Max Sandlin

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, one of our most fundamental rights is under fire in the court system. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which presides over Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, recently told our students they cannot pray before a football game or any other sporting event sponsored by their school. This decision is an affront to the Constitution and sends the wrong message to our children. I am an original cosponsor of House Concurrent Resolution 199, expressing the sense of the Congress that prayers and invocations at public school sporting events contribute to the moral foundation of our nation and urging the Supreme Court to uphold their constitutionality. I have consistently voted in favor of prayer in schools because it is wrong for the government to tell us when and where we can pray. The First Amendment states, ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . . '' The United States Supreme Court has interpreted our constitution to all at least some prayer and religious expression in public schools. We have seen, however, that courts and school district officials are having great difficulty in drawing the distinctions between what is allowed and what is prohibited. With respect to our public school system, the government must be neutral on the issue of religion in the pubic schools, serving neither as its agent nor as its adversary. Therefore, constitutionally, a public school should allow a student to pray in school, but should not mandate organized prayer. In the decision handed down by the Fifth Circuit, this principle of neutrality has been lost. Clearly, a court that prohibits prayers specifically at sporting events is not practicing neutrality towards religion. It is discrimination of one kind of speech--religious speech. Our courts should not ban this form or religious expression or attempt to regulate its content. Mr. Speaker, I believe faith is essential in establishing one's moral and ethical character. I am sure the Members of this House agree because we say a prayer every day this House is in session. If Members of Congress can say a prayer at the beginning of each legislative day, then students should be allowed to say a prayer before a school sporting event. After all, our children do not check their religious beliefs at the schoolhouse door. We cannot allow a strained, out of touch court decision eclipse their rights. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting House Concurrent Resolution 199. Let's give our children the same rights we exercise here in the Congress. Let's protect the constitutional freedoms they are learning about in class, but currently unable to enjoy at the school football game.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, the Labor-HHS appropriations bill is yet another example of the Republican party's inability to govern. I will vote against this bill because it fails the American people. It is a failure with regard to Medicare and education and other important Democratic priorities. It fails to fund a Medicare prescription drug benefit for seniors, and it fails to provide funds to reduce class size and hire 100,000 new teachers. Adding insult to injury, Republicans have added a 1-percent across- the-board budget cut to the Labor-HHS bill. This cut will have disastrous effects on programs that are critical to children, seniors, veterans, farmers, and national security. In lieu of an egregious across-the-board cut, I have proposed that the Republican leaders eliminate the Members' pay raise, as well as all Member earmarks. However, the Republican leadership would rather put money in their pockets and pet projects than use it to fund the priorities of the people. Republicans have also proven, through this across-the-board cut, that they will take care of their own priorities at any cost, even if it means losing up to 48,000 military personnel and cutting much-needed assistance to our farmers by $86 million. Putting money in their pockets must also be more important than fighting the war on drugs and maintaining strong law enforcement. Their budget cut would cut 90 agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration and 247 FBI agents. Moreover, Democrats are not alone in their concerns about the inevitable cuts in defense. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Henry Shelton has confirmed the disastrous effects of the Republican-proposed budget cut on our military. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, he stated that the across-the-board budget cut would be ``devastating'' to the military. In addition, the Congressional Budget Office, the Republican- appointed budget score-keepers, announced today that Republicans have already spent $17 billion of the Social Security trust fund. This announcement comes as Republicans take to the floor one after another to praise the importance of Social Security, vowing not to dip into the trust fund. These are crocodile tears from the party that has consistently raided Social Security. They have opposed this program since its inception and have consistently tried to kill it. The sad truth is that the Republicans' new-found concern for Social Security is merely a political ploy. They weren't concerned last year when they spent one billion dollars of the trust fund, and they weren't concerned during the Reagan administration or the Bush administration, when Republicans consistently proposed spending billions of dollars of the Social Security trust fund. I urge my colleagues to cast their vote against the Labor-HHS bill. A vote against this product of poor Republican governance, budget gimmicks, and cynical political maneuvering, is a vote for bolstering our national security, educating our children, caring for our seniors, respecting our veterans, and helping our farmers.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, a battle over the budget has engulfed Congress. I am saddened by the extent to which the Republican leadership has allowed partisan politics to pollute this distinguished body and shift the budget debate from substance to sound-bites. With only seven of thirteen spending bills signed into law, the budget for fiscal year 2000 is far from complete. Moreover, Congress has been forced to fund the government through temporary stop-gap spending measures in order to avoid a shutdown of national parks, monuments, agencies, and the federal government. Yet rather than sit down and negotiate with the administration and the Democrats in the House and Senate, Republicans have chosen to take the path of confrontation rather than compromise. The cause is misplaced priorities, and the effect is a bad budget. Republicans made a choice to fund their own priorities, while completely ignoring the priorities of the American people, Democratic members, and the administration. In the process of drafting spending bills for fiscal year 2000, they shut out the minority and proceeded to go their own way. Now they point fingers when their irresponsible bills are vetoed because they fail to sufficiently fund the priorities of the American people: Programs essential to education, defense, and senior citizens. Left out of their spending proposals are key Democratic initiatives such as funding for 100,000 new teachers and smaller classes, funding for the COPS program which provides grants to local communities for hiring more police officers, and funding for a Medicare prescription drug benefit. These programs have been completely left out of the Republican budget. Yet when Democrats fight for funding for these key initiatives, we are falsely accused of proposing more spending. The truth is, we do not want more spending. Rather, we advocate different spending. Instead of giving priority to a member pay raise and member earmarked projects, let's fund the initiatives that count. Sadly, Republicans have ignored our pleas and instead chosen to resort to name-calling and groundless accusations. One of our primary initiatives must be to protect Social Security. I propose taking it completely off-budget. Social Security funds must be used only for Social Security. However, the Congressional Budget Office, the Republican-appointed budget score-keepers, confirm that the Republicans are already on their way to spending at least $25 billion of the Social Security trust fund. Adding insult to injury, Republicans have tried to cover up their irresponsible spending and penchant for dipping into Social Security through numerous gimmicks and accounting tricks designed to fool the American people into believing their false claims of good fiscal policy. These gimmicks range from declaring the 2000 census, something which happens every ten years as required by the Constitution, as emergency spending. This spending dips directly into Social Security. In addition to emergency designations, Republicans have also proposed adopting a thirteen-month fiscal year, tried to withhold payment of tax credits to the working poor and ``forward-fund'' certain programs, thereby attempting to count this year's spending in next year's budget. These gimmicks are dishonest and unacceptable to the American people. When the administration sent its budget recommendation to Congress almost one year ago, Congress rejected it and promised the American people we would pass an even better budget that protected important programs without dipping into the Social Security trust fund. Rather than fulfill this promise to the people, Republicans have opted for a political showdown. The result is a completely unnecessary, wholly manufactured crisis over the budget. Republicans have chosen rhetoric over responsibility and taken the partisan path towards a 1.4 percent across-the-board budget cut which will have costly ramifications on critical programs. Specifically, education for the disadvantaged would be cut by $109 million, literacy programs would be cut by $3.6 million, and Head Start would be unable to provide services to 6,700 children. Child immunization programs would be cut by approximately $6.7 million, and vitally needed assistance to farmers would be slashed by $124 million. Agricultural income assistance would be cut by $90 million, and crop and livestock loss payments would be cut by $22 million. In addition, national security would suffer dearly as $3.9 billion would be cut from the defense budget. Military pay and readiness would suffer the most. The men and women in the military who risk their lives for our safety and security would suffer a 2.8 percent cut in personnel. While this battle rages on over the politics of the budget, the American people suffer. As Republicans focus the energy of the Congress on their budget end game, the Patients Bill of Rights, relief for farmers and veterans' benefits face a dismal future. While Republicans devise more gimmicks to cover their tracks, Congress neglects a long overdue increase in the minimum wage, making schools safer for our children, and passing much-deserved tax relief for families, small businesses, and farmers. In a tragic example of irresponsible governance, the majority party has chosen to fund its own priorities at the cost of Social Security and drastic budget cuts in education, law enforcement, agriculture, and national security. It's time for Republicans to sit down at the negotiating table and put an end to the budget bickering. It's time for responsible government. Let's choose principle over politics, and let's pass a budget that doesn't short-change the American people.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I am a longtime opponent of congressional pay raises and pork barrel spending. The time for us to make tough choices is most certainly here. I am encouraging the leadership of the House to reject attempts to cut spending on vital government programs across the board. Instead, let's eliminate the proposed congressional pay hike and the countless budget earmarks. I staked out this proposal in a letter today to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert requesting that he reject the proposed across-the-board spending cuts at a time when Congress is scheduled to receive a pay raise. I am also suggesting that Speaker Hastert should turn back the spending programs we call ``earmarks.'' In light of budget realities and constraints on spending, we must define and protect our priorities as we are forced to make other spending sacrifices. The proposed 1.4 percent across-the-board spending cut would have disastrous effects on critical programs such as defense and education, as well as vital programs for senior citizens. This reckless round of cuts would threaten our military's readiness and reduce the number of men and women in uniform. Cutting across the board could deprive almost 7,000 children and their families of the proven value of the Head Start program. Furthermore, the cuts would reduce aid to our nation's farmers. Disaster assistance and income assistance would both be reduced at a time when they are so badly needed. My proposal could save the government billions of dollars. Giving up the 3.4 percent pay raise and cutting away earmarked proposals would eliminate the need for indiscriminate spending cuts which would devastate already under-funded programs. Mr. Speaker, the time to act is now. We have to make the tough choices that the American people sent us here to make. For us to meet our obligations and protect Social Security, we will have to make sacrifices. We will have to do the right thing. I am hopeful that the House leadership will make the right choice at this critical moment in the budget debate. It will take courage. It will require us to make tough choices. And that's our job.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I intend to cast my vote today against the D.C. Appropriations Conference Report. I will vote against this bill not because I disagree with provisions banning the use of funds for needle exchange programs--I voted for the amendment adding this language to the House bill when it was passed by this body back in July. I am also strongly opposed to the use of marijuana for any purpose. I support these restrictions, and they are not the reasons for my concern. I am, however, opposed to this bill because it deprives the people of the District of Columbia of their right to pursue legal recourse on voting rights. It effectively ties their hands, preventing them from using even their own money to address this issue in court. Ms. Speaker, I do not believe that Congress has the right to dictate to the District, or to any other locality for that matter, how it should use its own money. Most of us agree that Congress should not tell cities across the country how they should use their own tax money; why should the District of Columbia be any different?

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, do we need a new Federal tort in this country? Do we want the Federal courts preempting State law in this country? Do we want the Federal courts taking over the traditional role of regulating insurance that is assumed by the States in this country? I submit to my colleagues that the answer to those questions is no, but that is exactly what Coburn-Shadegg will do, allow Federal courts to preempt State law and create a brand-new Federal tort. Let us create health care in this country for American citizens. Let us do not create new torts. What happened to local control? What happened to that argument? Do we not trust our own State courts in this country? Do we not respect local government? Do we turn everything over in this country to the Federal courts? Is that what we are about? That is just what this bill does. I am here to tell my colleagues that, under Coburn-Shadegg, our State courts are gagged just like the doctors are gagged. On the other hand, Norwood-Dingell will not override protections already provided by State laws, States such as Texas, New York, Michigan, Iowa all across this great country. Norwood-Dingell is a common-sense local approach to these problems. If an insurer makes a decision, the insurer is responsible for that decision. A final matter, the employer is not responsible for the decisions made by others. The employer is not responsible for the decisions made by others. The employer is not responsible for the decision made by others, period. That is what the States say. Let us create medical care. Let us do not create a new tort.

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2723, the Bipartisan Consensus Managed Care Improvement Act of 1999 introduced by Representatives Norwood and Dingell. This is the only bill that would enact consumer protections through responsible health care reform. The Norwood-Dingell managed care bill provides Americans with many important patient protections such as access to needed health care specialists; access to emergency room services when and where the need arises; assurance that doctors and patients can openly discuss treatment options; an external, third- party appeals process for service denials; access to personal medical information; legal redress for injury or death due to the denial of care covered under a managed care plan. I am a cosponsor of H.R. 2723 because it will provide comprehensive and enforceable protections that American's health care consumers demand and deserve. By 1997, more than 80 percent of privately insured Americans were enrolled in managed care plans-up from just 13 percent in 1987. As we increase access to health care, we must not allow unqualified parties to make critical decisions about patient treatment. Patients needed to feel confident that their doctors are giving them all necessary information, without concern of retaliation by a health insurance provider. Insurance bureaucrats want to tell patients they know medicine better than their doctors. Let's tell them they do not. The Norwood-Dingell bill would prohibit health plans fro silencing any health care professional from advising a patient about the patient's health status or available treatment, regardless of whether the plan covers such a treatment or care. Americans also deserve access to emergency care services. Let me give an example of why this protection is so important. Jess Reed suffered a stroke at home. He was rushed to the closet hospital. The HMO insisted he be taken to another hospital, causing a 2-3 hour delay in treatment. Delay seriously exacerbated his condition and prevented full recovery from his stroke. The Norwood-Dingell bill would require health plans to cover the emergency care of a ``prudent layperson'' in any hospital emergency room, without prior authorization. Another reason I support the Norwood-Dingell bill is to assure patients access to necessary prescription drugs. Prescription medications should not be one-sized-fits all. For plans that use a formulary, Norwood-Dingell provides that beneficiaries must be able to access medications that are not on the formulary when the prescribing physician dictates. One of the most important distinctions in this debate is whether or not we truly hold health plans accountable. Opponents of real accountability argue that patients who have been unfairly denied health care should be limited to external appeals. But external reviews is simply not enough to protect patients against the worst managed care abuses. Accountability is the ultimate deterrent and is an essential last resort when all else fails. Only legal accountability gives injured patients what they need to ensure that managed care does the right thing and puts patients first. And only Norwood-Dingell ensures legal accountability. Such accountability exists in all other sectors of our society, yet we continue to exempt health plans. Health plans are not currently held accountable for decisions about patient treatment that result in injury or death. Currently, ERISA preempts state laws and provides essentially no remedy for injured individuals whose health plans' decisions to limit care ultimately cause harm. If the plan was at fault, the maximum remedy is the denied benefit itself. Norwood-Dingell would remove ERISA's preemption and allow patients to hold health plans accountable according to state law. However, plans that comply with an external reviewer's decision may not be held liable for punitive damages. Additionally, any state law limits on damages or legal proceedings would apply. My home State of Texas was the first State in the Nation to pass a patient protection act. But because many large employers insure their workers themselves, giving them Federal protection from State insurance laws under ERISA, only about 25 percent of Texans are covered by the act. It is fundamentally unfair to deny this group of individuals the rights my State has afforded to all other Texans who do not belong to an ERISA health plan. Norwood-Dingell would allow Texas' liability laws and patient protections to apply to all Texans. The liability provision in Norwood-Dingell also protects employers from liability when they were not involved in the treatment decision. It explicitly states that discretionary authority does not include a decision about what benefits to include in the plan, or a decision not to address a case while an external appeal is pending or a decision to provide an extra-contractual benefit. Now, I have heard a great deal of rumbling about the impact of Norwood-Dingell on health care costs. During the debate in the Texas Capitol, business and insurance groups routinely warned that costs would skyrocket. In fact, Texas' health insurance premiums continue to trail the rest of the country even though our fellow Texans enjoy some of the most stringent patients' rights laws in the country. Opponents said, repeatedly, that holding HMOs accountable for harming patients would provoke a flood of lawsuits. The reality is that no more than five suits have been filed since the law took effect in September 1997. Instead of defending good, comprehensive, enforceable patients' rights legislation to insurance bureaucrats, we should be firing some questions of our own at the insurers. If managed care is supposed to make health care more affordable and therefore more available, why is it that, as HMO penetration increased in Texas, the percentage of working uninsured increased proportionately? Other than skyrocketing CEO compensation, where have all the millions of dollars in profits gone? Mr. Chairman, it's time to stop the insurance companies from putting profits above patients. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 2723, the Norwood-Dingell bipartisan managed care reform bill.

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, the insurance companies are at it again. They are trying to deceive the American public and in the process are attempting to take away a fundamental right of each and every American. Clearly, a right without a remedy is absolutely meaningless. The Norwood-Dingell bill comes down to one word--Fairness. This bipartisan bill guarantees patient protections such as the right to choose the doctor that best serves your needs; the right to have medical decisions made by physicians and their patients, not HMO bureaucrats interested in the bottom line; the right to know that our families will be able to use the emergency room when needed; the right to obtain the information we need to make informed decisions about our own medical care. But what if our families are denied medical service? What if a delay in a service causes harm to our children, our spouses, our parents, our families? Where is the fairness then? The Norwood-Dingell bill would allow patients (or the estates of patients) who are injured or die as a result of their health plan's denial of care to sue the health plan in State courts for damages. This is what the real world calls accountability. That's fairness. As a strong supporter of local control, I support the Norwood-Dingell bill because, unlike the Coburn-Shadegg substitute, it will not override protections already enacted by the states. These protections in state laws are currently applicable to all non-ERISA employer- sponsored health insurance and to individually purchased insurance. It is not fair that these protections afforded by the states to their residents, do not have the force of law for everyone in the state. The Norwood-Dingell bill would restore those protections to everyone by removing the preemption provision in ERISA so that state laws prevail. In contrast, Coburn-Shadegg would continue to preempt state liability law with respect to health plans and insurers. Rather than maintain the states' traditional role in regulating insurance by allowing state causes of action, Coburn-Shadegg creates an entirely new federal cause of action. Mr. Chairman, federal courts are already overburdened, particularly in light of the fact that the Republican majority in the other body refuses to confirm President Clinton's nominations to the bench, creating more than 50 vacancies in the federal courts. In addition to this obstacle, patients seeking redress for injury or death will have to wait in line behind drug dealers and thieves because the Speedy Trial Act of 1974 gives criminal cases priority in the federal court docket. Those criminal cases should be given priority because that's where they belong--in federal courts. Liability suits against HMOs, however, belong in state courts. In my home state of Texas, we have 372 state courts, but only 39 federal courts. Obviously, Coburn-Shadegg creates so many barriers to a trial that patients will never want to exercise the right we are trying to give them. The Norwood-Dingell bill is the only bill that restores states' rights and provides patients with real protections under the law. Will there be a flood of litigation if Norwood-Dingell is enacted? Hardly. In Texas, we enacted a law in 1997 creating an external appeals process and allowing lawsuits against HMOs. In the two years since that law took effect, only five lawsuits have been filed against health plans in Texas. That's five lawsuits in two years--hardly an explosion. And contrary to all the allegations, there is no employer liability in the Norwood-Dingell bill. Clearly, employers cannot be held liable for the decisions of insurance companies and/or the decisions of others. This bill does not create a new cause of action. It simply removes the provision of ERISA that protects insurance companies from being sued. It specifically states that employers cannot be held liable unless they exercise discretionary authority--in other words, if the employer acts like a doctor and makes a medical decision on an employee's claim for benefits covered under the plan, then the employer must accept the accountability that comes along with playing doctor. I should point out that I have met with many representatives of the business community and I have repeatedly asked them to bring language to me that they believe would prevent employers from being sued. I assured them that I would work with Mr. Dingell and Mr. Norwood to address their concerns. Not one of those people has taken me up on my offer. That is because there is no employer liability in the bill. Their answer instead is to oppose the entire bill and threaten Members who support Norwood-Dingell. So why are the insurance companies so worried about the liability provisions of Norwood-Dingell? Because legal accountability will force HMOs to provide quality care, and some insurance company bean counters are afraid that might mean a smaller profit margin for them. They argue that Norwood-Dingell would force managed care plans to practice defensive medicine that would increase their costs and cause them to raise our premiums. This argument is ridiculous and actually underlines the need for reform. Norwood-Dingell specifically provides that plans are not required to cover any services beyond those provided in the contract. So with the liability provision in place, costs of care should not increase significantly as these costs are already covered by premiums. Care is being paid for, but not provided. Legal accountability will give HMOs the incentive to provide a quality of care that patients have every right to expect. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Norwood-Dingell bill and reject this disingenuous attempt by insurance companies to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans are again playing games with the American people. They are telling the public what they want to hear, hoping no one will read beyond the title of their bill, the Quality of Care for the Uninsured Act. Well, Mr. Speaker, I read the bill and it doesn't provide access to health insurance to those who need it most. According to the General Accounting Office, nearly one-third of all uninsured Americans would not be helped by this bill. Why? Because they make so little income that they do not pay income taxes. How will the Republican tax breaks help these families? It will not help them one cent. Of the 44 million uninsured Americans, of whom 5 million live in the State of Texas, the people this bill aims to really help are the 600,000 uninsured healthy families that make almost $100,000 per year and can afford the risk to opt out of the broader insurance pool. The effect of this would be to drive up costs for those most in need of coverage. In addition, the Ways and Means Committee has also determined that only 160,000 people of those 600,000 families would qualify for access to insurance under this bill. Yet we would be spending 48 billion dollars on this phony access package. Even worse, the bill is not paid for within the budget or by offsets. Mr. Speaker, my Republican friends on the other side of the aisle continue to ignore budgetary reality in order to push through a 48 billion dollar access bill, the funds for which will come directly from the Social Security trust fund. Like the supporters of this bill, I want to give more Americans a range of options for their health care-- they should have at least as many choices in their health care plan as Federal employees. However, this bill does not deliver on what its supporters are promising. The Republican access bill will benefit a small group of people and is simply intended to kill the Norwood- Dingell managed care reform bill that so many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are trying to derail. Republicans have already spent over $25 billion over the Social Security surplus, but here they are again with a tax bill they can't pay for. I urge my colleagues not to raid Social Security. I urge them to vote against this fiscally irresponsible poison pill to the Norwood- Dingell managed care reform bill.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, the Lone Star State has been a leader in health insurance reform. The Texas Legislature enacted a law in 1997 which protects patients' rights when insurance companies stand in the way of common sense and good medicine. So what has happened in my home state over the past two years? Have our courts been overrun with frivolous lawsuits? Are families saddled with growing premiums? Are HMOs being run out of business? No. Not by a Texas mile. Last week the Washington Post noted that only five lawsuits have been filed against health plans in Texas. That's five lawsuits in two years. Of the roughly six hundred complaints submitted to the independent review system established under the Texas law, about half of the cases have been resolved in favor of the patients, half in favor of the insurance companies. And premiums have not increased in our state. In fact, we enjoy some of the lowest premiums in the country. Almost everything is big in Texas. And now the Lone Star State is not alone. California and Georgia have enacted health care legislation that will enable policyholders to sue their HMOs. And the majority of members of this body favor similar bi- partisan legislation. Mr. Speaker, the question is no longer whether such provisions are a good idea, or even whether they are supported by legislators across the land and here in Washington. The question now is whether or not we, the House, will even have a chance to consider this measure. It will take, from the Republican leadership, the courage to stand up to big insurance companies and their scare tactics. And, I think, it will take an ounce of good old Texas courage. General Leave

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for S. 1059, the Department of Defense Authorization Conference Report. I believe this bill is a step in the right direction--a step towards a strong military, heightened readiness, and a bolstered national security. Among the bill's many critical provisions is a well-deserved and long-overdue pay raise for our military men and women in recognition of their hard work and dedication to their country. This bill provides for a 4.8 percent pay raise, .4 percent above the Administration's request. this critical pay raise provision will help ensure that increases are tied more to performance and promotion than years of service and will reduce the pay gap between military and civilian pay. Moreover, this salary increase is a step towards preventing the loss of the best and brightest men and women who find it increasingly difficult to manage on a military salary. This legislation would also reform the military retirement system and provide service members an opportunity to choose which system better suits their individual needs. It would also extend pay and bonus authority, expand recruiting and retention, and add additional funds for military housing. In addition, this bill addresses our nation's veterans and recognizes their contribution to this country by guaranteeing their burial benefits, providing retirement flags for reservists and all the uniformed services, and restoring equity to widows' entitlement. This conference report also adds $2.7 billion to the procurement account for weaponry modernization, a crucial increase for improving military readiness. It adds $2.8 billion in operations and maintenance and repair facilities and builds upon the President's proposal to increase defense spending by $112 billion over the next 6 years. It also restores procurement funding for the essential F-22 fighter jet, a critical part of ensuring our military forces maintain their air superiority. The Defense Authorization Conference Report significantly increases funding for the procurement of weapons, ammunition, and equipment, and for military construction and will enable the armed forces to modernize while maintaining a high level of readiness and training.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, the Republican tax bill is the definition of fiscal recklessness. It seeks to enact a tax cut that is based only on projected surpluses under ten and fifteen year estimates. Budget projections for the next ten years have improved by nearly $2 trillion in the last twelve months--they could go the other way just as quickly. If budget projections turn out to be wrong, the budget will return to deficits financed by borrowing from the Social Security surplus. Even the Congressional Budget Office--the source of budget projections upon which the Republicans' tax cuts are based--says these projections could vary as much as $100 billion a year. That's an extremely wide margin of error, wide enough to cause deep concerns among fiscal conservatives like me. Furthermore, even though Republicans are spending money they can't guarantee will exist, their tax plan still leaves no resources to meet important needs in education, agriculture, or defense, as well as funding for our veterans and other priorities. It is based on the assumption that discretionary spending will be cut by $595 billion below 1999 levels adjusted for inflation over the next ten years. This will require a cut in all discretionary programs of ten percent below current levels. Any increased spending in any area will require even deeper cuts in all other spending. The exploding costs of the tax bill will place an even greater squeeze on discretionary spending in later years. If these massive tax cuts are passed, education will suffer greatly. The Republican tax bill includes a change to the tax-exempt bond arbitrage rules that largely fails to meet the stated objective of modernizing schools, especially in rural areas. Under H.R. 2488, school districts would have four years to spend school construction bond proceeds rather than the two years currently permitted. According to Republicans, this would enable school districts to invest bond proceeds for a longer period and recognize greater arbitrage profits. The Republicans contend that their plan is universal, covering cities, suburbs, and farms. The truth is, many suburban and city school districts will receive NO BENEFITS from the Republican proposal. Schools with urgent needs, forced to teach children in trailers and dilapidated buildings, would not benefit from H.R. 2488. Their backlog of unmet needs means that they do not have the luxury of waiting four years before completing school construction. The Republican proposal also largely excludes some of our most needy schools--those in rural areas. The provisions in the Republican tax bill may benefit a few large, wealthy school districts with the financial capacity to issue large bonds four years in advance of need, but it WILL NOT help rural districts. The bottom line is simple: this bill will only serve to hurt the American people by jeopardizing the stability of our economy and the prosperity of future generations for the instant gratification of tax cuts that are not only irresponsible, but dangerous. In reality the best tax cut we can give to all Americans is keeping interest rates low by paying down our debt. Reducing our national debt will provide a tax cut for millions of Americans because it will restrain interest rates, thereby saving them money on variable mortgages, new mortgages, auto loans, credit card payments, etc. Each percentage point increase in interest rates would mean an extra $200-$250 billion in mortgage costs to Americans. Paying down the national debt will protect future generations from an increasing tax burden to pay interest on the debt run up by current generations. More than 25% of individual income taxes go to paying interest on our national debt. Every dollar of lower debt saves MORE than one dollar in taxes for future generations. Secure a prosperous future by paying down the debt and saying no to fiscally reckless tax cuts.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, today the Republicans continue their budgetary charade in an attempt to fool the American people into believing that they intend to save the Social Security surplus when they have already begun spending it. Their latest tactic has manifested itself in the form of a resolution ``Expressing the Desire of the House Not to Spend any of the Social Security Budget Surplus and to Continue to Retire the Debt of the Public.'' The truth is, this ``expression of desire'' is too little, too late. If Republicans truly believed their empty promises; if they truly intended to practice what they preach; they wouldn't be on the way to spending $27 billion of the Social Security surplus they desire to protect. The Congressional Budget Office reports that, by late summer, the Republican majority had already committed the entire $14.4 billion non-Social Security surplus, going so far as to end up with a budget deficit of $16 billion. As this deficit grows, the Social Security surplus shrinks. There is an inverse relationship here, but my Republican friends on the other side of the aisle seem content with ignoring this fiscal reality and reverting to the dream world which brought us the $800 billion tax cut package. In light of these numbers, it would surprise anyone that there would be any money left over for massive tax cuts; yet the Republicans decided to spend their entire political collateral on spending these fictional funds while the debt continues to grow and the Social Security surplus continues to shrink. They spent all their time and energy on trying to pass this reckless tax cut package while the business of the people was completely neglected. These irresponsible actions have left us in the unnecessary, otherwise- avoidable position of having to vote for a Continuing Resolution yet again to keep the government funded because the Republicans didn't fulfill their fiscal duty to the American people. Now that the tax cut has been rightfully vetoed by the President and the American people have voiced their opposition to spending money that doesn't exist, the Republican leadership decides to ``Express Their Desire . . . Not to Spend any of the Social Security Surplus.'' They designate funding for a census that is mandated to occur every ten years as emergency spending, thus committing themselves to dipping into Social Security, and they continue their balance sheet gimmicks, thinking they'll get away with these tactics under the guise of false fiscal responsibility by passing today's resolution. Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote for this resolution because I believe in it and because I believe my actions up to this point are a reflection of my commitment to saving Social Security and paying down the debt. I cannot, however, cast this vote on the resolution in question without identifying it as what it is: yet another Republican budget gimmick.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I have heard my friends on the Republican side talk about how their budget sets aside $2 trillion of the $3 trillion projected surplus for debt reduction. While this certainly sounds appealing to those of us who have been talking about the importance of paying off the national debt, the facts just don't match the rhetoric. My Republican friends neglect to point out that they are double- counting the Social Security surplus in order to claim that they are reducing the debt. This body has overwhelmingly voted to exclude Social Security surpluses from budget calculations. These surpluses are essential to meet future obligations to Social Security. Every Member of this body, Republican and Democrat alike, have said that Social Security surpluses should only be used for Social Security, and should not be counted for any other purposes. But despite all of the rhetoric about Social Security lockboxes and taking Social Security off-budget, some folks on the other side of the aisle keep counting the Social Security surpluses when it suits their purposes. Using the Social Security surplus to reduce debt held by the public simply offsets the increased debt held by the Social Security trust fund. If all we do is save the Social Security surplus, we won't reduce the total national debt by one dime, and we will have done nothing to reduce the burden we leave to our children and grandchildren. In fact, despite all of the rhetoric from the other side of the aisle about saving money for debt reduction, the total national debt will increase by $200 billion over the next five years under the Republican budget. The truth is, they don't want the American people to know the consequences of their massive tax cuts. They don't want them to find out that, if we want to be fiscally responsible and stay within the spending caps we agreed to in the 1997 budget, passing their tax cut bill will require a 38% reduction in spending on important programs-- programs like FEMA, class size reduction, and law enforcement. Both parties agree that defense spending needs to increase if we want to preserve military readiness, but if the Republicans pass their tax cuts, our military will suffer as well. While these important programs that benefit all Americans will have to be cut, two-thirds of the tax cut will benefit only those people who fall in the top income tax bracket. The fiscal irresponsibility does not stop there. The new trick in Republican accounting books is the ``emergency'' spending designation being used to bypass the spending caps. They have even resorted to calling the 2000 census an ``emergency''--an outrageous claim considering that the Constitution requires a census every ten years! This ``emergency'' spending comes straight out of the ``projected'' surplus Republicans want to use to finance their tax cut. This creative accounting is unacceptable. I am a strong advocate of a sound budget and fiscally responsible tax cuts, but the best tax cut we can give the American people is a promise we will first pay down the national debt by setting aside some of the true surplus--the non-Social Security surplus. The Blue Dogs have put forward a proposal that would lock up half of the true budget surplus to pay down the national debt. This approach will truly reduce the burden on future generations. I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of this legislation. The Blue Dog's Debt Reduction Lockbox bill would save 100% of the Social Security surplus by requiring that the budget be balanced excluding the Social Security surplus. It also helps ensure a fiscally responsible budget by establishing a point of order against any budget resolution that contains an on-budget deficit or any legislation that would result in an on-budget deficit and would prohibit OMB, CBO and other federal government entities from including the Social Security trust fund as part of budget surplus or deficit calculations. While the Republican tax cut bill's debt reduction provisions are merely a rhetorical gesture at best, the Blue Dog bill delivers on debt reduction. It places 50% of the projected on-budget surplus over the next five years in a Debt Reduction Lockbox, away from those who would squander it on irresponsible tax cuts. The Blue Dog bill also delivers on our promise to save Social Security and Medicare by reserving the Debt Reduction Dividend--the savings from lower interest payments on the debt resulting from its reduction--for these two programs. Seventy-five percent of these savings would be reserved for Social Security reform and 25% for Medicare reform. Mr. Speaker, the fundamental tenet of the Blue Dog proposal--debt reduction--has been recklessly omitted from the Republican bill. Our primary goal as we debate how to divide the projected budget surplus should be to maintain the strong and growing economy that has benefitted millions of Americans. Irresponsible tax cuts, however, are not the means to achieving this end. Using that simple objective as our guide, it is clear that the best course of action this body could take is to use the budget surpluses to start paying off the $5.6 trillion national debt. Reducing the national debt is clearly the best long-term strategy for the U.S. economy. Economists from across the political spectrum agree that using the surplus to reduce the debt will stimulate economic growth by increasing national savings and boosting domestic investment. Paying down our debt will reduce the tremendous drain that the federal government has placed on the economy by running up a huge national debt. Quite simply, reducing the federal government's $5.6 trillion national debt takes money that is currently tied up in debt and puts it back into the private sector where it can be invested in plants, equipment and other investments that create jobs and economic output. Federal Reserve Board Chairman, Alan Greenspan, has repeatedly advised Congress that the most important action we could take to maintain a strong and growing economy is to pay down the national debt. Earlier this year, Chairman Greenspan testified before the Ways and Means Committee that debt reduction is a much better use of surpluses than are tax cuts, stating: The advantages that I perceive that would accrue to this economy from a significant decline in the outstanding debt to the public and its virtuous cycle on the total budget process is a value which I think far exceeds anything else we could do with the money. We should follow Chairman Greenspan's advice by making debt reduction the highest priority for any budget surplus. There has been a lot of discussion here in Washington about a ``grand bargain'' on the budget that would divide the surplus between tax cuts and higher spending. Our constituents are giving a very different message. I would encourage my colleagues to ignore this inside the beltway speculation, and listen to the American public. Our constituents are telling us to meet our obligations by paying down the national debt. The folks I represent understand that the conservative thing to do when you have some extra resources is to pay your debts first. They don't understand how we can be talking about grand plans to divide up the budget surplus when we have a $5.6 trillion national debt. They want us to use this opportunity to pay down our debt. We hear a lot of talk about ``giving the American people their money back''. I would remind my colleagues that it is the American people who owe the $5.6 trillion national debt we have run up. If we are truly interested in giving the surpluses back to the American people, we should start by paying off the debt we have run up on their credit card. I would suggest that the best tax cut we could provide for all Americans, and the best thing that we can do to ensure that taxes remain low for our children and grandchildren, is to start paying down our $5.6 trillion national debt. Reducing our national debt will provide a tax cut for millions of Americans by restraining interest rates. Lower interest rates will put money in the pockets of working men and women by saving them money on variable mortgages, new mortgages, auto loans, credit card payments, and other debts. The reduction in interest rates we have had as a result of the fiscal discipline over the last few years has put at least $35 billion into the hands of homeowners through lower mortgage payments. Continuing this fiscal discipline and paying down the debt is the best way to keep putting money into the hands of middle class Americans. Just as importantly, reducing the national debt will protect future generations from increasing tax burdens to pay for the debts that we have incurred. Today, more than twenty five percent of all individual income taxes go to paying interest on our national debt. The amount of income taxes the government will have to collect just to pay the interest on the debt will continue to increase unless we take action now to pay down the national debt. Every dollar of lower debt saves more than one dollar for future generations. These savings that can be used for tax cuts, covering the costs of the baby boomers retirement without tax increases or meeting other needs. We should give future generations the flexibility to deal with the challenges they will face, instead of forcing them to pay higher taxes just to pay for the debt we incurred with our consumption today. I urge my colleagues to vote against reckless spending by voting against the Republican tax cuts--but let's not stop there. Join me in supporting the Blue Dog Debt Reduction Lockbox bill and let's eliminate our debt.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, due to unforeseen business in my district, I was unable to be present for seven votes regarding H.R. 2684, VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations for FY 2000. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: Rollcall vote 390: ``nay''; rollcall vote 391: ``yea''; rollcall vote 392: ``nay''; rollcall vote 393: ``nay''; rollcall vote 394: ``nay''; rollcall vote 395: ``yea''; rollcall vote 396: ``nay''.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, it is our duty to fulfill our promises to our nation's veterans, the men and women who have put themselves in harm's way in service to their country. It is our duty to care for our veterans, and if we pass this legislation, we will fail miserably. We are faced today with a bill that fails to deliver to our veterans the funding they so desperately need. If we pass this bill, we will only be perpetuating the failure of the President's severely lacking budget. Even though this bill would provide $1.7 billion more than the President's request, it is still not nearly enough. Two wrongs do not make a right, and if we pass this legislation our veterans will be wronged yet again, by Congress as well as the Administration. The Republican leadership would have you believe that the Independent Budget submitted by the veterans themselves is bloated and overstates the funding needs for veterans programs. I reject this assertion completely and am horrified that the Republicans are alleging double- counting and padding of budget estimates by respected veterans' groups such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, AMVETS, and Paralyzed Veterans of America. As if these allegations were not enough, the Republican leadership is now touting this anemic bill as a cause for celebration and criticizing veterans for ``complaining'' when they fail to celebrate over a bill that is lacking over one billion in critically needed funds. The Republicans have resorted to these tactics against veterans who fought to preserve the prosperity of this country--the prosperity in which veterans will not share if this bill is passed. These accusations are a slap in the face to our veterans and add insult to injury. As a strong supporter of our nation's veterans, I am forced today to vote against this bill due to its severe lack of funding for veterans' programs. Veterans groups agree that this bill falls short by at least $1.1 billion. In light of projected budget surpluses and an irresponsible trillion dollar tax cut, it is especially disappointing to see the men and women who have served this country overlooked by those who would rather squander the surplus recklessly than use it to secure the future of critical programs such as veterans benefits and Social Security and reduction of our growing national debt. Our veterans are aging, and their medical needs are growing as a result. This bill, however, does not address those needs. The number of VA medical facilities has decreased almost 35% in the last ten years, but this bill fails to address the growing demand for VA services as a result of the increasing number of veterans over the age of 65. According to the Congressional Research Service, 36% of all veterans are over the age of 65, and that number is expected to increase exponentially over the next eight years. An aging veterans population will undoubtedly put a strain on our nation's Veterans Health Services. At the current pace of construction, we will not have the necessary facilities to meet veterans' extended care needs. Faced with this reality, I am unable to vote for a bill that will short-change veterans by over a billion dollars while Republicans insist on robbing Social Security and sacrificing veterans' healthcare, in favor of squandering the surplus on fiscally irresponsible tax cuts.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I was very surprised to see my vote in the Congressional Record on H.R. 2490, Treasury Postal Appropriations. I am certain I intended to vote ``no'' and did, in fact, vote ``no,'' yet the Record reflects a vote of ``aye'' on my part. Therefore, I enter this statement into the Record to reflect the error that has been made with respect to this vote. Please note that I have filed resolutions of disapproval with regard to pay raises for Members, and I have consistently voted against legislation providing for such increases.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for S. 1059, the Department of Defense Authorization Conference Report. I believe this bill is a step in the right direction--a step towards a strong military, heightened readiness, and a bolstered national security. Among the bill's many critical provisions is a well-deserved and long-overdue pay raise for our military men and women in recognition of their hard work and dedication to their country. This bill provides for a 4.8 percent pay raise, .4 percent above the Administration's request. This critical pay raise provision will help ensure that increases are tied more to performance and promotion than years of service and will reduce the pay gap between military and civilian pay. Moreover, this salary increase is a step towards preventing the loss of the best and brightest men and women who find it increasingly difficult to manage on a military salary. This legislation would also reform the military retirement system and provide service members an opportunity to choose which system better suits their individual needs. It would also extend pay and bonus authority, expand recruiting and retention, and add additional funds for military housing. In addition, this bill addresses our nation's veterans and recognizes their contribution to this country by guaranteeing their burial benefits, providing retirement flags for reservists and all the uniformed services, and restoring equity to widow's entitlement. This conference report also adds $2.7 billion to the procurement account for weaponry modernization, a crucial increase for improving military readiness. It adds $2.8 billion in operations and maintenance and repair facilities and builds upon the President's proposal to increase defense spending by $112 billion over the next six years. It also restores procurement funding for the essential F-22 fighter jet, a critical part of ensuring our military forces maintain their air superiority. The Defense Authorization Conference Report significantly increases funding for the procurement of weapons, ammunition, and equipment, and for military construction and will enable the armed forces to modernize while maintaining a high level of readiness and training. I urge my colleagues to cast their votes in favor of a strong defense and the protection of our national security. I urge you to cast your vote in favor of improving the standard of living for our service men and women. I urge you to cast your vote in favor of this conference report, and I urge the President to sign this essential legislation.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, the American people have spoken. They do not want Republicans to jeopardize this country's economic growth by forcing through an irresponsible, reckless tax cut and ignoring the growing national debt. I am a strong advocate of a sound budget and fiscally responsible tax cuts, but the best tax cut we can give the American people is a promise we will first pay down the national debt by setting aside some of the true surplus--the non-Social Security surplus. Our first priority in a budget discussion should be debt reduction. However, the Republicans have chosen to ignore this fiscal necessity and make promises they can't fulfill. Our primary goal should be to maintain the strong and growing economy that has benefited millions of Americans. Using that simple objective as our guide, it is clear that the best course of action this body could take is to use any budget surpluses to start paying off the $5.6 trillion national debt. Reducing the national debt is clearly the best long-term strategy for the U.S. economy. Economists from across the political spectrum agree that using the surplus to reduce the debt will stimulate economic growth by increasing national savings and boosting domestic investment. Paying down our debt will reduce the tremendous drain that the federal government has placed on the economy by running up a huge national debt. Listen to the American public--our constituents are telling us to meet our obligations by paying down the national debt. The folks I represent understand that, when you have some extra resources, you pay your debts first. They don't understand how we can be talking about giving away money we don't have on tax cuts we can't afford. They want us to use this opportunity to pay down our debt. We hear a lot of talk about ``giving the American people their money back''. We should start by paying off the debt. The best tax cut we could provide for all Americans, and the best thing that we can do to ensure that taxes remain low for our children and grandchildren, is to start paying down our $5.6 trillion national debt. Reducing our national debt will provide a tax cut for millions of Americans by restraining interest rates. Lower interest rates will put money in the pockets of working men and women by saving them money on variable mortgages, new mortgages, auto loans, credit card payments, and other debts. The reduction in interest rates we have had as a result of the fiscal discipline over the last few years has put at least $35 billion into the hands of homeowners through lower mortgage payment considering that more than twenty five percent of all individual income taxes go to paying interest on our national debt. These economic realities should teach us a valuable lesson: fiscal discipline, demonstrated by paying down the debt, is the best way to keep putting money into the hands of middle class Americans and ensure that future generations can enjoy a prosperous, stable economy.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, it is our duty to fulfill our promises to our nation's veterans, the men and women who have put themselves in harm's way in service to their country. It is our duty to care for our veterans, and if we pass this legislation, we will fail miserably. We are faced today with a bill that fails to deliver to our veterans the funding they so desperately need. If we pass this bill, we will only be perpetuating the failure of the President's severely lacking budget. Even though this bill would provide $1.7 billion more than the President's request, it is still not nearly enough. Two wrongs do not make a right, and if we pass this legislation our veterans will be wronged yet again, by Congress as well as the Administration. The Republican leadership would have you believe that the Independent Budget submitted by the veterans themselves is bloated and overstates the funding needs for veterans programs. I reject this assertion completely and am horrified that the Republicans are alleging double- counting and padding of budget estimates by respected veterans' groups such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, AMVETS, and Paralyzed Veterans of America. As if these allegations were not enough, the Republican leadership is now touting this anemic bill as a cause for celebration and criticizing veterans for ``complaining'' when they fail to celebrate over a bill that is lacking over one billion in critically needed funds. The Republicans have resorted to these tactics against veterans who fought to preserve the prosperity of this country--the prosperity in which veterans will not share if this bill is passed. These accusations are a slap in the face to our veterans and add insult to injury. As a strong supporter of our nation's veterans, I am forced today to vote against this bill due to its severe lack of funding for veterans' programs. Veterans groups agree that this bill falls short by at least $1.1 billion. In light of projected budget surpluses and an irresponsible trillion dollar tax cut, it is especially disappointing to see the men and women who have served this country overlooked by those who would rather squander the surplus recklessly than use it to secure the future of critical programs such as veterans benefits and Social Security and reduction of our growing national debt. Our veterans are aging, and their medical needs are growing as a result. This bill, however, does not address those needs. The number of VA medical facilities has decreased almost 35% in the last ten years, but this bill fails to address the growing demand for VA services as a result of the increasing number of veterans over the age of 65. According to the Congressional Research Service, 36% of all veterans are over the age of 65, and that number is expected to increase exponentially over the next eight years. An aging veterans population will undoubtedly put a strain on our nation's Veterans Health Services. At the current pace of construction, we will not have the necessary facilities to meet veterans' extended care needs. Faced with this reality, I am unable to vote for a bill that will short-change veterans by over a billion dollars while Republicans insist on robbing Social Security and sacrificing veterans' healthcare, in favor of squandering the surplus on fiscally irresponsible tax cuts.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I have heard my friends on the Republican side talk about how their budget sets aside $2 trillion of the $3 trillion projected surplus for debt reduction. While this certainly sounds appealing to those of us who have been talking about the importance of paying off the national debt, the facts just don't match the rhetoric. My Republican friends neglect to point out that they are double- counting the Social Security surplus in order to claim that they are reducing the debt. This body has overwhelmingly voted to exclude Social Security surpluses from budget calculations. These surpluses are essential to meet future obligations to Social Security. Evey Member of this body, Republican and Democrat alike, have said that Social Security surpluses should only be used for Social Security, and should not be counted for any other purposes. But despite all of the rhetoric about Social Security lockboxes and taking Social Security off-budget, some folks on the other side of the aisle keep counting the Social Security surpluses when it suits their purposes. Using the Social Security surplus to reduce debt held by the public simply offsets the increased debt held by the Social Security trust fund. If all we do is save the Social Security surplus, we won't reduce the total national debt by one dime, and we will have done nothing to reduce the burden we leave to our children and grandchildren. In fact, despite all of the rhetoric from the other side of the aisle about saving money for debt reduction, the total national debt will increase by $200 billion over the next five years under the Republican budget. The truth is, they don't want the American people to know the consequences of their massive tax cuts. They don't want them to find out that, if we want to be fiscally responsible and stay within the spending caps we agreed to in the 1997 budget, passing their tax cut will require a 38% reduction in spending on important programs-- programs like FEMA, class size reduction, and law enforcement. Both parties agree that defense spending needs to increase if we want to preserve military readiness, but if the Republicans pass their tax cuts, our military will suffer as well. While these important programs that benefit ALL Americans will have to be cut, TWO-THIRDS of the tax cut will benefit only those people who fall in the top income tax bracket. The fiscal irresponsibility does not stop there. The new trick in Republican accounting books is the ``emergency'' spending designation being used to bypass the spending caps. They have even resorted to calling the 2000 census an ``emergency''--an outrageous claim considering that the Constitution requires a census every ten years! This ``emergency'' spending comes straight out of the ``projected'' surplus Republicans want to use to finance their tax cut. This creative accounting is unacceptable. I am a strong advocate of a sound budget and fiscally responsible tax cuts, but the best tax cut we can give the American people is a promise we will first pay down the national debt by setting aside some of the true surplus--the non-Social Security surplus. The Blue Dogs have put forward a proposal that would lock up half of the true budget surplus to pay down the national debt. This approach will truly reduce the burden on future generations. I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of this legislation. The Blue Dog's Debt Reduction Lockbox bill would save 100% of the Social Security surplus by requiring that the budget be balanced EXCLUDING the Social Security surplus. It also helps ensure a fiscally responsible budget by establishing a point of order against any budget resolution that contains a on-budget deficit or any legislation that would result in an on-budget deficit and would prohibit OMB, CBO and other federal government entities from including the Social Security trust fund as part of budget surplus or deficit calculations. While the Republican tax cut bill's debt reduction provisions are merely a rhetorical gesture at best, the Blue Dog bill delivers on debt reduction. It places 50% of the projected on-budget surplus over the next five years in a Debt Reduction Lockbox, away from those who would squander it on irresponsible tax cuts. The Blue Dog bill also delivers on our promise to save Social Security and Medicare by reserving the Debt Reduction Dividend--the savings from lower interest payments on the debt resulting from its reduction--for these two programs. Seventy-five percent of these savings would be reserved for Social Security reform and 25% for Medicare reform. Mr. Speaker, the fundamental tenet of the Blue Dog proposal--debt reduction--has been recklessly omitted from the Republican bill. Our primary goal as we debate how to divide the projected budget surplus should be to maintain the strong and growing economy that has benefited millions of Americans. Irresponsible tax cuts, however, are not the means to achieving this end. Using that simple objective as our guide, it is clear that the best course of action this body could take is to use the budget surpluses to start paying off the $5.6 trillion national debt. Reducing the national debt is clearly the best long-term strategy for the U.S. economy. Economists from across the political spectrum agree that using the surplus to reduce the debt will stimulate economic growth by increasing national savings and boosting domestic investment. Paying down our debt will reduce the tremendous drain that the federal government has placed on the economy by running up a huge national debt. Quite simply, reducing the federal government's $5.6 trillion national debt takes money that is currently tied up in debt and puts it back into the private sector where it can be invested in plants, equipment and other investments that create jobs and economic output. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan has repeatedly advised Congress that the most important action we could take to maintain a strong and growing economy is to pay down the national debt. Earlier this year, Chairman Greenspan testified before the Ways and Means Committee that debt reduction is a much better use of surpluses than are tax cuts, stating: The advantages that I perceive that would accrue to this economy from a significant decline in the outstanding debt to the public and its virtuous cycle on the total budget process is a value which I think far exceeds anything else we could do with the money. We should follow Chairman Greenspan's advice by making debt reduction the highest priority for any budget surplus. There has been a lot of discussion here in Washington about a ``grand bargain'' on the budget that would divide the surplus between tax cuts and higher spending. Our constituents are giving a very different message. I would encourage my colleagues to ignore this inside the beltway speculation, and listen to the American public. Our constituents are telling us to meet our obligations by paying down the national debt. The folks I represent understand that the conservative thing to do when you have some extra resources is to pay your debts first. They don't understand how we can be talking about grand plans to divide up the budget surplus when we have a $5.6 trillion national debt. They want us to use this opportunity to pay down our debt. We hear a lot of talk about ``giving the American people their money back.'' I would remind my colleagues that it is the American people who owe the $5.6 trillion national debt we have run up. If we are truly interested in giving the surpluses back to the American people, we should start by paying off the debt we have run up on their credit card. I would suggest that the best tax cut we could provide for all Americans, and the best thing that we can do to ensure that taxes remain low for our children and grandchildren, is to start paying down our $5.6 trillion national debt. Reducing our national debt will provide a tax cut for millions of Americans by restraining interest rates. Lower interest rates will put money in the pockets of working men and women by saving them money on variable mortgages, new mortgages, auto loans, credit card payments, and other debts. The reduction in interest rates we have had as a result of the fiscal discipline over the last few years has put at least $35 billion into the hands of homeowners through lower mortgage payments. Continuing this fiscal discipline and paying down the debt is the best way to keep putting money into the hands of middle class Americans. Just as importantly, reducing the national debt will protect future generations from increasing tax burdens to pay for the debts that we have incurred. Today, more than twenty-five percent of all individual income taxes go to paying interest on our national debt. The amount of income taxes the government will have to collect just to pay the interest on the debt will continue to increase unless we take action now to pay down the national debt. Every dollar of lower debt saves MORE than one dollar for future generations. These savings that can be used for tax cuts, covering the costs of the baby boomers retirement without tax increases or meeting other needs. We should give future generations the flexibility to deal with the challenges they will face, instead of forcing them to pay higher taxes just to pay for the debt we incurred with our consumption today. I urge my colleagues to vote AGAINST reckless spending by voting AGAINST the Republican tax cuts--but let's not stop there. Join me in supporting the Blue Dog Debt Reduction Lockbox bill and let's eliminate our debt.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Honor, an honored American, and a true leader. When we think of the civil rights movement, certain names often come to mind. The names Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks are easy to remember, but I think of a man who was born in the town I call home: Marshall, Texas. This man was a behind-the-scenes organizer. He was the last living member of the ``Big Four'' who shaped the civil rights movement in the mid 1950s and 1960s. He founded the Congress of Racial Equality in the 1940s. He organized countless demonstrations and sit-ins. He directed the Freedom Rides to desegregate interstate bus stations in the South in 1961. He served with the NAACP, the US Department of Health, Education and Welfare and taught at several colleges. He was awarded over 22 honorary doctorates, and in 1998, he earned the Presidential Medal of Freedom. This man was James Farmer. Mr. Farmer was the son of a Methodist minister and professor of Theology at Wiley College. At 14, on a full scholarship, he went to Wiley College to study medicine only to find that he could not stand the sight of blood. Perhaps more in line with his calling, Mr. Farmer left medicine behind to study religion at Howard University, where he became acquainted with the civil disobedience methods employed by Ghandi. However, upon graduation, he found that he had no desire to minister in a church that actively practiced segregation. It was this realization that pushed him into civil rights activism. In 1942, he founded the Congress of Racial Equality in Chicago, and in 1947, he held the first Freedom Ride. He was beaten, arrested, and served time in prison. He was encouraged to let things settle down in the South, to let them cool off. Mr. Farmer, however, refused to back down. In 1963 he was attacked at a demonstration he had organized in Louisiana. State troopers came after him with guns, cattle prods, and tear gas, but he escaped with the help of a funeral director who drove him through the police cordon in a hearse. Although he had planned to attend the March On Washington, he was arrested in Louisiana for disturbing the peace and had to settle for watching Martin Luther King make him famous ``I Have a Dream'' speech on the television. After the leadership of the Congress of Racial Equality changed hands, he surprised some civil rights leaders by joining the Nixon administration as an assistant secretary in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. He knew that if African Americans were ever to have any say in national policy on race, then they had to be active in the government. Mr. Farmer recognized the potential in the position and used it to persuade the administration to approve funds for the Head Start program in Southern States. His response to those who thought he was abandoning the movement was that he saw himself as a bridge. ``I lived in two worlds. One was the volatile and explosive one of the new black Jacobins and the other was the sophisticated and genteel world of the white and black liberal establishment. As a bridge, I was called on by each side for help in contacting the other.'' Indeed, Mr. Farmer's concept of two worlds was what fueled his passion for equality. He often reminisced of his childhood before and after he became aware of discrimination. Growing up around colleges, he was sheltered from much of the racism that surrounded him. It wasn't until he discovered that he couldn't go wherever he wanted that he even realized he was any different from others. At three years old, what he wanted was a soda, not social change. Given his young age and his sheltered upbringing, he couldn't understand why he couldn't use the money his father had given him to go and buy one at the drug store on the way home. He cried and pleaded to no avail. Finally his mother told him he couldn't buy a soda because it was a ``whites-only'' drug store, and he wasn't allowed to enter. Then she cried. And that was the day that young Mr. Farmer became determined to do something about it. He vowed to destroy segregation. It was this same determination that got him through sitting in the ``buzzard's roost,'' the segregated balcony in the cinema near Wiley College. And it was this same determination that put him on board the Freedom Ride to Jackson, Mississippi. He later called his organization of the Freedom Ride his proudest achievement. Mr. Farmer had many achievements of which to be proud. I consider it an honor to have been a part of the driving force behind his most recent accomplishment which occurred just last year. On January 15, 1998, President Clinton awarded James Farmer the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor the United States of America gives. For Mr. Farmer, it was the crowning moment on a rich past of activism and determination. ``It's a vindication, an acknowledgment at long last. I'm grateful it came before I died.'' At 79, Mr. Farmer finally received his soda. As we celebrate the life of James Farmer, let us remember one of his last lessons to us all. He said that we have beaten segregation, we have beaten Jim Crow. Now we have to beat racism, and it's going to take all of us to do it.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Madam Speaker, insurance companies, there they go again, attempting to mislead and deceive the American public. Television ads that they are placing all across this country incorrectly state that a Patients' Bill of Rights will make insurance premiums skyrocket. Nothing could be further from the truth. Madam Speaker, the State of Texas enacted these protections that the insurance companies claim will increase premiums. The Texas experience proves that the insurance companies are dead wrong. One of those protections that is most often cited is the right to sue an HMO if treatment is denied. Texas enacted a similar provision in 1997. There have been 516 complaints filed, half in favor of the patient, half in favor of the plan. Only three lawsuits have been filed, three lawsuits. That is hardly an explosion in a population of 20 million people. Texas has some of the lowest premium rates in the entire country, and a study from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that liability accounted for only 3 to 13 cents per person per month in premiums, 3 to 13 cents. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats are working to put the needs of patients first. Let us enact a real Patients' Bill of Rights, not a bill of goods.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion to Recommit. The republican tax bill is the definition of fiscal recklessness. It seeks to enact a tax cut that is based only on projected surpluses under ten and fifteen year estimates. Budget projections for the next ten years have improved by nearly $2 trillion in the last twelve months--they could go the other way just as quickly. If budget projections turn out to be wrong, the budget will return to deficits financed by borrowing from the Social Security surplus. Even the Congressional Budget Office--the source of budget projections upon which the Republicans' tax cuts are based--says these projections could vary as much as $100 billion a year. That's an extremely wide margin of error, wide enough to cause deep concerns among fiscal conservatives like me. Furthermore, even though Republicans are spending money they can't guarantee will exist, their tax plan still leaves no resources to meet important needs in education, agriculture, or defense, as well as funding for our veterans and other priorities. It is based on the assumption that discretionary spending will be cut by $595 billion below 1999 levels adjusted for inflation over the next ten years. This will require a cut in all discretionary programs of ten percent below current levels. Any increased spending in any area will require even deeper cuts in all other spending. The exploding costs of the tax bill will place an even greater squeeze on discretionary spending in later years. If these massive tax cuts are passed, education will suffer greatly. The Republican tax bill includes a change to the tax-exempt bond arbitrage rules that largely fails to meet the stated objective of modernizing schools, especially in rural areas. Under H.R. 2488, school districts would have four years to spend school construction bond proceeds rather than the two years currently permitted. According to Republicans, this would enable school districts to invest bond proceeds for a longer period and recognize greater arbitrage profits. The Republicans contend that their plan is universal, covering cities, suburbs, and farms. The truth is, many suburban and city school districts will receive no benefits from the Republican proposal. Schools with urgent needs, forced to teach children in trailers and dilapidated buildings, would not benefit from H.R. 2488. Their backlog of unmet needs means that they do not have the luxury of waiting four years before completing school construction. The Republican proposal also largely excludes some of our most needy school--those in rural areas. The provisions in the Republican tax bill may benefit a few large, wealthy school districts with the financial capacity to issue large bonds four years in advance of need, but it will not help rural districts. The bottom line is simple: this bill will only serve to hurt the American people by jeopardizing the stability of our economy and the prosperity of future generations for the instant gratification of tax cuts that are not only irresponsible, but dangerous. In reality the best tax cut we can give to all Americans is keeping interest rates low by paying down our debt. Reducing our national debt will provide a tax cut for millions of Americans because it will restrain interest rates, thereby saving them money on variable mortgages, new mortgages, auto loans, credit card payments, etc. Each percentage point increase in interest rates would mean an extra $200-$250 billion in mortgage costs to Americans. Paying down the national debt will protect future generations from an increasing tax burden to pay interest on the debt run up by current generations. More than 25% of individual income taxes go to paying interest on our national debt. Every dollar of lower debt saves MORE than one dollar in taxes for future generations. I urge you to act responsibly and conservatively--support the motion to recommit and secure a prosperous future by paying down the debt and saying no to fiscally reckless tax cuts.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1995, the so-called Teacher Empowerment Act, and in support of the Martinez substitute. In its current form, this legislation does not empower teachers. Instead, it pits valuable programs--class size reduction, Goals 2000, and other professional development programs--against each other. Teacher quality and professional development are among the most important things we can provide our teachers to ensure they are able to properly do their jobs. We entrust teachers with our most important resource--our children. We should be doing everything within our power to give them the tools they need to do their jobs. Instead, H.R. 1995 would force schools to choose between reducing class size and providing high quality professional development. The class size reduction program we enacted just last year was an important step in the right direction. One of the biggest problems facing our schools is overcrowded classrooms. In many of our classrooms, there are 35 students for every teacher. Unfortunately, H.R. 1995 would threaten the future of last year's effort by allowing funds to be diverted to other uses without requiring that our class sizes be reduced. In my home state of Texas, class-size limits were enacted in the mid- 1980s. Those limits have clearly shown that reducing class size improves student achievement as teachers are better able to deal with individual students' needs. Because of the Texas experience, I know how important it is to reduce class size. We should expand upon the program we initiated in the last Congress, not dilute it. The Martinez substitute does expand that program. It authorizes $1 billion more than H.R. 1995 for teacher recruitment and training, and $500 million more for training special education teachers. It does not pit important programs against one another. Mr. Chairman, let's finish what we started. Support the Martinez substitute.