Max Sandlin

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of American families, American fathers, and House Resolution 417. As a father of four children, two boys and two girls, and a former youth baseball, basketball, and softball coach, someone active in Boy Scouts, a former juvenile judge, I believe that investment in our children is the finest and best investment that we can make in the United States of America to secure the future of this country. In today's society, a strong father figure is necessary. It is more important than it ever has been in the history of our country. Our children are faced today with many difficult choices, choices that I did not have to make as a young man, and choices that our parents did not have to make as young people. If they are to make the right choices and grow up to be strong, productive, moral citizens of this country, they need good and strong role models with whom they can identify. They need strong fathers. These models can be teachers, they can be preachers, they can be business leaders. They can be community leaders. They can be Members of Congress. But now, more than ever, children need their parents and need their families. Children look most often to their parent. Many times even now when I have decisions to make in life, I look back and think, what would my mom and dad do? My dad gave me the one piece of advice that I take with me day in and day out and always will. My father told me, ``Do right.'' Do right. That is what I try to do. Right now the United States is the leader in fatherless families. That is a tragedy. And 30 percent of our families are single-parent families. That does not speak well for the future. It is a disgrace. Next week Washington will welcome the National Summit on Fatherhood. The theme this year is moving from rhetoric to action. The issue is too important for us simply to pay lip service to it. We have to put our action, we have to put our money where our mouth is. Now more than ever we need a national strategy to create effective solutions to the problems of a lack of leadership in American families. This gathering of civic, business, religious, philanthropic governmental and cultural leaders should be just the catalyst we need to begin the discussion and to begin the strategy in this country. I urge all of my colleagues to support this. Support the American families. Support our fathers. Fathers in the Congress, let us take responsibility and work for H. Res. 417.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Stenholm, and the members of the Committee. I commend you for the excellent legislation we have before us today. The Agriculture Research, Extension and Education Reform Act will give stability to crop insurance programs, boost spending on agricultural research for the first time in 10 years, and provide an additional $100 million for economic development in rural areas. By doing so, the bill will bring jobs to East Texas and improve long-term productivity and profitability for East Texas farmers and ranchers. As government subsidies for agriculture come to an end, crop insurance has become one of the last barriers against financial ruin for farm families. The 1996 farm bill guaranteed crop insurance to our agricultural producers, but without this bill, farmers across the nation face the prospect of crop insurance cancellations as early as this month. In East Texas, there are agricultural producers facing drought conditions in some counties and floods in others, and we cannot deny them the crop insurance they have been promised. I share the relief of every crop producer in East Texas tonight as we pass this bill and ensure the continuation of crop insurance. Equally important is the research component of this bill, providing $600 million over five years in mandatory spending on agricultural research, including funds for the Texas A&M University System across Texas. We have a long history of agricultural research in this country, and it has led to the most productive and most efficient agricultural industry in the world. Continuation of this commitment is vital for America's farmers and ranchers as agricultural subsidies disappear and global markets become more competitive. Mr. Speaker, this bill has been carefully crafted to pay for itself and protect the future of our agricultural producers and every American who relies on their products. I encourage all my colleagues to cast a strong vote for rural America and pass this bill.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Julius Scott, Jr. for his inspired leadership as the President and Chief Executive Officer of Wiley College, one of the country's greatest Historically Black Colleges, in my hometown, Marshall, Texas. Dr. Scott's example of time-honored values, scholarship, integrity and professionalism significantly impacted Wiley College and the community throughout the college's historic 125th anniversary year. A native Texan, Dr. Scott followed in the footsteps of his father, who was also a minister and college president. Julius Scott has earned degrees from Wiley College (with honors), Garrett Evangelical Theological Seminary, Brown University, and Boston University, in addition to the fourteen honorary degrees bestowed upon him. Dr. Scott's impressive career includes teaching at Wiley College, Boston University, Atlanta University and Spelman College; chaplaincy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Texas Southern University and Brown University; and administration at Spelman College, Paine College, Albany State University and Wiley College. His current directorates include the Carnegie Council on Ethics in International Affairs, the Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change and the Boards of Trustees of Andrew College, the Atlanta University Center, North Central College and Wofford College. Dr. Scott is also a prominent and influential member of the community of Marshall, serving on the Civic Center Advisory Board and the Board of the Chamber of Commerce. Dr. Scott has shown an unwavering dedication to education and the centrality of the academic program, teaching students the importance of developing ``tough minds and tender hearts.'' Dr. Scott's optimism, enthusiasm and commitment to a vision of a great institution bolstered the credibility and visibility of Wiley College, cultivating many friends and supporters for the institution. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Dr. Julius Scott, Jr. for his extraordinary leadership of Wiley College. His legacy of faith, service and good works will endure at Wiley College for years to come.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, first let me say ``thank you'' to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member, and to the leadership on both sides of the aisle. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2400, the Building Efficient Surface Transportation and Equity Act. This bill is the single most important piece of legislation that this Congress has considered this year. For too long the infrastructure has taken a back seat in this country while the hard-earned dollars of our constituents have been used and paid into the trust fund for the highways and we have used it to mask the size of the deficit. With BESTEA we can say no more. No more. Mr. Chairman, our constituents pay the gas tax with the expectation that the money they pay will be spent to improve and enhance the roads on which they drive. BESTEA meets their expectation. For the first time in 29 years, the Highway Trust Fund will be moved off budget. This important provision ensures these funds are used for their original purpose, to repair and rebuild our Nation's roads and highways. Our transportation system is in dire need of improvement and new construction to meet the needs of the traveling public and business in the future. Today more than ever we must begin the modernization of our roads and bridges if we are to be able to handle our increasing traffic. Today, some will argue that BESTEA busts the budget. This argument is clearly a weak attempt to make political points, and it is an argument that is easily dismantled. All the new spending in BESTEA is more than paid for by gas taxes. In fact, over the next 6 years the Highway Trust Fund will collect about $2 billion more in taxes than it will pay under BESTEA. While I share the belief that the House should have completed its budget negotiations prior to consideration of the bill, I do not believe that local communities should be punished for this body's inaction. Passing this bill now so our States can continue to receive transportation funds is the right thing to do. Mr. Chairman, I am especially pleased that BESTEA has improved upon our current illogical funding formulas. Under the current formula, Texas receives approximately 77 cents for each dollar that we contribute to the Highway Trust Fund. Thanks to the efforts of the leadership on both sides of the aisle in this committee, BESTEA includes important language to guarantee that Texas and other donor States receive at least 90 cents. Finally, for those who would argue that this bill is ``pork,'' I would say that any bill that creates tens of thousands of new jobs and increases investments in the economy is not pork in my book. Indeed, according to a 1993 CRS report, for every dollar spent building new highways, the economy is estimated to rise by about $2.43. For every $1 billion of new highway construction spending, employment is estimated to rise by 24,300 workers. Mr. Chairman, we have put off the needs of our Nation's infrastructure long enough. This is good for our constituents and good for the economy. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, the words today for the children of America are praise and encouragement. Today is national Absolutely Incredible Kid Day, a day each of us can reach out to the young people in America in our lives and let them know how much we appreciate them. Sponsored by the Campfire Boys and Girls, Southwest Airlines, Yahoo, PaperMate and caring individuals all across this great Nation, Absolutely Incredible Kids Day is an annual event designed to bring adults and children closer together by encouraging children in a positive and meaningful way and letting them know how important they are in our lives. The goal of Absolutely Incredible Kids Day is for every child in America, every child in America, to receive a letter from an adult in his or her life encouraging him, praising him and letting him know that he is appreciated. It is a simple goal, but a goal that can make a great difference in a child's life. Last year was the Inaugural of Absolutely Incredible Kids Day. Participation throughout the country was absolutely enormous. Everyone from the President of the United States to employees of corporations, to caring individuals sent a letter to let a child know that he or she is special. I urge all my colleagues to reach out to the children of America. As a father of 4, I agree and encourage Members to do that and tell them that it will make a difference.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, six weeks ago, one of the truly great men of our times received the recognition and honor he deserves for his lifetime of dedication to and leadership of the civil rights movement. James Farmer, Jr., who was born and raised in my hometown of Marshall, Texas, received the Presidential Medal of Freedom--the highest civilian honor in our country. Mr. Farmer is one of the giants of the American civil rights movement and a true American hero. He founded the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), a group that became famous for its nonviolent sit-ins and freedom rides. He is the last of the ``Big Four'' civil rights leaders of the 1960's, which included Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Roy Wilkins of the NAACP, and Whitney Young of the National Urban League. Mr. Farmer was one of the men President Lyndon Baines Johnson consulted concerning the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Mr. Farmer is a man who dedicated his life to improving America for present and future generations. He fought to open the doors of justice and opportunity to all Americans, regardless of the color of their skin. Together as a nation we opened those doors, and James Farmer has continued to lead the fight to see that we do not retreat. Yes, Mr. Farmer is a fighter, but he trained himself and his followers in the principles of direct action through nonviolence. He taught us that it is possible to work toward and achieve meaningful progress and change through a combination of education, fierce determination, and strong faith. James Farmer and Dr. Martin Luther King put their vision to work in America, and although we still have room to improve, we are a changed people and a changed nation because of their efforts. The Presidential Medal of Freedom was designed for ``persons the President deems to have made especially meritorious contributions to the security of national interests of the United States, to world peace, or to cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.'' I nominated Mr. Farmer for the Presidential Medal of Freedom and recommended him to the President because he has earned this honor and because I believe he deserves a formal expression of our appreciation and gratitude. I am pleased the President bestowed his highest award on Mr. Farmer, and I am honored to have played a small role in that process. Friends, we are better Americans thanks to James Farmer, and we are also better human beings.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lend my strong support to the Holocaust Victims Redress Act. The Holocaust Victims Redress Act will provide redress for the inadequate restitution of assets that belonged to victims of the Holocaust seized by the United States Government during World War II. We can never do enough to help end the suffering of the 125,000 Holocaust survivors living in the United States and the approximately 500,000 survivors living around the world. Many of these victims still bear the scars of the most brutal regime in history. The United States Government seized more than $198,000,000 in German assets along with over $1,200,000,000 in assets of Swiss nationals and institutions during World War II. It had long been believed that some of the bank accounts, trusts, securities, or other assets belonged to victims of the Holocaust. Although Congress and the Administration provided $500,000 to the Jewish Restitution Successor Organization of New York in 1962 to nominally reimburse Holocaust victims, this action was nowhere near the sum of financial losses most victims suffered. After World War II, United States support for an independent Jewish homeland was fueled by our desire to help settle the large number of Jewish refugees, displaced persons, and survivors of the Nazi holocaust. Ever since President Harry Truman recognized Israel on May 15, 1948, minutes after Israel declared its independence, the United States Government has maintained a strong relationship with Israel, the Jewish community around the world, and survivors of the Nazi holocaust. The Holocaust Victim Redress Act continues to shine light painfully on a wound that has not yet been healed. It is important that our country continue to aid holocaust victims recover lost assets and even more important to continue pressuring other nations to completely open their wartime records so we can fully account for all lost assets. It would be easy for the United States and other nations around the globe to sweep this problem under the rug 50 years after the holocaust. However, this great nation founded under the principles of liberty and justice for all will never rest until victims of the holocaust can finally receive the justice they deserve.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2625, a bill to rename Washington National Airport as ``Ronald Reagan National Airport.'' I have no problem naming a government building after President Reagan. I believe we should honor him for the many things he accomplished as our President. I have a problem with renaming an airport that was built as a monument to our first President, George Washington. The Congress has a long-standing policy against renaming buildings. Washington National Airport was named when it opened in 1941. It is named ``National'' because it serves the capital of our nation and ``Washington'' in honor of our first President. In addition, I believe it is an insult to the Reagan legacy of local control for this body to impose this legislation on a local government body that has made it quite clear that they oppose this legislation. This bill is an unfunded mandate--both on the local government, and on the local businesses who will be forced to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to make the changes necessary to accommodate a new name for this airport. My final--and perhaps most important--objection to this legislation is the fact that none of our constituents will benefit from it. Yet, in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on which I sit, we debated this issue for three hours. Prior to that meeting, the Democratic Caucus spent an hour and the Republican Caucus probably spent a comparable amount of time debating the legislation. My constituents did not send me to Congress to spend this much time working on an issue that is of no consequence to the great majority of Americans. I believe it is appropriate for the Congress to name federal buildings in honor of great American leaders. I have no problem with naming an unnamed federal building after President Reagan. I have no problem with naming an unnamed federal building after any great American leader. Building namings are typically routine matters that pass through our committee without discussion and pass the House under suspension of the rules. When any building-naming legislation is debated for this long and with this much objection, we must think twice about whether that legislation is really worthwhile. My colleagues, I submit to you that this particular proposal is not worthwhile. Mr. Speaker, we should honor the Reagan legacy. We should name buildings in his honor. But we should not insult that legacy by imposing our will upon a local government that has made it quite clear that they do not want this name change. Mr. DIAZ-BALART, Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2625, a bill to redesignate Washington National Airport as the ``Ronald Reagan National Airport''. What is the standard we use to judge our Presidents? How do we appropriately honor those men who have served our great nation and the office of the Presidency with great distinction, courage, honor, and vision? In this city, which is already graced with so many memorials of marble, granite, and bronze, to men and women who have loved freedom more than life and their country more than self--how can we best remember and celebrate the service rendered to these United States and to those dedicated to the cause of freedom throughout the world by President Ronald W. Reagan? President Reagan represents the spirit that has made America strong. He began his eight years in office at a time when America appeared to be on the ebb--economically and militarily demoralized. But for President Reagan--it was morning in America. America during the Reagan years was an America of hopes fulfilled and a place where dreams came true. Reagan's America was to be a Shining City on a Hill--shining the light of freedom for all peoples throughout the world. This was his vision, a vision from which he never wavered. In a speech given in 1964, President Reagan responded to his detractors, to those who said that only bigger and more powerful governments could provide security despite the price of freedom. He said: They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right. . . . You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children the last best hope of man on earth or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. Throughout his life, President Reagan has fought against tyranny and oppression--against that thousand years of darkness. He did not shy back from calling the Communist Soviet Union an Evil Empire; He did not hesitate to support those freedom-fighters who were engaged in battle against tyranny; He fought back relentlessly against every attack against America's people and her interests. His moral courage and his conviction that America should be the example for all who would desire freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness never failed and he is an example to all Americans. Around the world today, we are harvesting the benefits of that vision and hard labor as more and more nations around the world are turning from tyranny and oppression to democracy and justice. I still share President Reagan's vision of America as a Shining City on a Hill shining its light of freedom around the world. It is only fitting that we honor the lifetime and legacy of this great American hero by reminding all that travel through our National Airport, a major gateway into this Capitol city, of his unwavering service and strength of vision. As long as freedom is our watchword and liberty our call to arms, America will continue to so shine its light into the world for all to see.

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, I rise today to introduce legislation that will improve the prospects of every family owned and operated farm, ranch, and business in America. These small family farms and businesses are the backbone of the Texas economy, and the estate tax, often called the death tax, threatens their continued existence. It is time to end this tax--and my bill does just that. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that farmers' and ranchers' estates are six times more likely to face estate taxes than others estates. In my travels around the 19 counties of the First Congressional District, evidence of the accuracy of this estimation pours forth. At nearly every stop I make, I hear horror stories from family members who were forced to sell all or part of the family farm just to pay estate taxes. The death tax represents 1 percent of the Federal tax revenues. However, the impact to the taxpayers is far from insignificant. Not only does this punitive tax cause financial problems for families who are forced to sell property that has been in the family for generations or businesses built over a lifetime, but also local economies feel the impact as jobs disappear and businesses close. Clearly, the social and economic costs of the estate tax far outweigh the revenue it provides for the Federal Government. The time has come to end this ill conceived tax. The tax that was originally intended to break up huge family estates now inhibits the passage of 70 percent of family businesses from one generation to the next. We took meaningful steps to reduce the burden of death taxes on family farms and small businesses this year in the Taxpayer Relief Act. The next step is to completely eliminate it and free families from this burden forever.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to our country's veterans. In less than 2 weeks, most Americans will gather with friends and family to count their blessings and give thanks as we celebrate Thanksgiving. As Americans, we have a great deal to be thankful for: we are in a time of peace; we are living longer, healthier lives than ever before; we have a growing economy and the highest standard of living in the world; and we enjoy civil liberties and civil rights unequaled by any civilization in history. We have much to be thankful for, indeed. But Tuesday--Veterans Day--is also a day of thanksgiving. November 11 has long been a day of tribute to those who bravely served our country in the Armed Forces, many of whom gave their lives to preserve the freedom we too often take for granted. In 1954, President Eisenhower pronounced November 11 ``Veterans Day'' to honor the veterans of all American conflicts. Previously, November 11 was known as Armistice Day, a reference to the November 11, 1918, armistice between the Allies and the Central Powers in World War I. For those who endured its horrors, World War I was called the war to end all wars. Unfortunately, war has continued to be a part of our history, and the tragic list of heroes and heroines has continued to grow with each new conflict: World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and the gulf war. Even in peacetime, many servicemen and servicewomen have died while maintaining our military readiness. As Americans who enjoy freedoms unparalleled on this earth, we are deeply indebted to the more than 600,000 brave men and women who have paid liberty's supreme price in this century, not to mention those who gave their lives in the wars and conflicts of the two previous centuries in our Nation's history. One way we can repay the debt owed our veterans is by honoring their sacrifice and recognizing that the bounties we enjoy today exist because of that sacrifice. Another is to honor our commitment to provide assistance to our veterans, particularly the disabled or elderly. Many veterans sacrificed opportunities for higher education to serve their country. Others sustained injuries that left them disabled for life. Still others were killed, leaving spouses and young children to fend for themselves. Veterans benefits, such as health care and housing assistance, are a small price to pay in exchange for the security of our way of life. We can also pay tribute by teaching our children reverence. We should teach them the value of freedom and instill in them an appreciation for the terrible price that so many Americans paid willingly and courageously. Our children, the future of our country, should know that the privilege of being an American is also a responsibility. Each of us is honor bound to uphold the principles of democracy and the liberties born of a government that is run by the people and for the people. They should know that we enjoy these freedoms only because we have been willing to fight for them, and that they, too, could face the terrible reality of war in their lifetimes. Most importantly, they should know that the peace bought by the lives of so many of our veterans should not be squandered, but nurtured so that it may flourish for generations to come. On Tuesday, in cities and towns across the country, there will be parades, speeches, and memorial services honoring the memories of veterans--our friends and relatives who served our country. As we participate in these events, let us remember to tell our children that, like the appreciation we express on Thanksgiving Day, the appreciation we express on Veterans Day should not end when the clock strikes midnight. Our thanks and appreciation should continue each day, because we have much for which to be thankful, and many veterans to thank.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2676, the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act. I thank the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] for their hard work on this issue. I am a cosponsor of their legislation, H.R. 2292, which is the foundation of the legislation we are passing today, and I have been a strong supporter of initiatives to improve customer service, increase management accountability, and give the taxpayer expanded rights. The oversight board should bring private sector expertise to the IRS, streamlining procedures, easing citizen interaction, and improving efficiency. The provisions regarding the oversight board have been carefully drafted to avoid privacy violation and conflict of interest concerns while still injecting the experience and skills of business managers and tax experts to the IRS agency. Taxpayers should see immediate and long lasting improvements in the service and efficiency of the agency. The provisions in this bill that shift some of the burden of proof in tax disputes from the taxpayer to the IRS encourage my belief that the Government can become more responsive and more accountable to the people. When law-abiding citizens live in fear of threats from Government bureaucrats, it is time to change the way the Government conducts its business. Most taxpayers accept IRS challenges to valid exemptions because they are intimidated or can't afford to fight the Federal Government in court. By shifting the burden of proof to align the IRS code with the values of our criminal justice system, the IRS is forced to back up its challenges so that law abiding taxpayers are not forced to forfeit money that is legally theirs. These reforms are only the first step in our struggle to reduce the impact of Federal taxes on taxpayer's lives. The real problem is the several thousand page Tax Code, created by Congress, that the IRS attempts to administer. This year alone, Congress added 600 pages to the Code by passing $85 billion in tax cuts. When a tax cut makes the Tax Code more complex, you know it is time to scrap this Code and start over with one that is simple, fair, and understandable.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that will ensure our allies pay their fair share to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program [NSIP]. My legislation will reduce the amount the United States contributes to NSIP to $140 million in each of the next 3 fiscal years. This bill will save taxpayers $177 million NSIP is a program designed to improve the transportation and infrastructure of NATO member nations. Under the fiscal year 1998 military construction appropriation bill signed by the President on September 30, 1997, the U.S. contributes $153 million to NSIP. This amount was appropriately reduced from the fiscal year 1996, $161 million and fiscal year 1997, $172 million contributions. The United States still pays a disproportionate amount into this account, however, while receiving minimal benefit to our own infrastructure. The NSIP supports projects and activities listed by NATO as capability packages, stand-alone projects, urgent requirements, and minor works. The projects are then placed in the following categories: authorized works, intra-theater, and trans-Atlantic force mobility; surveillance, reconnaissance, and intelligence systems; logistics support and re-supply; lines of communications control, training support, and exercise facilities; nuclear capabilities; and political- military consultation. These programs are important and I strongly advocate a prepared military. But why do we continue to spend money to expand logistic support and re-supply in Europe when we continue to downsize military depots in this country? Depots are necessary to provide the logistic support and re-supply efforts essential to defend our Nation from a military attack. Why do we continue to spend money on transportation infrastructure to enhance force mobility in Europe while we continue to cut funding to our own Nation's transportation infrastructure? The Interstate Highway System was conceived so the U.S. military would be able to move forces and equipment from coast to coast. Highway capital investment per 1,000 vehicle mile of travel in the United States decreased by 17 percent from 1985-95, while travel increased by 37 percent. The United States needs an additional $15 billion annually to maintain current conditions on our roads and bridges and another $33 billion annually to improve conditions and performance. We must find alternate sources of income to improve our roads in this country. I am an advocate of a strong national defense and have fought to increase money in the Defense budget and to fund the weapons programs essential to our military readiness. However, at a time when we are closing military bases and putting American soldiers out of work, it is wrong for American taxpayers to continue paying billions of dollars annually to benefit wealthy nations such as England, Germany, and France while these same countries use their capital to compete with us in international markets. Our country has for too long assumed the lion's share of the cost of defending our allies. These countries do not have war-torn, war-tattered economies. These countries are tough, shrewd international competitors. They have strong economies that give them the capability to pay for their own defense. I believe NATO is one of the organizations that precipitated our victory in the cold war. As we prepare to expand NATO to include the emerging democracies of Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary, we must realize that expanding NATO will not be easy and will in fact be a rather expensive operation. I advocate expanding NATO and do not believe we should make these countries, which are feeling the growing pains of the change from a Communist economic system to a capitalist system, pay any more than they can afford. However, we must ask our wealthy European allies to pay an appropriate portion of the cost of expanding the infrastructure that is needed to defend these nations. When I first came to Congress, I pledged to work to enact legislation ensuring Texas receives an equitable share of transportation funds. This goal has yet to be achieved. However, while we continue to work toward that goal domestically, we can also work to see that U.S. taxpayers receive some benefit from every dollar they spend that is earmarked for infrastructure. This bill aims to do just that by decreasing the amount of money the United States contributes to the NSIP. For every dollar that Texas contributes to the national highway trust fund, it receives approximately $.77 cents in return. Massachusetts, on the other hand, receives $2.13 for each dollar it invests. Connecticut has a nearly 187 percent return on its dollar. Clearly, Texans already contribute transportation funds to other States. Why should we be asked to contribute transportation funds to other countries as well? My constituents do not receive adequate funds to repair our own roads, but they are asked to pay for the roads of people abroad. America's infrastructure needs are great. With the heavy increase in the volume of traffic due to the implementation of NAFTA, we in Texas are more aware of that fact than most. The increase in the number of trucks on our highways has left many of our roads with potholes that have rendered them almost impassable. However, while the potholes remain along highways in east Texas, the taxpayers see their hard earned income going not to improve the Federal highways they use, but to build roads and highways in Germany, France, and England. We have seen a tremendous amount of support for burden sharing in recent years. This support was evident when the House agreed to the conference report this year on H.R. 1119, the National Defense Authorization Act. That bill authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 1998 and 1999 military activities of the Department of Defense and prescribes military personnel strengths for those fiscal years. The bill contains important provisions on burden sharing. Section 1221 instructs the President to step up efforts to increase burden sharing from nations with whom we have military relations by having them take one or more of the following actions: increase their annual budgetary outlays for national defense as a percentage of its gross domestic product by 10 percent or at least to a level commensurate to that of the United States by September 30, 1998; increase the amount of military assets they contribute to multinational military activities; increase the amount of annual budgetary outlays of foreign assistance; and in nations with U.S. military bases, increase their financial contributions to the payment of the U.S. military non-personnel costs. The Defense authorization bill also includes a sense-of-Congress resolution dealing with the costs of enlarging NATO. Section 1223 contains a section that states: ``It is the sense of Congress that the analysis of the North Atlantic Alliance of the military requirements relating to NATO enlargement and of the financial costs tothe Alliance of NATO enlargement will be one of the major factors in the consideration by the Senate of the ratification of instruments to approve the admission of new member nations to the Alliance and by Congress for the authorization and appropriation of the funding for the costs associated with such enlargement.'' The burdensharing proposals that have been passed in recent years have proved to be an effective way of encouraging wealthy foreign countries to begin paying their fair share for their own defense. Legislation in 1989 called upon Japan to increase its share of the cost of stationing United States troops there. This amendment has led to billions of dollars in savings for the U.S. taxpayer since then, including over $3.7 billion last year. Japan now contributes 78 percent of the non-personnel cost of stationing United States troops there. It is essential that we continue to stress the importance of burdensharing principles. Annually, we spend about 4 percent of our gross national product on defense while France spends a mere 2.5 percent and Germany a paltry 1.5 percent. As we have seen with the Japanese, if we apply pressure to nations capable of sharing in the cost of their defense, we will save United States tax dollars without removing one United States troop from foreign soil. I believe this bill is an important first step in improving our Nation's infrastructure and making our wealthy allies share the burden of their defense.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to improve take home pay and reduce taxes for every working American earning a paycheck. The bill, titled the Working American's Tax Relief Act, allows taxpayers to deduct from their taxable income that portion of their income withheld for payroll taxes. The economic report of the Census Bureau this fall had good news for many Americans. The economy is growing, median income rose for the second straight year, unemployment is low, and welfare rolls are dropping. However, the working families and small businesses of America are not reaping the rewards of our recent prosperity. Average wages for full- time male workers fell last year, and median income has not fully rebounded since the last recession, leaving the living standard of a typical family below 1989 levels. For the 60 percent of American households in the lower- and middle-income brackets, the situation is even more grim. Real income for these families has fallen for the past 7 years. Mr. Speaker, this is why people seem to be working harder and longer and not getting ahead. This is why Americans working a 40-hour week struggle to make ends meet. There were many good provisions in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, and I supported the bill. However, the Working Americans Tax Relief Act builds on our success and offers much needed tax relief to every American bringing home a paycheck. Including both the employee and employer contribution, over 70 percent of Americans pay more in payroll taxes than in Federal income tax. Even worse, the burden of this tax falls most heavily on the over 90 percent of Americans who earn $65,400 or less. Working, middle-class Americans earning up to $65,400 a year pay a combined 15.3 percent of their income to fund the Social Security and Medicare programs. For taxpayers earning more than that, every dollar earned over $65,400 is earned payroll tax free. Small businesses pay this tax regardless of the profits they make in a year, and for many small businesses payroll taxes have become the greatest tax burden. Small business owners and employees need relief from the tax. I am not proposing to change the structure of payroll taxes in America, but I am proposing to make the burden of the tax easier to bear. American taxpayers currently pay income taxes on the portion of their income withheld from their paychecks for payroll taxes. Compounding the injustice of this tax is the fact that many of these taxpayers will again pay taxes on this income when they receive it back in the form of Social Security benefits after retirement. To eliminate this double taxation and offer the average American worker over $1,000 in tax savings, my bill grants all workers, including the self employed, a deduction from taxable income equal to the amount of that worker's payroll taxes. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting legislation to end double taxation of income and offer real tax relief for middle-class Americans and small businesses.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 2746, the HELP Scholarships Program. I am a strong advocate for public schools and I believe we must work to ensure that all children, regardless of race, religion, income, or social status, have an opportunity to receive the best education possible in our public schools. We should not jeopardize that opportunity with an ill-conceived plan to provide tax dollars to private schools. If we are to improve public education in this country, we must take positive steps. I believe the principles outlined in the Democratic plan provide the foundation for those steps. We have focused on six goals: First, early childhood development--basics by age six; second, well-trained teachers; third, relief for crumbling and overcrowded schools, and well-equipped classrooms; fourth, support for local plans to renew neighborhood public schools; fifth, efficient and coordinated use of resources; and sixth, parental choices for public schools. These goals seem to be simple common sense. They provide the basis for a quality, public education for all students. If we, as Members of Congress, unite behind these goals, we can make great strides in our quest to improve public education. In our great country, everyone is guaranteed the right to a free, public education. It is our duty to ensure that a public education is consistently a quality education. The increasing competitiveness of our global economy requires that our young people be better educated than ever before in our history. Our schools must provide adequate training in the basic skills needed to succeed in the current and future job market. We must ensure that all of our students have access to an education that prepares them to survive in a global economy. The Democratic plan places us firmly on that path. Unfortunately, the bill we are considering today will help only a few children fortunate enough to meet the criteria to attend private schools. This bill provides no real choice to students or parents. It does nothing for the vast majority of the nation's students. Only a few lucky students could take advantage of the program given the low funding level for the title VI program under which the vouchers would be provided. The Republican plan might provide more opportunity to a few select lower income students, but what about the rest? What about the students that private schools don't want? We cannot require private schools to admit all students. This bill affords no civil rights protections to the students in the voucher program. Schools accepting vouchers do not have to accept children who need high-cost education because they are disabled, have limited English proficiency, or are homeless. When we provide public funds to these schools, we resurrect the misguided concept of ``separate but equal.'' In addition to the problems presented by diverting public money into private schools, I believe it is important to point out that it is a clear violation of the first amendment doctrine of separation of church and state to provide public money to private, religious schools. This bill explicitly permits Federal funds to be used for sectarian activities. Such provisions are clearly contrary to the provision of the first amendment prohibiting the establishment of religion. The Supreme Court has consistently held that tax dollars cannot pay, directly or indirectly, for religious education or the religious mission of parochial schools. If we adopt this voucher program, it will certainly face a court challenge that it could not withstand. Nowhere in the United States has there been a successful voucher plan. In fact, most states, including my own State of Texas, have rejected vouchers at every turn. The States understand that our public schools cannot and will not survive if we enact such a proposal. To the contrary, they will wither on the vine. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support local control and I am not at this point willing to reject all voucher proposals out of hand. But many of our local governments have spoken and the result has been a resounding ``no''. Until a voucher plan is successful at the local level, we in Congress should not impose our will on individual school districts and force them to lose any of their much needed public funding. Mr. Speaker, now is not the time for experimentation. Now is the time to fight for our public schools, to fight for a quality education for all children, to fight for state-of-the-art equipment in the classroom. I urge my colleagues to oppose this harmful legislation.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Moran amendment to the D.C. appropriations bill. I find the arguments of the gentlelady from the District of Columbia, the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, and the minority members of the Appropriations Committee to be most persuasive. This bill breaks the rules of the House. Once again, the Republican majority is attempting to legislate on an appropriations bill. They have thrown everything but the kitchen sink into this bill. They cannot pass their social agenda on a national scale, so they are starting small with one city. The Moran substitute eliminates some of the more egregious provisions of the bill. First, it deletes the provision that establishes a new program to provide educational scholarships to low-income students. In our country, every child is guaranteed the right to a free, public education. We have all heard the horror stories about the terrible state of disrepair of the DC schools. There is no doubt about the fact when we have statistics from reliable sources like the GAO telling us that in 1996, 49 percent of the schools in the District had at least one building in need of extensive repair and 68 percent had at least one unsatisfactory environmental condition. Rather than aggravating the situation, we should be working to improve the DC public schools. Unfortunately, the misguided Republican Leadership has chosen to ``fix'' this problem by including a proposal to provide up to $3,200 per student so that 2,000 children from low- income families could attend private schools. This plan will drain $45 million in Federal funds away from the public schools already in dire straits and will do absolutely nothing for the 97 percent of students in the District who remain in the public schools. Only two private schools in DC have tuition rates lower than the amount provided by the ``scholarships''. This plan does not provide any great ``choice'' for most families in the District. It simply adds two schools to the many public schools they can currently choose. Those two schools, however, still have the option of saying ``no'' to any student who does not meet their standards for admission. In fact, even if they did not decline admission to students based on their admission requirements, they would have to decline admission to the large majority of students simply due to inadequate space.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the legacy and future of historically black colleges and universities [HBCU] during National Historically Black Colleges and Universities Week. HBCU's were founded to eliminate the disparity of educational opportunities for minorities in the United States. In our struggle to offer the ideal of an equal education for all Americans, HBCU's have played a critical role to enrich and inspire postsecondary education for African-Americans, low income, and educationally disadvantaged Americans. For many generations from slavery to segregation, HBCU's were the only institutions in which minorities could receive a postsecondary education. HBCU's offer a welcoming and nurturing environment for students while providing quality education and the skills needed for success. I am fortunate to have two HBCU's in my district--Wiley College and Jarvis Christian College. Wiley College, located in my hometown of Marshall, TX, has been an educational, spiritual, cultural, and economic anchor for the community since 1873. The college encourages students to strive for academic excellence through its Honor Track Program. In addition, the college offers several adult and continuing education programs and community service programs to assist in the students' overall development. Jarvis Christian College, another faith-oriented institution, has maintained its mission of educating African-Americans with head, heart, and hand together since 1912. This college has produced three of its presidents, and has several alliances with universities and businesses to encourage further education and job placement opportunities for its students. For instance, the college's biomedical science program, in partnership with Meharry Medical College, is designed to encourage and better prepare minority students to enter medicine, dentistry, and other health professions. Continuing the legacy of their founders, HBCU's today offer minorities choice and diversity in educational opportunities; cultural, financial, and social support; and serve as the backbone for community revitalization and development. For many African-Americans and others, HBCU's have created and enhanced opportunities for leadership and citizenship through their mentor and support programs. Today, HBCU's award almost 30 percent of all bachelor degrees awarded to African- Americans in the United States. HBCU's also reach out to high school students through the Upward Bound Program. Upward Bound, which is part of the outreach programs at both Wiley College and Jarvis Christian College, encourages African- American high school students to pursue a college degree. The Upward Bound Program offers high school students tutoring in various subjects, academic counseling, and career guidance. Specifically, this program serves many counties in east Texas, including but not limited to, Camp, Gregg, Harrison, Morris, Smith, Upsher, and Wood. Through creative means, HBCU's also address the needs of the community by continually addressing historic preservation and the economic and housing needs of communities. Wiley College has taken the old segregated high school for African-Americans and has developed it into a community center that serves youth and seniors of all races. Next year, Wiley will continue this development by adding a wellness center for the community. In recent years, there has been much debate concerning the relevance of HBCU's and Federal funding of these institutions. I believe the importance of HBCU's can be seen in their mentor programs for youth; the lawyers, doctors, teachers, architects, and civic leaders they have produced; the community service and historic preservation programs that are parts of their agenda; and economic and housing development that are so important to growth and fairness in our society. Yet the relevance of historically black colleges and universities truly lies in the evidence of things not seen. I congratulate HBCU's on the momentous work they have done, and wish them continued success in the future.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a founding member of the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus. I rise as a father of four. I rise as a little league coach and a former county court at law judge. I rise today to say that I support every effort to protect our Nation's children and I support the motion to instruct by the Member from Maryland. As much as any Member on this floor, I support full funding for programs to safeguard, protect, and rescue our missing and exploited children. I cannot vote for the previous question because we should not vote on this motion to instruct conferees in its current form. I will vote against the previous question because these instructions are incomplete. This motion to instruct should include instructions to adopt the Senate position on the Member of Congress cost of living increase. The Republican leadership has precluded an up or down vote on the Member pay raise, and forced me to vote against the previous question to voice my opposition to the pay increase. I support the motion. I will vote against the previous question not for what is included in the motion, but for what is not included in the motion. The Member pay raise should be put to a straight vote with an honest, open debate. This Treasury/Postal appropriations bill was rushed through the floor with a rule that denied a vote on the pay raise. Members were denied the opportunity to cast a vote on the pay raise and denied a true forum to voice their opposition to the pay raise. The leadership of this House owe the people of America, the people we are here to serve, an honest debate and an honest vote on the pay raise. I did not come to Congress to cut spending only when I am not affected by the cut. The American people deserve as much as we can give them. The American people deserve a balanced budget. The American people deserve tax relief. The American people deserve the assurance that Social Security and Medicare will be there to serve them when they retire. The American people deserve the best education this country can offer them. If we are going to ask all American to sacrifice to balance the budget, we should expect the same of ourselves. I wish I did not have to vote against the previous question simply to voice my opposition to the pay raise, but I do. The protection of our children is an issue that is near to my heart, but so is my commitment to the people of east Texas to balance the Federal budget. I oppose this motion to instruct in its current form only because it is incomplete.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to revoke the COLA for Members of Congress should it become law. The manner in which the COLA was approved by this body yesterday is appalling. Americans deserve to know if their Representative is voting to increase his or her pay. It should not be hidden in the parliamentary process. We must be honest enough with ourselves and with the American people to support openly or oppose openly this increase. My legislation will require us to make an honest, forthright statement about our pay. I hope events of the next few days will render my legislation unnecessary. I hope that once Members have had an opportunity to discuss with their constituents yesterday's attempt to sneak in a pay raise they will join the efforts of Congresswoman Linda Smith, myself, and others and support an amendment to prevent Members of Congress from receiving a COLA. If such an amendment is ruled out of order, Members should support a motion to appeal the ruling of the chair. If our amendment prevails, and I sincerely hope it does, my legislation will not be necessary. However, I believe we must make every effort to overturn yesterday's action and for that reason, I am introducing this bill today. As Members of Congress, I strongly believe that we should not talk about cutting important programs like Medicare and Social Security and then turn around and give ourselves a pay raise. During the appropriations process, we have forced many worthy programs to tighten their belts ``for the good of the country'' so we can meet our goal of a balanced budget by the year 2002. Why, then, not tighten our own belts? As I have said on many other occasions, it is irresponsible for us to increase our own pay at a time when we have not met our obligation to the American people to balance the Federal budget. We cannot continue to tell our constituents to tighten their belts while we loosen our own. We must first make Medicare solvent. We must first fully fund our veterans' benefits. We must first ensure that every student has an opportunity for a college education. We must first rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. We must first eliminate the estate tax. We must first take care of the people. I hope the leadership will see to it that this legislation receives a fair hearing and is brought to the floor with all due speed.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, it is with regret that I rise today in opposition to the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. This bill contains many worthwhile programs that are deserving of funding. However, the manner in which this bill came to the floor denied Members the opportunity to vote for or against the cost of living pay increase for Members of Congress. I strongly believe we should be honest enough with ourselves and with the American people to openly support or oppose this increase instead of sitting silently by while it automatically goes into effect. When I introduced my legislation, H.R. 2219, to prevent Members from receiving the 1998 pay adjustment, I did so because I believe it is irresponsible for us to increase our own pay at a time when we have not met our obligation to the American people to balance the Federal budget. Only days after I introduced my legislation, the Republican leadership in both houses was widely quoted in the press as saying the pay raise was dead for the year. But instead of letting it die a well- deserved death, they made late night, back room deals and brought this bill to the House floor in a manner accorded precious few pieces of legislation. They brought it to the floor with no rule to ensure that the pay raise would go into effect. I made a commitment to the people of east Texas to eliminate the Federal deficit before I would agree to raise my pay. I made a commitment to ensure that Medicare is solvent before we raise our pay. I made a commitment to ensure that veterans' benefits are fully funded before we raise our pay. I made a commitment to ensure that every student has an opportunity for a college education before we raise our pay. The infrastructure across our country is crumbling. However, this body narrowly defeated a proposal earlier this year to increase spending for the infrastructure. The Republican leadership has made it clear to members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that BESTEA will break the budget agreement and that they will oppose this legislation, even though there is additional money in the highway trust fund. They want to continue to use the trust fund to mask the size of the deficit on the one hand, but on the other they are willing to raise our pay. Their logic doesn't make any sense. Why should we pass legislation to benefit 535 people when we can't get an agreement that will benefit millions of people? The Taxpayer Relief Act raised the estate tax exemption from $600,000 to $1 million by the year 2007. There should be no estate tax. We should not be raising our pay until we have eliminated this punitive tax. Why should we pass legislation to benefit 535 people when we can't get an agreement to protect a family farm? When I introduced my bill, I said that I hoped my fellow Members would join me in opposing a congressional pay raise until we have taken care of the people. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we have not taken care of the people. I can only hope that the conferees will accept the Senate language and deny this disingenuous attempt at a pay raise.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the motion to instruct the conferees on the limitation on payments for the cost of NATO expansion. Our country has for too long assumed the lion share of the cost of defending our allies. I support a strong national defense and I have voted to fund many of our weapons programs so we can be assured of our own military preparedness. However, our allies must begin to show their commitment to military preparedness. As we move to expand NATO, we must be ever-mindful of the potential cost of that expansion. Our cost estimates for that expansion range from $1 billion to $125 billion over 10 years. With such a wide range of estimates, it is important that the Congress take action to limit those costs. By taking this action, we not only prevent unanticipated increases in future budgets, we also strengthen the hand of the President in negotiations with our allies. Burden sharing proposals of recent years have proven to be an effective way of encouraging wealthy foreign countries to begin to pay their fair share for their own defense. Legislation in 1989 called upon Japan to increase its share of the cost of stationing U.S. troops there. This legislation has led to billions of dollars in savings for the U.S. taxpayer and Japan now contributes 78 percent of the nonpersonnel cost of stationing U.S. troops there. The budget agreement will adopt demands that we severely curtail both domestic and military spending over the next 5 years. We must take care of the folks at home first. We should first use American taxpayer dollars to benefit people at home who earned them, not people overseas who didn't. At a time when some in government are seriously considering cutting Medicare benefits to our seniors in order to balance the budget, how can we turn back the clock on the progress we have made in getting our allies to pay for their defense? Our parents worked a lifetime for those benefits. These are some of the most vulnerable in our society and their health care needs must come first. We ought to make good on our commitment to them and our commitment to the education and well-being of our children, instead of sending billions to nations that can defend themselves. We have only recently begun to increase the amount some of our allies pay for their defense. They still do not pay their fair share. At a time when we are struggling to keep open bases like the Red River Army Depot in my district, balance our Federal budget, protect Medicare, and increase education funding, we cannot run the risk of turning back the clock and increasing the percentage we pay for allies' defense.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that exempts Members of Congress from receiving the cost of living pay increase for fiscal year 1998. It is irresponsible for us to increase our own pay at a time when we have not met our obligation to the American people to balance the Federal budget. We are at a critical point in our Federal spending priorities. We are making decisions to cut spending that will impact all Americans. At a time when some in Government are seriously considering cutting Medicare benefits to our seniors in order to balance the budget, how can we justify giving ourselves a pay raise? Our parents worked a lifetime for those benefits. We cannot in good conscience increase our pay while breaking our commitment to them. These are some of the most vulnerable in our society and their health care needs must come first. At a time when unfairly cutting veterans' benefits is under consideration, how can we justify giving ourselves a pay raise? Our veterans laid down their lives for our country. Our world dominance today is due in large part to the men and women who have served our country in harm's way throughout history. We have an obligation to them not to turn our backs on their health care needs. At a time when we are struggling to give every student an opportunity for a college education, how can we justify giving ourselves a pay raise? Our students represent the future of our country. By providing them the opportunity to further their education, we advance the American ideals of social progress and equality. We must do everything within our power to make post secondary education more affordable for everyone who wants to attend. At a time when we cannot adequately fund transportation and infrastructure repairs and improvements, how can we justify giving ourselves a pay raise? The strength of America's economy was built on the foundation of a world class infrastructure. We cannot continue to increase our productivity and expand our economy without improvements to our infrastructure. We have just begun to work toward easing the tax burden on the American people. How can we justify giving ourselves a pay raise before that task is complete? The Taxpayer Relief Act that recently passed the House raised the estate tax exemption from $600,000 to $1,000,000 by the year 2007. Many families in my district in east Texas who own farms or small businesses could lose significant portions of their family property waiting for this provision to be implemented. The exemption should be $1 million now, not 10 years from now. As one of my constituent's wrote, Congress is here to take care of people. Congress must get to work on the people's business. I hope my fellow Members will join me in opposing a congressional pay raise until we have taken care of the people.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to thank Representative Sidney Yates and Representative Louise Slaughter for their efforts to save the National Endowment for the Arts [NEA] and the National Endowment for the Humanities [NEH], and for raising the awareness of the importance of both agencies to education. The cost to fund both the NEA and the NEH is less than $1 per taxpayer per year, and the return from both agencies is immeasurable. Small grants of a few thousand dollars matched with private donations go a long way toward promoting arts education in school districts, and preserving our Nation's heritage in local communities. Through partnerships with State and local organizations, the NEA is able to integrate art into multiple educational and after school programs throughout the State of Texas. This means we are implementing new and innovative methods to help students develop problem solving and reasoning skills, hone communication ability, expand creativity, and instill self-esteem and discipline. All of these tools are important if we want our children to be successful in the 21st century. For the past 4 years, the Dallas-based Partnership for the Arts, Culture, and Education, Inc., [PACE] conducted a study to determine the impact that arts education has on students' overall academic performance. Throughout the study they found teachers who used innovative ways to stimulate the minds of their students. One class learned the principles of physics during a trip to the symphony hall, while another class learned about the relationship of muscles to the skeleton from studying dance. The PACE study also found that the greater the exposure to the arts, the greater the student performance on standardized test scores. In my district, the Texas Council of Humanities [TCH] in partnership with the NEH has taken an active role in advancement of humanities education through history, literature, religion, languages, and other fields related to culture and society in elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education. One grant recipient of TCH is Wiley College and Zeta Phi Beta Sorority, who received a $2,000 award for a symposium examining the roles of black women. In addition, TCH awarded a grant to Paris Junior College for the collection of data and a lecture series on the history and culture of the surrounding African-American community. Without the NEH, there would be no TCH or study of the history of an African-American community in a town called Paris, TX. The NEA has continuously supported State and local organizations that bring arts to rural America. In my district, the NEA has given much needed support to organizations like the Texarkana Regional Arts and Humanities Council and the Marshall Regional Arts Council. These councils have funded various arts in education programs and touring companies throughout my district. The Texarkana Regional Arts and Humanities Council has presented talented groups, like the Amabile Piano Quartet and the Deeply Rooted Chicago Dance Theatre. In addition, the NEA has supported the Northeast Texas Communities in Schools, an organization that helps bring major performances to local schools. The NEA also supports the Believe in Me after-school program in Austin, TX. This program uses dance to give youth, many of whom are involved in drug and gang activity, the tools they need to be successful in the community. I cannot say that every child will turn out to be the next Einstein or Michelangelo or Maya Angelou, but we can give these children a solid foundation on which they can build their dreams. As the artistic director for the 52d Street project stated, ``There is no way to fast forward and know how the kids will look back on this, but I have seen joy in their eyes and have heard it in their voices and I have watched them take a bow and come up taller.'' I believe we must recognize the impact that the NEA and the NEH have on our heritage, culture, and economy, and the benefits to education. As a father of four children, I believe we have a responsibility to give our children every opportunity possible for success. And if the care and education and development of our children is not a priority role of Government, then what is?

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that clarifies the definition of depot-level maintenance and repair as the definition applies to the Army. The definition of depot-level maintenance currently included in the Department of Defense authorization bill should include conversions and modifications and I ask your support for such a change. Section 333 of the Department of Defense authorization bill states: Depot level maintenance and repair means material maintenance or repair requiring the overhaul, upgrading, or rebuilding of parts, assemblies, or subassemblies, and the testing and reclamation of equipment as necessary, regardless of the source of funds for the maintenance or repair. I believe this definition is vague and unclear and could undermine current BRAC laws. Further, it could potentially be interpreted to change long-existing Army definitions, and devastate attempts to gain more workload at certain depots. I cite an example of why this definition is necessary. In 1995 Red River Army Depot in my district was realigned by the base realignment and closure process. The BRAC law stated: ``Move all maintenance missions except for that related to the Bradley Fighting Vehicle series to other depot maintenance activities including the private sector . . .'', thus leaving all maintenance of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle at Red River Army Depot. When I was elected to Congress, I sat down with the Army to discuss the situation at Red River. The Army told me that Red River was unable to perform conversions and modifications of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle because conversions and modifications are not part of depot maintenance. However, Army Regulation 750-2 of Army Materiel Maintenance Wholesale Operations defines depot maintenance as ``that maintenance performed on materiel requiring major overhaul or a complete rebuild of parts, assemblies, subassemblies, and end items, including the manufacture of parts, modifications and conversions, testing and reclamation, as required. Depot maintenance serves to support lower categories of maintenance by providing technical assistance and performing that maintenance beyond their responsibility. Depot maintenance provides stocks of serviceable equipment by using more extensive facilities or repair than are available in lower level maintenance activities.'' (Emphasis Added.) Clearly the law states that depot maintenance of Bradley Fighting Vehicles is to be performed at Red River Army Depot. Since the Army definition of depot maintenance includes modification and conversions, any modification and/or conversion of the Bradley should be performed at Red River Army Depot. Mr. Speaker, this is why we need this legislation to clearly state what the Army can and cannot do and so it can follow its own regulations. Depots are a vital part of our Nation's military and are essential to our military readiness. The Army currently has five maintenance depots, three of which are ground maintenance depots. More and more, each ground maintenance depot is becoming increasingly specialized. Mr. Speaker, we need to make sure these depots operate efficiently, and that in a time of need we have dependable sources of repair for our military might. It is clear that in the post-cold-war era our military readiness levels need to reflect the demise of the Warsaw Pact and other changes in the world. However, we need to fully assess the impact that closure and realignment decisions made to date have had on our current military readiness. To our knowledge, no report or complete assessment has been prepared on how base closures, which are currently being completed, have affected our military readiness. I believe that until such a report can be reviewed, it is unwise to recommend more base closures. The four previous rounds of the base realignment and closure [BRAC] process have resulted in the closing of 97 defense installations in the United States. We are still unable to fully assess the actual savings, if any, generated from those base closures. For this reason, we know that if there are any savings generated from further rounds of base closures, those savings will not be realized for many years to come. Further, it is also necessary to realize the amount of money spent to close military facilities. By the year 2000, we will have spent approximately $23 billion in cleanup and other costs associated with the closure of military installations. The Quadrennial Defense Review claimed that in order to preserve combat capability and readiness, the services must compete, outsource, or privatize military department infrastructure functions that are closely related to commercial enterprises. The Secretary of Defense recently stated that ``We need to deregulate defense just as we have deregulated many other American industries.'' However, our military is not just another American industry. The civilian and military employees who currently perform these functions are experienced, dedicated, and well-skilled individuals on whom our Nation can depend in time of war. The uncertainties we would face with an inexperienced, privatized work force, pressed into service on short notice, could be a tremendous detriment to our military readiness.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to compliment the Appropriations Military Construction Subcommittee for not funding additional rounds of the Base Realignment and Closure [BRAC] process. Several of my colleagues from Texas and I have been advocating zero-funding for BRAC and I am pleased the committee agrees with me. The fact is, the last 4 rounds of the BRAC process have resulted in the closing of 97 defense installations in the United States. And yet today, we are still unable to fully assess the impact of the closures. We have not seen a report or complete assessment of how the closures affect military preparedness. We do not know the amount of actual savings, if any, generated from the closures. And yet we do know that we have spent a lot of money to close these bases. According to the Department of Defense, by the year 2000, we will have spent approximately $23 billion in cleanup and other costs associated with closing these bases. Members, not funding additional rounds of BRAC makes sense. By not funding additional rounds of BRAC, we are saying ``let's look before we leap.'' Congress does not need to continue to spend the taxpayer's money on BRAC until we know if we have actually saved money by closing these bases; how much of the taxpayer's money has been spent closing these bases; and how the closure of bases has affected our country's military preparedness. This bill will allow us to make those assessments in a responsible and effective manner.