexibility to address these goals for themselves, not unfunded mandates that violate States rights. Let us stand up for the dignity of American families and support education. Let us support job training. Let us support States rights to address their own problems, and the problems of their State citizens. Vote no on H.R. 4735.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. I thank my good friend and colleague from California for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4069, the Social Security Benefit Enhancements for Women Act. This bill will help more than 120,000 Social Security beneficiaries. We wish it could be more, something like 4.7 million beneficiaries. It will provide enhanced Social Security benefits to women by increasing benefits for certain widows, by permitting more disabled widows to qualify for disabled widow benefits, and by allowing certain divorced spouses to receive their benefits sooner. As has been indicated by my good friend from California, the Social Security Benefit Enhancements for Women Act addresses the challenges women, and especially widows, face when it comes to Social Security. Women on average earn less than men throughout their lives and therefore have less to live on during their retirement years. The vast majority of Social Security beneficiaries are women. Women make up some 60 percent of all Social Security recipients over the age of 65 and roughly 72 percent of all beneficiaries over the age of 85. Additionally, women lose an average of 14 years of Social Security earnings because of time out of the workforce spent to raise children or to care for an ailing parent or an ailing spouse. Further, women generally have a higher incidence of part-time employment and therefore have less of an opportunity to save for retirement. Mr. Speaker, Social Security is the cornerstone of our Nation's retirement system. This is especially true for women. Without these benefits, nearly three-fifths of women over the age of 75 in this country would live in poverty. If we privatized Social Security, we would undermine many of the benefits that women receive through the current system. A plan to privatize Social Security is a plan that will jeopardize women's Social Security benefits and will jeopardize the entire Social Security system. Women live on average 6 to 8 years longer than men and therefore must make retirement savings stretch over longer periods of time. Women depend considerably upon Social Security's progressive, lifelong, inflation-indexed benefits. There is no plan to privatize Social Security that will safeguard account balances from erosion due to inflation. Privatizing Social Security would be a mistake for all Americans. Mr. Speaker, the solvency of our Social Security system is at risk. More than 32 million Americans collect benefits from Social Security today. Mr. Speaker, May is Older Americans Month. It is critically important for us to honor our older Americans and shore up Social Security.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana and all the members of the Blue Dogs for working so diligently on the issue of fiscal responsibility. That is what our group is about. We can have many differences of opinion in the United States Congress. We can have differences of opinion regionally within the parties, but the Blue Dogs focus completely on fiscal responsibility for our Nation. We believe that it is important that if we want to address issues in the country such as Social Security, Medicare, education, making sure that our veterans are taken care of properly, making sure that we finance the war against terrorism properly, that we have a firm financial footing, a firm financial base, and that we have a plan in effect for taking care of those obligations of the United States Government. The Blue Dogs are committed to doing that in a fiscally responsible way, which means things such as investing in areas that are important and taking care of the country's debt. As the gentleman from Louisiana mentioned, our debt is continuing to run at an alarming rate. It is imperative upon us in the United States Congress to address the issue of debt while we continue to operate the government in a prudent manner. As was mentioned, the Blue Dogs have a plan called the ABCs. The ABCs are something we talk about in elementary school. It really is elementary. Much of this is elementary. All we are asking is that we operate the United States Government in much the same way that Americans operate their homes and Americans operate their businesses. It is important to know what revenues are available, it is important to know what obligations are out there, and it is important to plan for unanticipated obligations. And so we have developed a plan called the ABCs. Some call it the ABCDs. We are promoting that in the United States Congress as a way to promote a plan to get us on a firm financial footing. One of the things that we think is imperative is that we keep our commitment to senior citizens and that we maintain Social Security inviolate, that we do not use the Social Security trust funds for any purpose other than for Social Security. Originally the Blue Dogs came up with a plan that we felt should be supported by the entire United States Congress, because it made a lot of sense. Of course, as we know, that is not always the test in Washington. Something that makes a lot of sense is always suspect. But our first and our initial approach at a concerned and conservative and fiscally responsible budget was to take the Social Security trust funds completely off-budget, completely off-budget, not to be used for any other purpose. Next we wanted to look at what I call for discussion purposes the operating budget of the United States Congress. We wanted to take the operating budget, look at it and determine if we had an operating surplus. With that operating surplus, we wanted one-half of that surplus to go immediately to the country's debt, to pay down the obligations that this government and this country have already incurred. We wanted one-fourth, then, to go to tax relief for American families. American families work hard. American families pay taxes. American families try and invest in their families, in education, in their senior citizens. We felt one-fourth available for tax cuts would help American families. Then the remaining one-fourth would be used for investment in critical areas such as agriculture, education, veterans, unanticipated expense such as we are facing right now with the war on terrorism. Later as our policy developed, as the gentleman from Louisiana mentioned, we talked about a division of one-third, one-third, one- third. But most of our pleas have fallen on deaf ears. Most of the time people in this body are not willing to make a plan. We vote independently. Each vote is independent. There is no long-term plan. There is no matching of revenue and obligation, and fiscal responsibility seems to take a back seat. Last year we were facing surpluses as far as the eye could see and we were worried last year, believe it or not, about paying off our debt too quickly. Now, in less than a year's time, we have seen a dramatic reversal of this once promising budgetary outlook, and we now face a projection of deficits and increasing debt for the rest of the decade. These are debts that we will be placing on the backs of the children of this country. Now, obviously some of this is due to the economic slowdown; some is due directly to the September 11 disaster; some is due to the continuing expense of the war on terrorism. But regardless of the source of these deficits, Congress and the President need to sit down, roll up our sleeves and have an honest discussion about what we need to do to get our budget back in order, to bring fiscal responsibility to the United States. If we do not, we risk burdening our children and our grandchildren with the consequences of today's irresponsible budgetary decisions. Further, we risk jeopardizing Social Security and Medicare, a critical and important source of security for our senior citizens. Now, the Blue Dog Coalition has outlined four solutions to the budget problem, as mentioned by the gentleman from Louisiana, and I am not going to go into those in any detail since he has mentioned them, but it is an elementary approach to fiscal responsibility. I think it is important, as the gentleman said, to look at pay-go, the pay-as-you-go or the pay-go rules which expire this year, and we would renew and extend the pay-go rules by establishing new 5-year discretionary caps, with separate caps for defense and nondefense spending. It would also require that any increases in mandatory spending be offset. We believe it should be more difficult to delay costs outside of the 5-year budget windows, thus making sure that we truly understand in the Congress and account for the costs of the legislation that we as a Congress are passing. That is responsibility. We need to know what the legislation that we pass costs and how it will be paid for. What could be any more elementary than that? Now, as part of the ongoing honesty, and assuring honesty and accountability, we would require that the President conduct a thorough review of the war on terrorism and the costs associated with homeland security, and we would be willing to work with the President on plans in that way. A is for accountability, as was mentioned, and we believe that we have to provide a framework, we have to be accountable, we have to show that the Federal Government can ensure and promise that the government is not jeopardizing the future of the children of this great Nation. B is for the balanced budget. If we really want to get our fiscal house in order, if we are serious about this in the United States Congress, we need to start by requiring the President to submit to the United States Congress a balanced budget, and that balanced budget importantly has to include this feature for America. We need to balance the budget with a budget that does not tap into the Social Security Trust Fund, period. We have to get that done. Now, our balanced budget proposal recognizes that in times of war or other threats to national security, sometimes it is necessary for the government to temporarily run budget deficits to ensure the safety of our Nation, the safety of our citizens, to make sure that our servicemen and service women across the world and across this country are provided for properly; that they have the best technology, the best equipment, the best training, the best leadership, the best that we can provide for our freedom fighters all across the world. Now, no cost is too great, but we cannot abandon the promise we made to senior citizens. Mr. Speaker, senior citizens built this country. They have survived World War I, the Great Depression, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf. They have built this country, and they have seen good times and bad. They have lived the American dream. They get up in the morning, they make a sandwich and they put it in a pail and they go to work and they make a product that is put out in the market that supports this great economy, sends our kids to school and supports our senior citizens. We need to reward people in this country that work hard and play by the rules. We tell people, ``work hard, play by the rules, be responsible,'' and now it is our turn to be responsible and make sure that when those folks do that, that we do not abandon our senior citizens, the very people that made this country great and turned over to us the freest and best society that the world has ever seen. Now, this year the President has pushed a budget that claims to be in balance, only because it taps into the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds. That is the only reason it is in balance. I believe that to be irresponsible. We cannot balance the budget on the backs of senior citizens. We believe that it is our fiscal responsibility to raise the debt limit only if we have a plan, only if we have a plan. Mr. Speaker, it is not irresponsible to say, before raising the debt, before making that decision, let us identify where we are, let us identify where we are going, the goal that we need to reach, why we need to get there, how we need to get there, and how we are going to get out of it. That is a plan. While certainly it might be necessary to do that, we want a plan and we would support raising the limit only if we had a plan. Now, Congress will review budget estimates from CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, in August, and using those budget projections, we would require the President to submit a new budget to the Congress that balances the budget within 5 years without using the Social Security surplus. That is a part of the plan. Do we need to raise the debt, the debt ceiling, the limit? Maybe, if we have a plan. Do we need to look at all of the numbers from the Congressional Budget Office? Certainly, we do. And we need a budget that does not invade Social Security. Last year, or I guess it was in 1997; it seems like last year, but in 1997 we passed the Balanced Budget Act. It was a great bipartisan effort. We had people from both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, from all regions of the country supporting the Balanced Budget Act and the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. It was a great bipartisan victory for this House. At the time the whip on the other side of the aisle said that we need, from the beginning of this Congress, that we want to negotiate with the President, but we cannot negotiate with a President who does not want a balanced budget. I think that was wise and sage advice, and we hope that wise and sage advice will continue now as we negotiate with the administration and say, we want to negotiate, but we want to negotiate with someone that wants to balance the budget and we want to balance the budget without invading Social Security and Medicare. We agree with that approach. The House, as was mentioned, is going to look at the possibility of raising the debt limit and borrowing more money, as the gentleman from Louisiana mentioned, and we propose a supermajority, or a three-fifths vote, as the gentleman indicated, for such an action. We believe that to be reasonable, we believe that to be proper, and we believe that to be the way that this House can focus on the seriousness of that issue. We hope that the Congress will take that matter of increasing the debt very seriously. Finally, let me mention one other thing that D could stand for, other than what the gentleman from Louisiana mentioned. D is for debt prevention. Not only do we need to reduce debt in this country and pay off our debt and be responsible, we need to prevent debt in the future. We cannot overstate the importance of taking care of our responsibilities and getting our fiscal house back in order. The principles that were outlined by the gentleman from Louisiana and the other Blue Dogs that have worked so hard on this issue would help rein in fiscal responsibility and ensure that we secure our children's future.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I commend the Agriculture Committee Chairman Combest and Ranking Member Stenholm for the skill and hard work they have put into crafting the Farm Security Act. I would also like to commend the Conferees of the House Agricultural Committee for their continued efforts to work toward agreement on a farm bill that is good for America's farmers. I want to thank them for the great sensitivity to and understanding of the needs of our nation's farmers. This motion to instruct goes against that understanding and, thus, I rise in strong opposition to this motion and urge all my colleagues to vote against it. The presentation of this motion is unnecessarily repetitive in nature. The Members of the House of Representatives have already voted on this issue. During House consideration of the Farm Security Act, an amendment containing this language failed by a bipartisan vote of 238- 187. Mr. Speaker, one thing I can count on hearing every time I return home is that our farmers need help this year. Our farming families put everything they have on the line every year to feed America. America's families never got the economic boon that swept the nation in the late 1990's. This year, good weather worldwide has created commodity surpluses and driven down the price that farmers get for their crops. The U.S. dollar also remains strong relative both to our competitors and customers, making U.S. crops more expensive and less competitive. U.S. producers continue to compete on an uneven playing field, facing much higher tariffs on our exports to other countries than other countries face on their exports to us. The goal of our farm policy should be to provide a safety net so the American agricultural sector survives through these difficult times. This motion to recommit would limit payments for commodity programs and is a slap in the face to those families. Furthermore, this motion unjustly deters the Conferees efforts to resolve funding levels for conservation and research programs. This motion claims to increase conservation programs as if it is a new idea, when, in fact, the Conferees have already allotted an eighty-percent increase in funding. I urge my colleagues to reject this unnecessary and disruptive motion and to stand aside and let the Conferees continue their hard work on the conference committee.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, it is time to honor the commitment we made to American families when we passed the tax cuts last year. It is time to help family farmers and family business owners plan for their retirement. It is time to pass legislation that makes those tax cuts permanent. Since my election to Congress in 1996, I have consistently supported efforts to eliminate the federal estate tax. Over the years, as I have visited with folks all over my district in northeast Texas, I have heard horror stories from families who were forced to sell all or part of their family business or farm just to pay the estate taxes--which reduced their inheritances by over 55 percent. I found that only about 30 percent of family businesses make it beyond one generation, and only 13 percent make it to the third generation. That simply isn't what America is about. Farmers, especially, struggle every day to just get by. Farmers were left out in the cold during the economic boon of the late 1990's and suffered as others were acquiring riches. Eliminating the estate tax is one way to help farmers pass along their limited savings to their children, and their children's children. Not only does this punitive tax cause financial problems for families, some of whom are forced to sell property that has been in the family for generations or businesses built over a lifetime, but local economies are also hurt when jobs are lost and businesses close. Clearly, the social and economic costs of the estate tax far outweigh the revenue it provides for the federal government. Last year, I supported efforts to eliminate the federal estate tax, voting for legislation that phased-out the estate tax over 10 years. Unfortunately, the final version of the tax bill would not fully eliminate the estate tax until 2010 and then would re-establish the estate tax in 2011. The tax cut needs to be made permanent now so that American families can make long-term plans when planning for retirement and planning to pass their assets on to their children. The tax cut legislation also contained many other important provisions that together have helped mitigate the recession by pumping nearly $40 billion into the economy. Among the other important provisions are the phase-out of the marriage tax penalty--which removed the disincentive to marriage contained in the U.S. tax code. Making the tax cuts permanent means that American couples can count on their taxes being lower--rather than facing a big increase in their taxes in 2011. Like many of my colleagues, I am concerned about Social Security and making sure that it continues to provide our nation's seniors with income security. When I first voted for the tax cuts in 2001, I was assured that there was plenty of money to pay for the tax cuts without tapping into either the Social Security or Medicare trust funds. Since that time, the economic conditions in our country have changed. However, it appears that by 2011 and 2012, even under revised estimates, there should still be plenty of money to pay for extending the tax cuts. I would have preferred that my Republican colleagues would have allowed a vote on an important amendment to this legislation that would have made the tax cuts permanent while ensuring that the Social Security and Medicare trust funds were protected. As I mentioned last year, when I supported the original tax cut legislation, I would have preferred that the tax cuts include a trigger allowing delay of the tax cuts in times of national emergencies. This legislation also contains some important provisions, commonly referred to as the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights. These provisions make a number of changes to Internal Revenue Service (IRS) practices and procedures including debt collection practices, penalties for overdue taxes, privacy of taxpayer information and IRS employee conduct. These are common sense provisions that will make the IRS work better for American taxpayers while balancing enforcement with customer service. I believe that this legislation is both important and good policy. Today's vote simply changes tax law beginning in 2011. It does nothing to change taxes today. I urge my colleagues to support making the tax cuts permanent and to honor the commitment we made last year to America's families.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 3960, to designate a post office in Jay, Florida, as the Joseph W. Westmoreland Post Office Building. Joseph Willis Westmoreland was an admirable American and a public servant. He was among the greatest generation and served in the Army during World War II. World War II veterans alone represent nearly 40 percent of all American war participants. These great individuals risked their lives for the future of this country and we must keep our promise to them. Mr. Speaker, the World War II veteran population is aging and we must keep our promise to these individuals and give them the Social Security benefits we guaranteed to them when they went off to war. Joseph Westmoreland served as the postmaster of the Jay Post Office in Jay, Florida for 41 years. He dedicated his working years to public service and made our government a better place. After a lifetime of public service, Mr. Westmoreland retired to enjoy his golden years. Like over 32 million Americans, Mr. Westmoreland relied on Social Security as a safety net. In Florida alone, where this post office will be dedicated, there are over 3 million Social Security recipients. The Republican budget taps into the Social Security trust fund and jeopardizes the future of these millions of seniors in Florida and throughout the country. The Joseph W. Westmoreland Post Office Building in Florida will be another shining example of what good government is all about. The Postal Service has a slogan, ``We deliver.'' Sadly, Mr. Speaker, this Congress continues not to deliver for America's retirement. This Congress, after spending down the surplus, continues to pass legislation to raid the Social Security trust fund. Our seniors deserve better.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, the well-being of family farms in America is critical to our economy and to the American way of life. Family farmers deserve certainty in pricing. They deserve certainty in legal protections. This legislation and bankruptcy reform is a part of that critical protection for American families and American farmers. Last year both the House and the Senate voted to make Chapter 12 permanent, and yet here we sit. No decision, no reform, no protection; and uncertainty reigns supreme. We all recognize that it is important to protect both the family farmer and the creditor who provides needed and necessary capital. Neither the farmer nor the creditors can afford endless uncertainty. Mr. Speaker, it is critical to help farmers now. We need a legitimate farm bill that is truly pro-agriculture. Additionally, we need legitimate protections for farmers as provided by this bill. Family farmers face uncertainty every day; it is nothing new. Weather, foreign markets, increasing competition from big corporate farmers, the list goes on and on. They should not face another uncertainty. We can prevent it. We can do something about it. We can pass this bill. We can tell American farmers and their families that their well-being is important to us. Now this bill is not the be-all and the end-all. It is a temporary fix; but one that is critical, nevertheless. Haul this safety net up for our farmers and their children. Extend Chapter 12 for 8 months starting on October 1 and ending on May 31. Let us pass this bill and support our family farmers in America. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross) for calling attention to this issue and presenting it to us today. Our farmers deserve our attention and our respect.