Max Sandlin

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for the fine work that he has done on this issue and for leading the Blue Dogs and for his comments tonight, along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner). They have done such an excellent job, there is very little left to speak about. The Blue Dogs believe that the American people are entitled to a tax cut. We believe that we can afford a tax cut, and we support tax cuts for the American people. The question is the $1.6 trillion tax cut proposed by the administration too much. On the other hand, is it too little? Could it be just right? We just do not know, and we do not know because we do not have a budget, we do not have a spending plan. We have absolutely no way to judge this tax cut. We do have the opportunity to look at the numbers proposed by CBO and by the administration. And let us look at that for just a moment and see where we are. The CBO 10-year baseline surplus is $5.644 trillion. When you take off the Social Security surplus and the Medicare surplus, that is $2.5 trillion and $0.4 trillion. That is an available on-budget surplus of $2.7 trillion, and I think it is important that we make a distinction between the available on-line budget surplus, $2.7 trillion, versus the 10-year baseline surplus of $5.644 trillion. Now, let us look at the true cost of the Bush tax cut. The estimate of revenue lost from the basic tax package by the administration is $1.6 trillion. The cost of making the provisions retroactive to 2001 is $100 billion. The cost of interference from the AMT tax, $300 billion; cost of extending expiring tax credits, $100 billion; promised tax cuts not in the plan, $100 billion; additional interest payments on the public debt, $400 billion. The total cost of keeping the President's tax promises, all of the promises made thus far, the total cost is $2.6 trillion. This means that nearly the entire 10-year projected surplus will be used up by the administration's tax cut. Now, it is important that we notice that that is a projected surplus over 10 years. This is not money that we have in hand. We do not have a surplus of cash in hand. This is money that is projected to increase over a 10-year period. Where, oh where is the budget. We were promised that we would have a budget prior to voting on tax relief. Also the rules require it. For some reason the United States House of Representatives is not going to follow the rules. I thought we got over the technicalities and our friends on the other side of the aisle last year, talking about legal technicalities, now seem to be in support of that. It is totally irresponsible to enact these tax cuts at the present time without a budget because how can we address Medicare and the problem of Medicare as the baby boomers retire and go on Social Security and qualify for Medicare payments? What are we going to do in America for prescription drugs. How can we look our seniors in the eye and tell them we passed massive tax cuts and now that you need relief, we have spent the money? How can we tell the farmers facing drought, facing ice storms, we cannot help you, we spent the money? How can we tell our children in education, how can we tell our children, we cannot close the digital divide, we cannot have smaller classrooms, we cannot modernize our schools, we cannot help with education, you know why, we spent all of the money because the administration tax plan uses up the entire 10-year projected surpluses? There is a way to do it. The way to do it is to spend Social Security surpluses. Social Security is a solemn promise we made to senior citizens. In my district in Texas, I have many senior citizens. In fact, I have the highest median age of any district in Texas. Social Security is the one program that the government has enacted that has had the most effect of our senior citizens and has pulled more senior citizens out of poverty than any other action in the history of the United States of America. How can we tell them that we are going to spend that money that was accumulated from a lifetime of work, how can we tell them that we are going to spend that money with tax cuts now. Tomorrow we are going to talk about across-the-board tax cuts. Let us talk about what that means. Across the board. That seems to indicate that everybody shares. It is across the board. Everybody gets the benefit. Is that what it is? Absolutely not. Most people would be surprised to hear that across the board does not include them. If people at home today looked to their left, their right, in front of them and behind them, called their friends on the phone, they are not going to find anybody that benefits from across- the-board tax cuts because the truth is that 44.3 percent of the cuts go to the richest 1 percent of the people. Everyone does not share in this tax cut. Very, very few do. Now, what is the best tax cut we can afford. What is the best thing we can do for the American people? We can pay down the debt in this country. We have a balanced budget, but that means that our income matches our out-go for this year. The best tax cut for America is to reduce interest rates. The way to reduce interest rates is to pay down the debt. The Blue Dogs have a very good plan, a simple plan. We say take Social Security completely off budget. Do not consider that in our financial sheets, do not spend that money. Take it off budget. Take the remaining operating surplus, take 50 percent of that and immediately put it on the debt of the country. Pay down our debt just like our farmers and families and businesses do. Pay our debt. Take the interest that we save by paying our debt, and put that into Medicare and Social Security and make sure that we keep our commitments. Take the other half of the surplus, use 25 percent for tax cuts, we can do that. We can look at estate tax and the marriage penalty and capital gains; we can look at the rates. We want to take 25 percent and give the American people a tax cut. They deserve it; we can afford it. Then take 25 percent and apply in priorities such as agriculture, education, prescription drugs, things that we know we must invest in in this country. That is the fiscally responsible thing to do. The Blue Dogs are committed to a 50-25-25 plan, and we have seen some movement in the U.S. Congress toward that plan. Let us be responsible. Please, Mr. President; please, administration; please, our friends on the other side of the aisle, send us a budget. Let us know what we are working with. Do not ask us to cut a revenue stream when we do not know what we are going to spend our money on. Let us operate like every family farm in America, like every business. Everyone has to know what their budget is before they determine what their expenses will be and what their revenue stream is. Herbert Hoover, he of fiscal fame, once said, ``Blessed are the young, for they shall inherit the national debt.'' We do not need another Herbert Hoover. We refuse to be Herbert Hoovers on this side of the aisle. We need to pay down the national debt and keep a fiscally responsible financial policy in this country. So our message is clear from the Blue Dogs: we support tax cuts. We can support many of the tax cuts proposed by the administration, but we can only support those tax cuts after we receive a blueprint for spending, a budget for the United States of America. Let us follow the rules set in the United States House of Representatives. Let us get a budget. And when we get a budget, we will work with the administration, work with our friends on the other side of the aisle, we will get tax relief for America and have a fiscally responsible policy. General Leave

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation addressing a serious issue for retired teachers and government employees across America. These public servants, after a lifetime of educating our youth and working for the taxpayers of America, find that their reward is a significant reduction in their Social Security benefits. It is time to end this penalty and give these retirees the benefits they are due. Retirees drawing a benefit from a private pension fund do not have their Social Security benefits reduced. Why should we do this to civil servants? We should be encouraging able and intelligent people to teach our children and work for the government, not discouraging them by slashing their retirement benefits. We must bring equity to the Social Security benefits of private sector and public sector retirees. This legislation, the Social Security Benefit Restoration Act, will bring this equity to retirement benefits. This bill will simply eliminate the public sector benefit penalty enacted in 1983 and allow all civil servants to draw full Social Security benefits. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation. For every retired government employee and retired teacher in your district experiencing reduced Social Security benefits, I urge your support for this bill.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, today I honor a man who is a devoted American, a great Texan and a great friend. I stand here today to recognize The Honorable Jack Pierce for his outstanding service as District Judge in Nacogdoches, Texas. His approaching retirement on December 31, 2000, will mark the end of an exceptional career. Judge Pierce presided over the 145th Judicial District Court as District Judge for 37 years and 4 months, serving as the longest seated judge in the history of Texas. Appointed by Governor John Connally on August 31, 1963, Judge Pierce will always be known for his exemplary public service. My friend Jack has roots deep in Nacogdoches. He graduated from Nacogdoches High School and received his bachelor's degree from Stephen F. Austin State University. After graduating from law school at Baylor University in 1958, he returned to Nacogdoches to start a family with Willene Bird, his wife of 32 years. He and his wife raised two daughters while his career began to soar. Remarkably, this distinguished jurist won nine consecutive elections as District Judge. During his progressive tenure, Judge Pierce made great contributions to the court system in Nacogdoches. He was the first local judge to name a woman to the Nacogdoches Grand Jury Commission. He created the ``Ninety Day Guarantee'' for court trials in the county, and he established the law library at the Nacogdoches County Courthouse. His record speaks volumes about his convictions and his commitment to always do the right thing. Although well known for his professional success, many people know Jack Pierce for his contributions outside the courtroom. An active member of Fredonia Hill Baptist Church, Judge Pierce served on the pastoral selection committees and was chosen as Outstanding Father in 1991. He was chairman of the Attoyac District Boy Scouts of East Texas, and received the Silver Beaver Award for adult leadership. Presently, he advances community improvement through memberships in the Kiwanis Club and the Nacogdoches Booster Club. At the end of this year, Judget Pierce will hang up his hat, but I know this will not be the last we see of this great man. He knows the value of investing in the community, and the city of Nacogdoches is a better place for it. I am grateful for his dedication to the community through the years--his service has not gone unnoticed. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me to stand before you today to pay my respects to one of America's greats, Judge Jack Pierce.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 2438, the King and Tsiorvas Pipeline Safety Improvement Act. In order to know why this legislation is so important, one only has to remember that seventeen U.S. citizens have died in pipeline accidents during this Congress. By passing this legislation, the House will be taking an important step in avoiding future pipeline tragedies. We all recognize that natural gas, oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, and other industrial liquids play key roles in the nation's economy. Over 3,000 natural gas operators and 52,000 master meter and liquefied natural gas operators and over 200 hazardous liquid operators bring these products to market. Transporting both gaseous and liquid materials safely through an intricate network of over 1,750,000 miles of pipeline is a complex undertaking. Today, we have the opportunity to better protect the public from the dangers of pipeline operations. Among other things, S. 2438 will improve current law by investing in new technology to improve pipeline safety, increasing civil penalties for safety violations, and requiring pipeline operators to conduct periodic inspections of their systems. In addition, in response to accusations that the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) has not always done its job in the past S. 2438 provides a significant increase in funds for the OPS to enable it to hire more personnel to handle the mandates that Congress has already required. Some of our colleagues will argue that this bill is not strong enough. In fact, S. 2438 is the strongest pipeline safety reform ever adopted by either body of Congress. This bill represents meaningful reform. It was crafted by a bipartisan group of legislators who worked through months of meetings and negotiations to develop the best bill possible. The resulting legislation is so strong that both the Vice President and the Secretary of Transportation supported passage of S. 2438. Let's not put process over results. Our nation needs strong pipeline safety legislation this year. The safety of millions of Americans is at stake, and S. 2438 is a strong, workable bill that will result in vast improvements over the current safeguards for pipeline operations. I urge all Members to support S. 2438. It is a good bipartisan bill that will take an effective first step towards improving pipeline safety.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, today we voted on H.R. 4577, the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education bill for fiscal year 2001 (FY 2001). On behalf of the educators, administrators and students in East Texas, I would like to express my strong opposition to the education appropriations outlined in this measure. The inadequate overall funding in H.R. 4577 completely undermines the public prioritization of education as a paramount concern in 2000. Make no mistake--these education cuts come as no surprise. Beginning with the passage of the House budget resolution for FY 2001, my Republican colleagues have shown their true intentions with regard to education funding. As passed, the budget resolution provide $56.8 billion for 2001 appropriations for education, training, employment, and social services--almost $5 billion less than the level provided in the House Democratic budget and the President's budget. The conference agreement on the budget would eliminate Head Start for more than 40,000 children and their families and provide 316,000 fewer Pell Grants to low-income students by 2005. If enacted, these cuts would have serious consequences on the future of our schools and our children. Although our children have no legislative voice, they represent our nation's future and deserve our investment in their education today. As it stands, H.R. 4577 would cut funding for reading tours, teacher quality initiatives, bilingual instruction, class size reduction, school modernization, violence prevention initiatives, afterschool services and many other vital programs. Specifically, the House Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill would cut $1 billion in targeted investments to improve teacher quality and recruit new teachers. Further, it would completely repeal last year's bipartisan commitment to hire 100,000 new teachers to reduce class size in the early grades. H.R. 4577 also would ignore our disadvantaged children by eliminating Head Start assistance to 53,000 children, cutting bilingual instruction to 143,000 students, ending college preparation assistance for 644,000 low-income middle and high school students and denying school violence prevention aid to 40 urban, suburban and rural communities. If enacted, H.R. 4577 would be a grave disservice to our children and the future of our nation. For these reasons and more, I oppose the unsatisfactory education funding levels in this appropriations bill. Unfortunately, underfunded education initiatives is not the only problem with this bill. Particularly offensive is the language in the bill that would prohibit the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) from using funds to advance its ergonomics standard. Each year, our nation's workers experience almost two million work-related musculoskeletal disorders from overexertion or repetitive motion injuries due to unsatisfactory working conditions. A third of these injuries result in lost workdays and decreased worker productivity. As a result of limiting funding to implement the ergonomics standard for the past five years, America's workers have lost approximately $45 million in workers compensation and other related costs while failing to prevent 1.5 million disabling injuries. It is time for Congress to provide relief to the hundreds of thousands of workers who continue to suffer these painful injuries by allowing OSHA to move forward with its safety standard for work-related ergonomic hazards. H.R. 4577 also fails to provide the requested adequate levels of funding to further workforce development by eliminating employment services assistance for over 400,000 dislocated workers. In addition, this bill cuts millions of dollars of requested funding levels for programs specifically designed to improve working conditions while providing the means to protect employment insurance, wages and pensions. As corporations continue to maximize their profits through mergers, the need for Congress to look after the health, safety and welfare of working families is now more pressing than ever. Finally, this legislation lacks appropriate funding levels for health care and senior citizen programs. Even as my Republican colleagues bemoan the state of health care, they refuse to fund the necessary programs to increase access and decrease costs. H.R. 5477 denies $125 million requested by the President for over 250,000 Americans with long-term care needs. This bill eliminates $36 million to ensure that 1.6 million elderly and disabled receive quality nursing care. Additionally, instead of working to ensure that retiring Americans receive their Social Security benefits in a timely manner, H.R. 5477 cuts Social Security Administrative expenses by $156 million. The result of this cut will be increased waiting times for 26 million individuals and delayed claims for 100,000 individuals. H.R. 5477 does not only neglect the elderly and the disabled, but it also targets children for critical health program cuts. Rather than meeting the President's request for funding for mental health treatment services, this bill cuts $40 million from programs to care for 2,200 children with serious mental illnesses and blocks grants to 50 communities to reach individuals not currently receiving services within the mental health system. Finally, H.R. 5477 falls $44 million short of the amount needed to adequately address substance abuse treatment for over 28,000 addicted individuals seeking treatment. Clearly, I cannot support this bill as written. In its current form, this legislation is nothing less than an insult to the American people. It inadequately and irresponsibly allocates money to Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. However, should this bill return from the Senate with the appropriate funding levels, I will gladly support it. I sincerely hope we can work out the problems and pass a responsible bill that responds to the needs of our children, workers, and elderly citizens.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, today I voice my support for the conference report on S. 761, Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act. Now, more than ever, business is conducted through the Internet and the need for a federal standard on electronic contracts, agreements and records is critical to the integrity of many of these transactions. This historic piece of legislation will essentially give the electronic signature the same legal effect as a written signature. Although 40 states already have enacted laws to provide for the use of electronic signatures, these laws vary greatly. The new federal law, as proposed in this conference agreement, would allow states to modify the law, provided that the modifications are consistent with the federal standard and technology neutral. Not only does the proposed national standard give states flexibility with regards to its implementation, but it also protects the consumer. Under this agreement, a business must present the consumer with a statement informing them of their right to have notices and records provided electronically or in writing. Consumer protections are further ensured by allowing the consumer to withdraw the original consent agreement and requiring the business to provide the alternative source of transmission. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the new freedom that this conference report will provide in interstate and foreign commerce. Consumers will now have complete confidence that their electronic contracts, agreement and records carry the full weight of law. The E-signature conference report is a landmark in that it aligns federal law with the latest technology without being partial to the technology industry itself. I commend my colleagues for all of the hard work they have done on this historic piece of legislation to ensure its swift passage into law.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, Frank Raines, Chairman and CEO of Fannie Mae, testified this week before the House Banking and Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets. His testimony was interesting and informative, and I appreciated hearing from him. So that those who will not receive a copy of his testimony may understand more about what Fannie Mae does, and what Mr. Raines' views are, I include for the Congressional Record a copy of his speech before The National Press Club on May 12. Remarks Prepared for Delivery by Franklin D. Raines, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Fannie Mae Thank you for joining us today. These are ``interesting'' times for the housing industry, and we wanted to bring you up to date since Jim Johnson gave his farewell address as Chairman of Fannie Mae from this podium in November of 1998. A year and a half may not seem like a long time, but it has been an unusually turbulent period, and much is at stake. As some of you may recall, Jim titled his speech, ``Why Homeownership Matters--Lessons Learned from a Decade in Housing Finance.'' He painted a very positive picture. He said the American Dream of homeownership was more alive, achievable and inclusive than ever. He said the growth in homeownership is making everything better, from the wealth of average families, to the health of older communities, to the strength of the nation's economy. The housing finance system, he declared, was the most efficient and effective ever devised. Jim was absolutely right. And things have gotten even better. The national homeownership rate has just topped 67 percent, a new record. Even though mortgage rates have gone up, the housing market remains robust. Housing starts are strong. Home sales are vigorous. Home values are appreciating. Households are growing. Homes are getting larger. Home equity is rising. Default and foreclosure rates are at historic lows. And the process of buying a home has never been better. Automated underwriting and other advances have made it faster, easier, less frustrating and less costly to finance a home, and reduced the bias in lending decisions. E-commerce and financial deregulation are giving consumers more power and more choices at lower costs. The mortgage industry has been breaking through the old red lines and bringing affordable housing finance to families that used to be overlooked, neglected or rejected. Behind all of this, the secondary mortgage market-- including Fannie Mae--is attracting billions of dollars of private capital from all over the world, providing lenders with a steady flow of funds in all communities at the lowest rates in the market and with zero risk to the government. With the system we have today, and with the economic winds at our backs, the national homeownership rate could rise as high as 70 percent in this decade, with ten million new homeowners and growth especially among minorities, new Americans and other historically underrepresented consumers. Yogi Berra warned that, ``A guy ought to be very careful in making predictions, especially about the future.'' But I think we're on pretty solid But I stand before you at a moment when questions have been raised about the utility of the U.S. secondary mortgage market that is so integral to the system's functioning as a whole. Some of these inquiries are well meaning. But it is no secret that some of the questions are generated by financial competitors that would earn more if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not lowering costs for consumers. The U.S. housing finance system is strong, but it is not indestructible. Changing it significantly could have real consequences for real families. The burden of proof for anyone that wants to change the system is a simple but stringent test--does it help or hurt home buyers? Today, let me reinforce why our system works so well and what we are up against. To illustrate what is so good about our system, let's compare it to the other major industrialized countries. Most of the G-7 countries have a well-developed mortgage system organized around depository institutions. But the mortgages they offer are less consumer-friendly. In America we take the 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage for granted. Last year, 66 percent of the mortgages issued in the U.S. were 30-year, fixed-rate conventional mortgages. Outside the U.S., the long-term fixed-rate mortgage is a rarity. In Canada, they have rollover mortgages, where the rate is fixed during the first one to five years, with a prepayment penalty equal to three months of interest. The fixed-rate term in Spain is usually one year. In France, 80 percent of all mortgages have variable rates. In Germany, you can get a fixed-rate for five to fifteen years, but you can't refinance during this period without paying a huge penalty. The low down payment features of U.S. conventional mortgages are also unique. We now take for granted down payments as low as 5 and 3 percent. That's not the case in, say, Germany, France, the United Kingdom or Japan. In Germany, the down payment is typically 30 to 40 percent, and in Japan, you've had to put down effectively 50 to 60 percent. Why are American conventional mortgages more consumer- friendly? Mainly because we have a secondary mortgage market. In other countries, the banks largely make the loans from their deposits and hold the mortgages as an investment. Our system primarily worked that way until the 1970s and 1980s. Today in America, banks, thrifts, mortgage bankers and credit unions make the loans, but they can depend on the secondary market to supply the long-term funding. What Congress did in establishing a secondary market in the thirties and privatizing this market in the sixties made this change possible, and it has turned out to be absolutely brilliant. When it chartered Fannie Mae and then Freddie Mac as private companies, it created a system that harnesses private enterprise and private capital to deliver the public benefit of homeownership. And it maximizes this public benefit while minimizing the public risk, without a nickel of public funds. Let's do a quick risk-benefit analysis, starting with the risk side of the equation. There is a simple reason fixed-rate mortgages with low down payments are rare outside the U.S. Since they don't have a secondary market to buy the mortgage, the lender has to hold the loan and take on all the risk. That is, the lender has to assume the credit risk--the risk that the borrower could default--and the interest-rate risk--the risk that interest rates will change and cause the lender to pay out more to depositors than he is receiving on loans. So the lender protects himself by requiring the consumer to pay more up front and more each month if interest rates rise. In America, the secondary market purchases the mortgage, taking most of This process is called ``risk transformation.'' Here's how it works. Fannie Mae and our lender partners create mortgages that consumers want, like our 3 percent down Fannie 97. And we finance them with capital we raise by creating debt instruments that investors want, like our Benchmark securities. We share the credit risk on the Fannie 97 with mortgage insurance companies, and we hedge the interest rate risk by selling callable debt securities to Wall Street. We also work with Wall Street to develop even more refined strategies for hedging our interest-rate risk and credit risk. Last year, we spent about half of our gross revenues paying others to assume risk we didn't want. Managing risk, in fact, is all we do. We manage risk on one asset--U.S. home mortgages--perhaps the safest asset in the world. All told, 96 percent of all mortgages in America are paid in a timely fashion, which goes to show just how much Americans cherish homeownership. And to help us analyze our risk precisely, we have amassed performance data on 29 million loans dating back over 20 years. All of this helps to explain why our credit loss rate during the nineties averaged only 5 basis points--five cents on every hundred dollars--even during the recessions in California and New England. Just to compare, the bank credit loss rate on their more diverse set of assets was an average of 86 basis points, or 86 cents on every hundred dollars. Today, our loss rate is lower than ever, at just 1 basis point last year. A strong secondary market makes the entire financial system safer and more stable. The government holds Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the highest financial safety and soundness standards in the financial services industry. We have to hold enough capital to survive a stress test--essentially, ten years of devastating mortgage defaults and extreme interest rate movements. Other financial institutions would not last long under the scenario spelled out in our capital requirements. Thrifts, for example, would become insolvent after five to seven years. At the end of the ten years, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would be the only major holder of mortgage assets still standing. A strong secondary market puts mortgages in the safest hands. Now let's look at the public benefit. First, the secondary market means consumers never have to hear their lender say, ``sorry--we're out of money to lend.'' People think this can't happen, that it's something out of the Depression era. But without Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, this could have happened at least twice in the last 20 years. When the S&L system crashed during the eighties, the thrifts in California and Texas would have had no money to lend if we had not stepped in to back their loans. Then, in 1998 when a credit crisis shook the capital markets, conventional mortgage rates would have jumped as jumbo rates did if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac hadn't been able to raise billions of dollars in capital, and keep it flowing to lenders. Home buyers never felt the credit crunch. In both cases, hundreds of thousands of families would have been denied a mortgage. The secondary market also drives down mortgage costs. Last week, a mortgage backed by Fannie Mae would be $19,000 cheaper, over the term, than a jumbo mortgage that's just a dollar beyond our loan limit. Our savings over the jumbo market jumped beyond $26,000 during the credit crisis of 1998. Today, a Fannie Mae loan is about $200,000 cheaper than a subprime mortgage, and even about $18,000 cheaper than an equivalent FHA or VA loan backed by the government. During the nineties, Fannie Mae alone saved consumers at least $20 billion through lower mortgage rates. The secondary market also expands homeownership. Under the 1992 revisions to our charter, Congress requires Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to meet affordable housing goals, to devote a set percentage of our business to underserved families and communities. As many of you know, Fannie Mae Since 1993, these initiatives have boosted our lending to African Americans by 31 percent, and to all minorities by 16 percent. Last year, Fannie Mae alone provided nearly $46 billion in housing finance for over 400,000 minority families. That's what having a strong secondary market can do. The success of our housing finance system is not lost on the other major industrialized countries. I just returned on Tuesday from meetings in London and Frankfurt with our debt investors--the people who buy our Benchmark securities that allow us to finance mortgages here. One of the many ironies of being Chairman of Fannie Mae is that there are countries in which investors will help finance American homeownership while their own homeownership rate is lower. Naturally, many countries are curious about our system. Fannie Mae has responded to many requests to serve as advisors overseas, not because we will ever buy loans abroad, but because of our expertise in the unique U.S. secondary market, a market that is viewed in other countries as some kind of miracle. So over the past few years, a team from Fannie Mae has been invited to 29 different countries from Europe, to Africa, to Latin America, to Asia to help them figure out how to build a better system like ours. These countries have asked us how to deepen their capital markets, manage risk better and expand affordable lending and fair lending. We just had a team in South Africa to help a start-up secondary market conduit develop mortgage risk modeling, which they want to use to fight redlining. What you see in America is a dynamic web of entities--both public and private sector--delivering homeownership to citizens of all backgrounds, incomes and circumstances. We have small, medium and large mortgage originators and lenders, serving consumers from store fronts to web sites. We have home builders, Realtors, mortgage brokers, mortgage insurers and appraisers and mortgage.coms. We have consumer advocates, citizen activists and nonprofit housing organizations. The system receives wide support from local, county, state and federal agencies and elected leaders, public policies and public benefits. And behind all of it, we have a vibrant secondary market drawing capital from all over the world to finance this homebuilding, lending and purchasing. The interaction of these entities is constantly driving the housing system to improve itself, to reward low cost and high quality, to police the bad actors and chuck out the bad apples, to search for new markets and untapped home buyers, and break down the barriers. Looking back over my years in the industry gives me confidence that the U.S. housing system, with a little nudging here and there, will continue to do the right thing for consumers. Good money will drive out the bad. A better mousetrap is always in development. Underserved families will be served. Our system is constantly evolving and innovating to make owning a home more possible for more people. Given how great our system is, it makes you wonder: Why are some voices suggesting there is something wrong with our housing finance system, something fundamental that needs to be fixed? Certainly, the system benefits from constructive scrutiny. It is entirely appropriate for the Congress to hold oversight hearings on the safety and soundness of the secondary mortgage market. I look forward to testifying before Mr. Baker's subcommittee next week. It is also appropriate for our regulators--HUD and OFHEO--to monitor us closely. And it is appropriate for other agencies to ask questions within their purview as well. We welcome official scrutiny. But something less constructive is also going on here in Washington. Recently, a senior Senator asked me why Fannie Mae was suddenly in the news so much. I explained to him that some very large financial institutions have decided they are not content with the way the system works for them. They see how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac drive down mortgage costs for consumers and serve all mortgage lenders. They see how we give small- and medium-sized mortgage lenders a chance to compete with the large institutions. So this small group of large institutions would like to eliminate the benefits that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provide, from low-cost financing to automated underwriting systems. They have brought the fight to Washington under the name FM Watch. They began by defining themselves as a watchdog group, and their rhetoric was mild. But over the course of the past year, they have been unable to gain any traction. They have been unable to answer the question of how the consumer would benefit from any of their proposals regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And our nickname for this group, the ``Coalition for Higher Mortgage Costs,'' has stuck like a tattoo. So this group has switched from watchdog to attack dog. Its strategy is now to create an instant crisis, to convince policymakers that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are a financial risk to the taxpayer, an S&L crisis waiting to happen. This is the equivalent of the owner of one movie theater going to a rival theater and shouting ``fire!'' A mortgage insurance industry that nearly collapsed in the 1980s and a banking industry that collapsed in the early 1990s now seek to tag the secondary mortgage industry with the word ``risky.'' By trying to create a crisis, FM Watch has gone beyond a watchdog role into an approach which, carried to its logical conclusion, would actually harm the housing finance system, all in an effort to create short-term advantages for its members. Never mind that its claims collapse under scrutiny. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are far from the S&L problems and banking problems that bankrupted their deposit insurance funds and required federal direct and indirect bailouts. To the contrary, if the failed S&Ls and banks had stuck to safe mortgage investments like we do instead of all their speculative non-mortgage investments, they might not have failed. Our safety and soundness allowed us to be the ``white hats'' in the S&L and banking crises as we rode in with additional capital to keep the housing system going. The risk-based capital standard that Congress gave us since the S&L and banking crises has made us even more safe and sound. What FM Watch does not mention is that if the economic stress test in our capital standard ever came to pass, the government would have to bail out their members long before Fannie Mae was in any danger. But you can learn a lot from debating with an entity like FM Watch. They use so many facts that you just can't find anywhere else. It reminds me of a story Adlai Stevenson once told. He reminded his audience of the old lawyer addressing the jury, who closed his summation by saying: ``And these, ladies and gentlemen, are the conclusions on which I base my facts.'' FM Watch is looking for any conclusion that will help to damage Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The facts will be altered to fit. If this Coalition for Higher Mortgage Costs were successful, it would destabilize the secondary mortgage market and the related capital markets. This destabilization would undermine the entire housing industry and its progress, raise costs for consumers and stifle the advance of homeownership--harming underserved families first. Because such an outcome is unacceptable, I don't think this will happen. The American people and their elected representatives are smart. They will soon recognize another lobbyist-driven Potemkin-crisis public relations campaign for what it is. Then they and the capital markets will stop listening. Certainly our housing system is not perfect. Minority homeownership rates are too low. There is still inequality in affordable mortgage credit. Too many families that can afford the least are being charged the most for mortgage One issue deserving of further study is the question of why disparities in loan approvals between white and minority borrowers continue to persist. Many have suspected overt racial discrimination. But those disparities can be found even in automated underwriting systems using racially neutral underwriting criteria. We take this issue very seriously because in our experience, automated underwriting has in fact expanded lending to minority families. To try to understand the problem better, we have studied results from our system, Desktop Underwriter. We found that differences in credit histories account for about 50 percent of the difference in loan approvals. And when you also factor in the applicant's loan-to-value ratio and reserves, these three factors together account for over 90 percent of the difference in the approval ratings. The results of this study point to the need for public policies addressing consumer credit education and minority savings and wealth development. The housing finance system needs more answers to questions such as this. To further explore these issues, next month Fannie Mae is hosting a conference titled ``The Role of Automated Underwriting in Expanding Minority Homeownership.'' We're bringing together a range of advocates, academics, regulators and lenders to engage in a meaningful dialogue concerning automated underwriting systems and their role in expanding homeownership and promoting fair lending. I am personally committed to working every day to make sure that these systems are the best they can possibly be. All in all, the housing finance system--through inspiration, perspiration and a little luck--has grown into the most successful system in the world. It is worth protecting and defending. We must never allow the system to be damaged by those who would place their narrow financial interests ahead of those of the industry as a whole and--most importantly--ahead of the consumers we serve. This being a national election year, it is a good time to discuss and debate our national priorities, and certainly homeownership is high among them. Few ideals unite us more than owning a home to raise your family, invest your income, become part of a community and have something to show for it. There are many ways to go about improving the housing finance system to make it better, more affordable and more inclusive. As we pursue these efforts, we need to keep our eyes on the prize and ask the most important question, ``does this proposal help or hurt home buyers?'' Thank you.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address H.R. 3709, The Internet Nondiscrimination Act. The Internet transformed business and commerce in a revolutionary fashion. Congress now must face the daunting task of shaping policy concerning its taxation. Mr. Chairman, I come from East Texas, a region that has a heavy concentration of small businesses. Under law, these businesses are required to collect sales tax. In 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states cannot require businesses without a physical presence in their geographic area to collect and remit sales taxes. Small businesses were essentially rendered uncompetitive under this ruling. These ``brick and mortar'' stores now face extinction because they are forced to compete with online businesses who do not have to collect state and local taxes. As things stand, state and local governments lose about $5 billion annually in uncollected sales taxes on mail order purchases and are expected to lose about $15 billion annually in uncollected sales taxes on Internet purchases by the year 2003. I am aware that the Internet is the engine driving current economic growth and am in no way trying to jeopardize its growth. The Internet provides access to products that my rural constituents would not otherwise be able to purchase. However, I believe that electronic commerce and small business should exist on a level playing field with regard to taxation. It is time that Congress begins to address the task of creating a fair tax code for online retailers and their brick and mortar counterparts. I urge my colleagues to work toward a technology neutral, simplified, sales tax system which guarantees that buyers and sellers are treated equally. it is important that Congress be given and appropriate period of time to build a consensus on the long-term solution to Internet taxation issues. We must be careful to avoid a hasty, ill-conceived tax system that places unnecessary tax burdens on our consumers and sellers. I stand in support of H.R. 3709, The Internet Nondiscrimination Act. It is my hope that, in the future, Congress will go one legislative step further and address the issues surrounding e-commerce taxation.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2000. This legislation offers strong protections of taxpayers, including much-needed safeguards on personal information. This bill recognizes the importance of protecting taxpayers' privacy and would help prevent the illegal disclosure of personal information. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights, however, fulfills only a small part of our obligation to protect individual privacy. Last year, I voted for legislation, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization bill, that contained new federal protections of consumers' financial privacy. This legislation, which passed Congress and was signed into law by the President, allows consumers to protect their privacy by choosing to opt-out of information sharing by their financial institutions. The protections included in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act are an important beginning and represent a minimum federal standard. Most importantly, the new law affords states the opportunity to pass even tougher restrictions on information sharing, thus giving them the chance to enact their own consumer privacy protections above and beyond the federal minimum. Allowing consumers the right to opt-out is a step in the right direction, although we still have many challenges ahead of us with regard to adequately protecting medical information and safeguarding Internet privacy. I urge my colleagues to join me in this important effort and continue to work hard to protect the privacy rights of every American.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 127 I inserted my card in the voting machine and voted ``aye''. The board was closing and the vote did not register. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Stated against:

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act and the compromise bill reported out of the Commerce Committee. This approach will allow low power FM (LPFM) to move forward with proper safeguards against interference. I support providing new opportunities for community, public interest, civil rights and educational groups to be heard in the public forum. I do not dispute the potential that LPFM stations provide for under- represented community and educational groups. However, we must ensure that in the process of providing a voice for these groups, we do not impair radio listeners' access to locally originated information and entertainment. By calling for a careful review of the LPFM plan, H.R. 3439 allows low-power FM to move forward while protecting listeners from increased interference on the FM radio dial. The legislation does this by re-establishing previous FCC signal-interference standards and commissioning the FCC to study the extent to which signals of such low- power stations interfere with the signals of existing stations. Millions of Americans depend on the radio for important information and entertainment programming. Thirty percent of this population, especially low-income and elderly listeners, access this programming via inexpensive and older radios. The level of interference these individuals will encounter due to LPFM is unknown. H.R. 3439, therefore, calls for field tests to determine how LPFM without third- adjacent channel protection would affect current listening audiences. The FCC would then be required to submit a report to Congress on the results of these tests by Feb. 1, 2001, along with any recommendations for modifications to signal-interference standards. Also unknown is the impact of LPFM on existing public stations and small and independent commercial stations which already provide valuable services such as emergency warnings, weather and traffic information, community news and entertainment. Many of these stations depend on local resources to meet operating expenses through underwriting or advertising and may be placed into direct competition with LPFM stations in their struggles to stay afloat. This bill requires the FCC to conduct an economic impact study on incumbent broadcasters (particularly the economic impact on minority and small broadcasters), the transition to digital broadcasts, FM radio translator stations, and stations that provide reading services to the blind. I would like to see localized groups have station access and believe this communication will strengthen community bonds. However, I do not want new access to be gained at the expense of pre-existing stations. I am encouraged to know that the House Commerce Committee was able to work out this compromise. H.R. 3439 not only provides new opportunities for station access but also protects existing community broadcasters from interference.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Hutchinson amendment to H.R. 3908, The Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for FY 2000. This amendment represents a significant effort to combat the spread of methamphetamine production and trafficking across the nation. Mr. Chairman, the timeliness of this bill cannot be overstated. The use of methamphetamines is on the rise across the nation. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, methamphetamine use remains high and there is ``strong evidence to suggest this drug will continue to be a problem in west coast areas as well as other areas of the United States.'' Methamphetamine, also known as crank, ice, crystal, and peanut butter, has been described as the ``cocaine of the 90's'' or the ``poor man's cocaine.'' It is equivalent to heroin in the 70's or cocaine in the 80's. And its popularity is not without reason. The attractions of meth are many, including increased alertness, weight loss, a general sense of well-being, a cheap price tag, and a more intense and prolonged reaction than cocaine can offer. However, the long-term effects of the drug are equally devastating and can include severe depression, brain and liver damage, stroke, insomnia, behavior resembling paranoid schizophrenia, malnutrition, and hallucinations, among others. Crank and ice are both extremely addictive and have increasingly become the illegal drug of choice, especially for women, throughout the western United States. Unfortunately, the dangers of meth extend far beyond those who consume the drug. As you may know, meth is made by a hazardous array of products, including ammonia gas and hydrochloric acid, which are both toxic and explosive when mixed. As a result, a meth lab can be a potential life threat to all who live near it. To make matters worse, anyone with access to the Internet can download a detailed, step-by- step meth recipe. All of the ingredients needed to make the drug are easily accessible and can be bought in the supermarket. Although its roots are in the West coast, this epidemic has recently made its way to my home state of Texas. According to Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) statistics, there were 175 seizures of methamphetamine labs in Texas by federal, local and state authorities in 1999. This is almost three times the number of labs which were seized in 1998. The use and manufacturing of methamphetamines is becoming a serious epidemic in Texas and needs to be dealt with in a comprehensive and aggressive manner. In order to actively address this problem, I support the Hutchinson amendment which would provide funding to assist state and local law enforcement agencies with the costs of methamphetamine lab clean-up. The DEA has been using FY 1998 and 1999 funds to assist with clandestine meth lab clean-up during this current fiscal year. However, these funds have been exhausted. The Hutchinson amendment uses $15 million in unspent funds in the COPS program available for policing initiatives to combat methamphetamine production and trafficking. While I would prefer that the funds not be taken from the COPS program for this amendment, I am supportive of its purpose. It is time that we arm our law enforcement with funding to curb the manufacturing and trafficking of this highly destructive drug. Now is the time to aggressively attack this problem.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, for the life of me, I cannot understand why we are debating a bill that does absolutely nothing to address the problem at hand. H.R. 3822 is not even a band-aid solution to the problem--it is mere lip service. When is this House going to have a real debate on national energy policy--or better yet, our lack of one? I have no doubt that every Member in this House is concerned about the economic ramifications of the recent oil price spike. When the price of gas at the pump goes up drastically in just a week, everyone feels it in his pocket. This unexpected economic hardship on the consuming public and the economy is of great concern to us all. But where was the concern in late 1997, 1998, and 1999, when the domestic oil and gas industry was being decimated by eighteen (18) months of historically low prices? During that time, the federal government stood by and watched as thousands upon thousands of independents--many of whom were Texans with family-owned businesses that had been in operation for generations-called it quits. The government did nothing to help those producers. Now, I know it is hard for Members from non-producing states to care much about the price of gas when it is rock-bottom cheap. The economy buzzes along and the consuming public benefits at the pump. But Members from producing states feel the crunch at both ends of this country's wild energy price fluctuations. During that eighteen (18) month period, more than 150,000 oil wells--25 percent of total U.S. oil wells--were shut down, and U.S. industry lost more than 65,000 jobs. Where was the help then? As policymakers, we need to acknowledge that the boom-and-bust cycle in oil prices--which dropped prices to below $10 per barrel just last year, then boosted them to more than $30 in recent days--negatively impacts the economy, the consuming public and the domestic petroleum industry. This country cannot stand by and ignore the implications of an unstable oil market. The benefits we derived from low oil prices last year are quickly stripped away by the high prices of today. No one benefits from this instability. Furthermore, in addition to the economic disruptions caused by oil price instability, these fluctuations also endanger our national security. When oil prices began dropping to historic lows in November of 1997, independent oil and gas producers lost billions of dollars as foreign governments fought for market share in the U.S., with the express intention of eliminating our domestic production. As domestic oil production continues to decline, U.S. dependence on foreign oil has actually grown, from 36 percent in 1973, to about 56 percent today. That makes the U.S. more vulnerable than ever, both militarily and economically, to disruptions in foreign oil supplies. Mr. Chairman, it is time we recognize that oil is a strategic commodity. It is absolutely vital that the government have policies in place that protect the U.S. oil and gas resource base. Oil is the nation's economic lifeblood, and we need to get ourselves off foreign life support. This is not an easy task. Now that the price of crude is high, we might make the mistake of assuming that domestic oil and gas producers do not need our assistance. One only has to look to history to know that this assumption is a dangerous one. Prices will continue to wildly fluctuate unless we act now to stabilize the market. The best way we can do that is to take back some of the control we have lost to other oil producing nations. After the sustained drop in the price of crude in recent years, it will take time and stability for the domestic industry to fully recover. Tax reforms could be a major step toward directing capital to finding and recovering oil and gas in the United States and bringing these resources to market for the benefit of all Americans. With this goal in mind, I had hoped to bring a package of tax incentives for domestic oil and gas producers to the floor today as an amendment to this bill. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership did not allow my amendment to be made in order. My amendment would have reformed the tax code to provide incentives for domestic oil and gas production and exploration by removing the barriers to capital access that are causing the mass exodus of independent producers from the domestic industry. The lack of foresight and hindsight on this issue is frustrating and troubling to me. Mr. Chairman, I am not suggesting that we should vote against this bill. It at least brings some level of attention to the underlying problem. But this is clearly an exercise in futility, and I am greatly disappointed that the Republican leadership has chosen to deny us a meaningful debate on the policies that would get to the heart of this country's energy problems. I urge my colleagues and the leadership to join me in a serious effort to craft a national energy policy, one that affords us price stability as well as economic and national security. Our independence and future security depend on it.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of increasing the minimum wage. A real increase in the minimum wage is long-overdue. In a period of unprecedented economic expansion, every worker should reap the benefits of the booming economy. The real issue here is a much-deserved minimum wage hike, and Congress must ensure that every minimum wage worker receives the increase our economy can surely afford. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) sets the current minimum wage at $5.15 per hour. This is unacceptably low. At $5.15 per hour, a minimum wage worker who is employed 40 hours per week for 52 weeks will earn a mere $10,712 a year. This is approximately $1,000 below the poverty level for a family of two. We cannot continue to sit idly by while working families struggle in a growing economy. Increasing the minimum wage to $6.15 per hour will help fulfill our moral obligation to working people--the obligation to pay a living wage. Mr. Speaker, the global strength of the United States and the strength of our economy is due to the strength of our labor force. Full-time, working families should not be allowed to fall below the poverty level. It is time that we give the workers who help run this nation and fuel our economy just compensation for their work. Beyond this, the need to pay a fair minimum wage to the average American worker is crucial to the overall success of our country's economy. Since the last minimum wage increase in 1996, the economy has created new jobs at a pace of over 250,000 per month; the inflation rate has been cut nearly in half; and the unemployment rate has fallen to 4.4 percent. By raising the minimum wage, we will give monetary merit to the workers who are responsible for this unprecedented growth and increase their purchasing power. The impact from the last minimum wage increase is clear: 10 million workers got a raise, and there is no evidence that jobs were lost. Furthermore, economic studies find no negative effect of the minimum wage on employment. In fact, recent research has even suggested that higher wages can increase employment because they improve employers' ability to attract, retain, and motivate workers. Finally, recent increases in the minimum wage have helped reduce the welfare caseload by increasing the incentive to work. While I do not believe that an increase in the minimum wage should have to be tied to a tax cut, I do support the provisions of this particular small business tax package. Specifically, this bill contains important estate tax relief for small business and family farms. I have fought for repeal of this egregious tax since I came to Congress, and I am happy today to finally see some meaningful relief. In addition to estate tax relief, this bill would increase contribution and benefit limits for retirement plans, enabling more Americans to save for their future. It also increases business meal deductions to 60% and accelerates the 100% deduction for health insurance for the self-employed and increases the deduction for the purchase of business equipment. Perhaps one of the most important provisions of the tax portion with regard to small businesses is the repeal of a current law prohibiting businesses that use accrual accounting methods from selling assets in installments and spreading out their tax liability. Unfortunately, this provision was part of a larger tax relief bill passed last year and has proven to be detrimental to small businesses. As a cosponsor of H.R. 3594, the Installment Tax Correction Act, legislation which would repeal this penalty, I am happy to lend my support to this important provision. Finally, the tax portion of today's bill would also authorize the creation of fifteen new ``renewal communities'' that would be eligible for various tax breaks and would increase the low-income housing tax credit. Mr. Speaker, the critical issue at stake today is a much-needed increase in the minimum wage. The minimum wage plays an important role in ensuring that all workers share in the growing economy, and there are numerous reasons for an increase. I call on my colleagues today to support this much-needed legislation and help ensure that no working American will have to live in poverty.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5, the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 1999. This legislation will finally repeal the outdated and unreasonable Social Security earnings limit that has penalized seniors for working beyond the age of 65 by reducing their monthly Social Security benefit. H.R. 5 is good for America's seniors and good for the economy. The Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act is about basic fairness. There are numerous reasons seniors may choose to continue working past the age of 65. Many seniors would like to retire but have to continue working simply to make ends meet. It is outrageous that the government penalizes these individuals for trying to support their most basic needs. Other seniors may continue to work simply for the pleasure and pride they take in contributing a lifetime's worth of skills and knowledge to their chosen profession. The government should not deprive industry of this dedicated, skilled, and resourceful population of workers. Regardless of the reason, America's seniors deserve the benefits they earn whether or not they choose to continue working beyond the national retirement age. I became a cosponsor of H.R. 5 last year because I feel so strongly about the merits of this legislation. According to the Social Security Administration, over 800,000 seniors lose part or all of their Social Security benefits because of the earnings limit. With the retirement of the massive baby boom generation fast-approaching, the number of seniors affected by this penalty will increase significantly over the next decade. Today, we have the opportunity to prevent that injustice. Mr. Speaker, my district has the good fortune of holding a large population of hardworking senior citizens who stand to benefit from the repeal of the Social Security earnings limit. The communities and businesses in the First Congressional District of Texas stand to benefit as well. Retaining skilled retirees is important in meeting today's workforce needs, and Congress needs to eliminate the very real financial disincentive seniors face if they want to continue working beyond retirement age. This is a win-win situation and deserves the full support of this Congress. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 5 to end the earnings penalty once and for all.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of eliminating the Marriage Tax Penalty. Our tax code punishes married couples when it should encourage families to stay together and help them prosper. I am a co-sponsor of H.R. 6 in its original form and have consistently supported the repeal of this egregious provision of our tax code. The original text of H.R. 6, however, was dramatically different from the bill we consider today. The bill we consider today is bloated and costly, while the original bill contained true marriage tax penalty relief for those who need it most. I will cast my vote in support of this bill today, but I do so only with the expectation that its considerable flaws will be remedied in the Senate. I am also disappointed in the process surrounding the consideration of this bill. Tax relief for working families is long overdue. However, it would be more prudent for Congress to consider tax relief as part of the larger budget framework. Eliminating the estate and marriage penalty taxes, as well as reducing the burden of the capital gains tax and providing education tax credits, are important priorities. These tax cuts should comprise 25 percent of a fiscally responsible budget--a budget that also puts aside 50 percent of the surplus to reduce the debt and 25 percent for investments such as national defense and education. I urge my colleagues not to lose sight of our responsibility of ensuring that current economic prosperity continues long into the future. We have a commitment to our children and grandchildren, and the only way to truly fulfill that commitment is through debt reduction as a result of responsible budgeting.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill that will codify the 27-year statutory interpretation of the Clean Water Act that has consistently classified forestry activities as a nonpoint source for potential water impairment and specifically exempted forestry activities from permitting requirements. Quite simply, this legislation will preserve the current system whereby our waters are kept clean through cooperative efforts between State and local governments and private landowners. The 1987 Clean Water Act Amendments enacted section 319 to specifically address nonpoint source runoff, including silviculture, through State Best Management Practice [BMP] programs. Under section 319, any regulatory program to control nonpoint source pollution is at the State level and not at the Federal level. Congress determined that it is the State's responsibility to develop nonpoint source controls and determine if there is a need for regulatory programs. Additionally, it is the State's responsibility to have the legal means in place to enforce a landowner's compliance. With this congressional intent in mind, Texas has developed a highly successful, voluntary approach to nonpoint source pollution control and a ``bad actor'' law to enforce the provisions where necessary. Since 1991, the Texas Forest Service, in cooperation with EPA, the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board, forest industry, Texas Logging Council, and forest landowner associations, has conducted extensive training of foresters, loggers, and landowners to understand silvicultural Best Management Practices and how to implement them. To date, over 850 loggers and foresters have been trained on BMPs. In 10 years since forestry BMPs were developed in Texas, 87 percent of all logging sites across twelve million acres are in compliance with recommended BMPs. The States have done a good job of working with the private landowners to clean up our streams and lakes. Opening up the process to unnecessary and burdensome Federal regulations would only have a negative impact on the States' ability to improve land use decisions. My legislation will allow the current, voluntary, nonpoint source program to continue building on its successes by ensuring that States can continue to treat forestry activities as nonpoint sources for potential water impairment. This bill keeps in tact the congressional intent of the Clean Water Act that identifies most water pollution from silvicultural activities as nonpoint in nature, thus exempting private landowners from Federal permitting requirements.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I welcome an apparent change in direction by Energy Secretary Bill Richardson away from draining millions of barrels of oil from the strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) in the coming weeks. Draining the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and dumping foreign oil on our market is a dangerous precedent, both from an economic standpoint and as a national security issue. I am glad that Secretary Richardson backed down. The Administration's strategy on dealing with rising oil prices has been unclear. Last month, Secretary Richardson indicated that the Energy Department might move to open the SPR and encourage foreign countries to dump oil on the U.S. market in an effort to reduce prices. The New York Times reported Sunday that Secretary Richardson is reluctant to open the reserves, but Time reports this week that ``Richardson is quietly but vigorously pushing a proposal that would pour millions of barrels of oil from America's Strategic Petroleum Reserve onto the market in the coming weeks.'' Mr. Speaker, I have been a vocal critic of plans to use oil from the SPR in response to the rising price of oil. Doing so would be extremely dangerous to our economy and our national security. The reserve was created to fill any gaps in oil supply during war or other emergencies. Using it to manage price is improper and contrary to long-standing practices. It now appears that the White House has decided to stay the course. I have told the Administration that releasing oil from the reserves would not only threaten oil producers, but sets a dangerous precedent. Our Strategic Petroleum Reserve must be closely guarded in order to maintain our national security. Large-scale government intervention in the oil market would hurt domestic oil producers. I know that high heating oil prices are a serious problem for working families in the Northeast, but Texas oil producers are not to blame. If we open our reserves every time the price of oil moves, we invite even more harassment from OPEC and the threat of an actual supply disruption. Mr. Speaker, this entire episode highlights the fact that we need a national energy policy. Right now, all we do is respond to the emergency of the moment. We have no plan, no policy. Secretary Richardson has wandered all over the map on this issue. I'm glad that good policy and reason prevailed. President Clinton needs to take the long view of America's energy issues. I am hopeful that the White House will focus its energy on developing a long-term energy policy that will protect American consumers and producers and while ensuring our national security.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, this is no way to govern. Republicans have decided to run this budget bill through Congress by keeping members in the dark. The budgeting process that brought us this bill at 3:30 a.m. must change. Congress needs to find a better way to fund day-to-day government operations without jeopardizing funding for critical initiatives and programs by a process that is too partisan and deeply divided. Even though I object to the process which brought us this bill, I will support its final passage because it contains a number of provisions which are absolutely essential for the people in my district. These provisions include relief for rural hospitals hit hard by the Balanced Budget Act of 1977 (BBA), access to local stations for rural satellite TV viewers, critical protections for dairy farmers, and the hiring of teachers and law enforcement officers. Health care providers in rural East Texas have been hit exceptionally hard by the BBA changes. Many hospitals in East Texas receive 55-75% of revenue from Medicare. The budget package includes an agreement that would give hospitals, nursing homes, home health care agencies and other health care providers relief from cuts in Medicare payments that was enacted under the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. This agreement will provide an estimated $12.8 billion over five years in additional Medicare payments for hospitals, home health care agencies, managed care plans and other health providers. It also includes provisions targeted at small hospitals and rural hospitals. In addition to a higher rate of reimbursement for these institutions, the bill allows them to increase the number of residency positions they are allowed to offer. Hospital outpatient departments will also see relief. The agreement includes a provision stating that Congress never intended to impose a 5.7% cut in payments to hospital outpatient departments. This provision will restore these payments, reimbursing hospitals about $4.2 billion over five years. This is critical for the financial security of our rural hospitals in East Texas. Patients' care options will be preserved with this provision, and the quality of care will be preserved. The budget bill also contains important provisions which would allow satellite TV viewers access to local programming. Until now, satellite providers have been barred from transmitting the signals of local broadcast stations back to subscribers in the same local market. This legislation, however, contains important provisions of the Satellite Home View Act, which recently passed the House with overwhelming support. In addition to allowing satellite carriers to transmit local broadcast signals back to subscribers in the same local market, this legislation would also eliminate the current 90-day waiting period before cable subscribers can switch to satellite service. These provisions are good news for satellite viewers who have been unfairly left deprived of access to local weather, news, and programming. With regard to dairy, the agreement includes policy provisions that direct the USDA to implement its proposed ``Option 1-A'' Class 1 differential milk pricing structure. By doing so, the measure blocks portions of USDA's preferred milk marketing orders reform plan (Option 1-B) and essentially preserves the status quo in milk pricing for Texas. This is a victory for Texas dairy farmers. If Option 1-B had been implemented, Texas dairy farmers would have lost $56 million in producer income. With this agreement, we are preventing that loss and preserving the East Texas dairy farm. The budget also contains a number of important Democratic victories, including funding for 100,000 new teachers, after school programs, Head Start, school construction, and the COPS program. These victories also include extensions of important tax credits for research and development, the Work Incentive tax credit, Welfare to Work credit, and Alternative Minimum Tax relief for individuals. This year we have also given our service men and women a pay raise and provided funding for increased workload at Red River Army Depot. Specifically, the FY00 budget appropriates $384 million for upgrading the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Finally, this bill puts aside $147 billion for reducing the national debt and helping ensure that future generations can share in the economic prosperity we are now experiencing as a nation. Although I am pleased with the positive aspects of this bill, I am deeply disturbed by its more troubling provisions. Those include an arbitrary across-the-board cut upon which Republicans have insisted. Instead of eliminating the irresponsible member earmarks that load-up this budget with unnecessary spending or cutting Member pay raises, Republicans have opted for a damaging, indiscriminate across-the-board cut. Moreover, they rely on accounting gimmicks to disguise the real spending in this bill, and they tell us this budget won't break the caps. This bill has not been scored, so we have no choice but to accept Republican claims that it won't dip into the Social Security trust fund. I find the Republicans' failure to cut the Congressional pay raise particularly unconscionable. This bill would actually exempt the Congressional pay raise from the across-the-board cut. This provision is extremely upsetting, considering that Congress twice voted against this exemption. Republican tactics throughout the budget process have produced an imperfect bill. Their unwillingness to negotiate with Democrats from the beginning is the reason behind this 11th hour budget bill. Unfortunately, Republicans put off budget negotiations until the very last minute in favor of partisan rhetoric and have thereby prevented Congress from passing a Patients' Bill of Rights, funding a Medicare prescription drug benefit for seniors, increasing the minimum wage for working Americans, and providing meaningful tax relief for families. These realities make it especially difficult for me to cast my vote in favor of this bill. The most troubling consequence of this bill is the potentially detrimental effect of the across-the-board cut on veterans' healthcare. I will vote for the Motion to Recommit for this reason, and for all the other reasons I have cited, in hopes that these problems can be addressed before final passage of the bill. However, should the Motion to Recommit fail, I will support final passage because, although it is imperfect, this bill is a product of lengthy negotiations. I accept that negotiation requires compromise, and not everyone will agree on every aspect of a compromise. All in all, I support this bill because, despite its shortcomings, it is good news for the people of East Texas.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember a great American, a great Texan, and a great friend. Thomas D. ``Tommy'' Wells, the long- time County Attorney for Lamar County, Texas, died on October 15, 1999, will be sorely missed. Tommy served Lamar County as County Attorney for twenty years and will always be remembered as an exemplary public servant. But I will remember Tommy as a friend--a man dedicated to his family, committed to always doing the right thing. My friend Tommy was an inspiration to the people of East Texas. He graduated from Paris High School and received his bachelor's degree from Baylor University. After graduating from law school at St. Mary's University, he returned to Paris to practice law. Subsequently, Tommy won five consecutive elections to the County Attorney post. He was elected president of the Texas County and District Attorney's Association and also served on the State Bar of Texas Grievance Committee. After leaving his prosecutor's post for private practice. Tommy continued to serve his state as a special prosecutor. Clearly Tommy was a credit to his profession--but his lasting legacy is his family. Tommy and his wife of thirty years, Rusty, raised two sons in Paris. Nothing was more important to Tommy Wells than his family. His dedication to his family's activities brought him closer to his community. Tommy taught Sunday School for the First Baptist Church of Paris and coached football for Optimist teams. He was active with the Paris Boys Club. He served on the board of the Salvation Army and was a member of the ``Old Men's Club.'' Tommy Wells was not an old man, though. He died at age fifty-four. A young man both in age and spirit, he contributed more to Lamar County in his brief life than its residents ever could have asked of him. Mr. Speaker, East Texas has lost a leader and a friend. His wife, sons, and mother have lost a dear member of their family. But the City of Paris and Lamar County gained so much from the life of Tommy Wells. We celebrate his life and are grateful for his time with us.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill for FY 2000 represents a product of bi-partisan negotiations. Finally, the Republican leadership has agreed to sit down with Democrats and work and an appropriations bill that doesn't face a veto threat. It funds the U.S. brokered Wye River Agreement, an important part of achieving a real and lasting peace in the Middle East and affirmation of our commitment to Israel, a critical ally. A vote for this bill is a vote for a strong leadership role for the United States. I urge passage of this bill because foreign operations bolster our military and national security. This legislation declares support for our armed services and for the men and women who risk their lives to protect our freedom.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3075, the Medicare Balanced Budget Refinements Act. H.R. 3075 provides much needed relief for nearly all health care sectors suffering from the unintended consequences of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. Providing this relief is a bipartisan priority and warrants no less than our immediate attention. Health care providers in the First Congressional District of Texas have been hit exceptionally hard by the BBA changes. Medicare issues are particularly important to East Texas and other rural areas around this country. With the Medicare population making up over 18% of the rural population, rural hospitals depend more on Medicare reimbursements than their urban counterparts. I have worked hard to make sure rural health care receives the special attention it deserves in this debate. I am pleased that many of my priorities for rural health care relief were adopted by the committee in writing this bill. While the bill may not be everything I had wanted, it is certainly a first step in the right direction. In particular, I am pleased the bill includes some rural specific provisions to help maintain access to small rural hospitals. The bill permits rural hospitals with fewer than 50 beds to apply for grants of up to $50,000 to meet the costs associated with implementing new prospective payment systems. the Medicare Dependent Hospital Program, established to assist small rural hospitals that are not classified as sole community hospitals and that treat relatively high proportions of Medicare patients, also is extended through fiscal year 2005 in this bill. In addition, provisions to strengthen the Critical Access Hospital Program are included as well. These hospitals are small, rural, limited service hospitals that are geographically remote, rural nonprofit, or public hospitals that are certified by states as a necessary provider. These sources of health care are critical to my constituents and will benefit from the enactment of H.R. 3075. Mr. Speaker, while I am satisfied with many of the bill's provisions, it does not go far enough in several areas. First, H.R. 3075 does help home health care providers by delaying the 15% reduction until one year after implementation of the PPS. However, I urge my colleagues to include language in the conference bill that would continue Periodic Interim Payments to assist small agencies with cash flow problems. The other body has included language in its bill that would preserve this system for a year after imposition of the PPS. I strongly support this provision and urge its inclusion in the final bill. I also support efforts to provide more relief for nursing homes. This bill only addresses payment problems for these facilities through a six-month fix. This is insufficient assistance and will not give nursing homes enough time to adjust to the PPS. I hope this provision will be extended in the final product as well. Although H.R. 3075 falls short in these areas, as well as in the area of prescription drugs where there is a total lack of language to help our seniors, I believe it is essential to pass this legislation as a first step toward reform. I will continue to fight for more improvements to Medicare as we enter the new year, but I urge all of my colleagues to vote today for this overdue relief.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, it is time for responsible budgeting in this country. It is time to pay the country's debt. It is time to take Social Security completely off budget. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of bragging from the other side of the aisle about stopping the raid on Social Security. The only problem is that the facts just do not back up the bragging. The Republicans would like us to believe that the Congressional Budget Office has said that their budget would protect the Social Security surplus. What they forget to mention is it is only true when the Republican leadership tells CBO to change their numbers. How convenient. When the Republicans wave around the CBO certification that they are protecting Social Security, they conveniently forget to mention the footnote that says that the estimate includes, ``reductions applied to CBO's estimates for congressional scorekeeping purposes.'' In other words, the Republican leadership had to tell CBO to change their estimates to reduce the estimates of spending to make their numbers work. They use these estimates when they are convenient; but when they do not like it, they use other estimates. It is time for responsible budgeting.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Madam Speaker, today marks a historical day in the world of financial services. Passage of the S. 900/H.R. 10 conference report will allow consumers to benefit from improvements in the financial services system while protecting their privacy with unprecedented, extensive safeguards. I supported H.R. 10 when it passed the House in July, and I strongly support the conference report today. This conference report is good news for consumers. It would expand the Community Reinvestment Act and ensure that new, expanded institutions are held to the high standard of CRA. In addition, it would protect consumer privacy as never before. The Financial services conference report is supported by big and small banks alike as well as by the securities and insurance industries because it would overhaul depression-era law that only increase costs for consumers, inhibit competition, and stifle innovation. This bill will ensure that consumers can reap the benefits of the changing financial services marketplace. Perhaps the most significant victory for consumers contained in this legislation is an unprecedented level of privacy protections. When this conference report is passed, these provisions will represent the most comprehensive federal privacy protections ever enacted by Congress. Moreover, this bill allows preemption of state laws in the event their privacy protections are even stronger. Without its passage, banks will continue to expand their operations without statutory privacy protections and without enhanced community reinvestment provisions. A vote for this bill is vote for consumer privacy and community development alike. The benefits to consumers and to the American economy will be enormous, and I urge my colleagues to pass this landmark legislation.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, due to unforeseen official business in my district, I was unable to cast my vote yesterday on H.R. 348, H.R. 2737, and H.R. 1710. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: Rollcall vote 550: Yea; Rollcall vote 551: Yea; and Rollcall vote 552: Yea.