Max Sandlin

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my good friend the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, one of the key problems with the House GOP Medicare prescription bill is it fails to meet the needs of the one-fourth of Medicare beneficiaries who live in rural areas. And someone who knows that very well is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), my good friend and colleague and a real champion of health care, especially out in west Texas, and a very respected Member of the House. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from the State of Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross), one of the people that really has a good knowledge in the Congress about the issue of prescription drugs due to the fact that he owns a pharmacy.

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), ranking member on the Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, we have heard today about the problems in this bill. It is important that we stand up for hospitals, for seniors, and for rural America. For too long, America's rural hospitals have received Medicare funding far below the amount paid for the same service to their urban counterparts. Further, Medicare's base payment and DSH payments are less for rural hospitals and include an arbitrary cap. The results are very predictable. There has been an overall Medicare operating margin of negative 2.9 percent, and that has had a terrible impact on rural health care. Let us stand up for our seniors. Let us stand up for rural hospitals. Let us make sure that we have a prescription drug plan that is guaranteed. We know the cost, we know what it covers, it is available, and that does not have a doughnut hole. Let us work together. I am urging my colleagues to support the motion to instruct conferees, because the instructions in this motion are the very ones that are not being worked out in a bipartisan way or in any way at all by the conference committee.

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. Mr. Speaker, we passed a continuing resolution today that will take us through October 31, 2003. Would you anticipate that we would be able to finish all of our legislative work for the year by the end of October?

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the information from the gentleman. I noticed in the initial remarks that several conference reports were mentioned that would be coming up including FAA and DOD and military construction and energy and water. Certainly, those are important matters. But in looking at that list, I would note that many of those things have not been brought forward yet because we have not been scheduling Friday and Monday. Secondly, I would note that in that list, from what I am reading, that neither the Medicare prescription drug legislation nor the tax credit legislation is on that list. But could Members be told which one of those two are most likely to come to the floor? Is there a possibility of the Medicare prescription drug legislation coming to the floor and is there a possibility of the child tax credit legislation coming to the floor?

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. So there is certainly the possibility that in addition to the ones that you listed, since we are working extra hours next week and working late through Friday, there is the possibility that Medicare prescription drugs and/or the child tax credit legislation could come up for consideration next week since we do have additional time next week?

Mr. SANDLIN. Certainly we hope since we are working a little bit later, we can consider Medicare prescription drug legislation and the child tax credit. That is, of course, very important. Does the gentleman expect that we could move forward and go to conference on the Labor-HHS-Education bill sometime next week? Since we do have additional time, would that be a priority?

Mr. SANDLIN. The House earlier today was supposed to consider a rule to send the FAA conference report back to conference. When the conferees reconvene, would the gentleman expect them to work in a truly cooperative manner and accept the will of both Houses of Congress with regard to halting the privatization of air traffic control towers as has been debated here on the floor?

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for his information and cooperation today and would ask that the gentleman and/ or the leadership of the majority let us know just as quickly as possible tomorrow about the scheduling, so that our Members can make their scheduling for their transportation, and also let us know if there is any possibility of the Medicare prescription drug bill or tax credit bill or FAA bill or any of that coming up next week.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, it is really pretty simple. Who is going to stand up for America's seniors? Who is going to stand up for rural health care? Who in this body will stand up for rural patients and rural doctors and rural hospitals over the HMOs? The answer is pretty clear. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in asking to instruct the Medicare prescription drug conferees to remember our Nation's 9.3 million rural Medicare beneficiaries and our rural hospitals and our rural doctors when they continue their critical deliberations. The way this bill currently stands, it is nothing more, Mr. Speaker, than the old bait and switch. And everybody here knows that the Republican leadership has used smoke and mirrors to trick our seniors, to trick my seniors in east Texas into thinking they are getting a Medicare prescription drug plan while in reality forcing them to seek medication from private insurance companies and HMOs that will, number one, set the prices, and, number two, set the benefits. What a racket they have. This is not any sort of Medicare prescription drug plan. What a misnomer. This is a plan to push our seniors, to forcefully shove them and their money into the HMOs. Now, this official HMO enrichment plan that is pushed by the other side does not even pretend to address the needs of rural America. Mr. Speaker, as you know, and as has been mentioned, over 80 percent of rural Medicare beneficiaries today live in an area that private insurance companies do not and will not serve. And in my district it is even worse than that. Mr. Speaker, I challenge my friends on the other side of the aisle to name me one insurance company in the United States of America, one, that wants to take part in this program. I would ask that a blank be left in the Record at this point, that a line be drawn right now so that our friends can insert in that blank the name of one insurance company, one in America. There is not one. They cannot fill it in, and the Record will remain blank. What has history shown us about what happens when insurance companies, private insurance companies, get involved in Medicare? Medicare+Choice, the great managed care experiment of our seniors, should have been named Medicare Minus Choice. After all, it has been a disaster. Between 1998 and 2003, the number of Medicare+Choice plans dropped by more than half. It is not available. In Texas, over 313,000 Medicare Plus seniors were dropped by insurance companies since 1999. Rural seniors simply do not have the same access to private insurance plans as our urban seniors. Knowing this, we have to include a government fallback option for areas served by less than two plans, because otherwise the plan is meaningless, and our friends know it. Mr. Speaker, we also need to eliminate the premium support provisions in H.R. 1 that are scheduled to take place in 2010. It is unconscionable to market this prescription drug plan as equitable and universal when those folks that stay in traditional fee-for-service Medicare will see significant increases in their premiums under this so-called competition program. It is just outrageous. What about our rural hospitals? What shape are they in? Mr. Speaker, 470 hospitals have closed in the past 25 years, and overall Medicare margins have shrunk every year since 1998, with 57 percent of hospitals that treat Medicare patients losing money. And we are going to cure that by taking more money away? That is our cure? That is our plan? Under current law hospitals are slated to receive full inflation payments for inpatient and outpatient services. The House bill that is being proposed by our friends on the other side would reduce hospital payment updates in 2004, reduce hospital payment updates in 2005, reduce hospital payment updates in 2006. The reduction would cost hospitals an estimated $12 billion. Well, in east Texas $12 billion is a lot of money, and those are cuts to our rural hospitals. Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of priorities. I choose to stand with America's seniors. I choose to stand with our rural citizens. I choose to stand with our hospitals and our doctors in making sure that we have access to affordable medical care. The HMOs seem to do just fine. Now, I find it interesting, too, in closing, and I am not here to talk about malpractice, we could go on all day about malpractice, but it is interesting that today our friends are standing up for HMOs. And a few days ago in the medical malpractice debate they were standing up for insurance carriers. It seems pretty clear who we stand up for in this House, especially on the other side of the aisle. They stood up just the other day for malpractice carriers against hospitals, malpractice carriers against doctors, malpractice carriers against our patients, malpractice carriers against everyone. The malpractice reform was just a trick, because while we passed malpractice reform, we capped what insurance companies paid. We capped what they had to give to people. We capped the coverage needed by doctors. But we did not require in any respect whatsoever insurance carriers to bring down the premiums on our doctors. It is not there. And in their model State, California, just in the last few weeks they have record increases, record requests for increases by the insurance companies who are protected by caps. Those caps do not work. And in States that have caps, they have premiums higher than in States that do not have caps. It is just a sell-out to the insurance companies. It is a sell-out to the carriers on behalf of the insurance companies, against the doctors, against the patients, against the hospitals. Mr. Speaker, it seems funny to me we always want to save money in this body and save money in health care by taking money out of the public and giving it to insurance carriers. That is a funny way that we save money, and it is simply an example of a lack of priorities. Let us stand up for health care. The HMOs, the insurance carriers are doing just fine without our help.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, subject to rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003. The form of the motion is as follows: Mr. Sandlin of Texas moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 1 be instructed as follows: (1) The House recede to the Senate on the provisions to guarantee access to prescription drug coverage under section 1860D-13(e) of the Social Security Act, as added by section 101(a) of the Senate amendment. (2) To reject the provisions of section 501 of the House bill. (3) The House recede to the Senate on the following provisions of the Senate amendment to improve rural health care: (A) Section 403 (relating to inpatient hospital adjustment for low volume hospitals). (B) Section 404 (relating to medicare disproportionate share adjustment for rural areas), but with the effective date applicable under section 401(b) of the House bill. (C) Section 404A (relating to MedPAC report on medicare disproportionate share hospital adjustment payments). (D) The following provisions of section 405 (relating to critical access hospital improvements): (i) Subsection (a), but with the effective date applicable under section 405(f)(4) of the House bill. (ii) Subsection (b), but with the effective date applicable under section 405(c)(2) of the House bill. (iii) Subsections (e), (f), and (g). (E) Section 414 (relating to rural community hospital demonstration program). (F) Section 415 (relating to critical access hospital improvement demonstration program). (G) Section 417 (relating to treatment of certain entities for purposes of payment under the medicare program). (H) Section 420 (relating to conforming changes relating to Federally qualified health centers). (I) Section 420A (relating to increase for hospitals with disproportionate indigent care revenues). (J) Section 421 (relating to establishment of floor on geographic adjustments of payments for physicians' services). (K) Section 425 (relating to temporary increase for ground ambulance services), but with the effective date applicable under the amendment made by section 410(2) of the House bill. (L) Section 426 (relating to appropriate coverage of air ambulance services under ambulance fee schedule). (M) Section 427 (relating to treatment of certain clinical diagnostic laboratory tests furnished by a sole community hospital). (N) Section 428 (relating to improvement in rural health clinic reimbursement). (O) Section 444 (relating to GAO study of geographic differences in payments for physicians' services). (P) Section 450C (relating to authorization of reimbursement for all medicare part B services furnished by Indian hospitals and clinics). (Q) Section 452 (relating to limitation on reduction in area wage adjustment factors under the prospective payment system for home health services). (R) Section 455 (relating to MedPAC study on medicare payments and efficiencies in the health care system). (S) Section 459 (relating to increase in medicare payment for certain home health services). (T) Section 601 (Increase in medicaid DSH allotments for fiscal years 2004 and 2005). (4) The House insist upon the following provisions of the House bill: (A) Section 402 (relating to immediate establishment of uniform standardized amount in rural and small urban areas). (B) Section 403 (relating to establishment of essential rural hospital classification). (C) Subsections (a), (b), (d), and (e) of section 405 (relating to improvements to critical access hospital program). (D) Section 416 (relating to revision of labor-related share of hospital inpatient pps wage index). (E) Section 417 (relating to medicare incentive payment program improvements). (F) Section 504 (relating to wage index classification reform). (G) Section 601 (relating to revision of updates for physician services). (H) Section 1001 (relating to medicaid disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments).

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for yielding me this time, a real hero and champion of rural health care, especially in west Texas. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in instructing the Medicare prescription drug conferees to remember our Nation's 9.3 million rural Medicare beneficiaries as they continue their critical deliberations. The way this bill currently stands is nothing more than the old bait and switch. The Republican leadership has used smoke and mirrors to trick our seniors into thinking that they are getting a Medicare prescription drug plan, when in reality they are forcing them to seek medication from private insurance companies and HMOs that will set the price and set the benefits. This HMO enrichment plan does not even pretend to address the needs of rural America. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, over 80 percent of rural health care beneficiaries today live in an area that insurance companies do not and will not serve, and it is worse than that in my district. Not one single insurance company in the United States of America has signed up for the plan that is being proposed by our friends on the other side of the aisle. Just what has history shown us about what happens when insurance companies get involved in Medicare? Medicare+Choice, the great managed care experiment of our Nation's seniors, should have been named Medicare Minus Choice. After all it has been a total disaster. Between 1998 and 2003, the number of Medicare+Choice plans dropped in the United States by more than half. And in Texas, in our State, over 313,000 Medicare+Choice seniors have been dropped by insurance companies since 1999 alone, dropped straight in the grease in Texas because they do not want to serve rural America. Rural seniors do not have access to private insurance plans, not the same as our urban seniors, and knowing this, we must include a Government fallback option for areas served by less than two plans. And there are no plans in east Texas, no plans in rural America. Mr. Speaker, we also need to eliminate the premium support provisions in H.R. 1 that are scheduled to take place in 2010. It is unconscionable to market this prescription drug bill as an equitable bill and universal, when these folks who stay in traditional fee-for- service Medicare will see significant premium increases under the competition program. There is no competition in rural America, and there is no service in rural America. Rural seniors have not gotten a fair deal. On average, they are in poorer health, have lower incomes, face higher out-of-pocket medical spending than seniors in urban areas, and they are not addressed. They need our help, and yet, all we are doing with this bill is compounding the inequity rural seniors already endure. I implore my colleagues to join me in instructing the Medicare conferees to honor our rural seniors. Rural seniors need health care. Rural seniors need our representation. The HMOs already have all that covered.

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, how can we assume that coverage would be available in my district or in rural America when it is not available now, and countrywide it is not available in 80 percent of rural districts covered where we have Medicare-covered folks?

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, it is time for the daily Blue Dog report. Mr. Speaker, it has been 847 days since President Bush and the Republican Party embarked on their economic plan for our country. During that time, the national debt has increased by $1,161,083,093,278.33. According to the Web site for the Bureau of the Public Debt at the U.S. Department of the Treasury, yesterday at 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, the Nation's outstanding debt was $6,801,408,479,637.10. Furthermore, in fiscal year 2003, interest on our national debt, or the debt tax, is $288,803,184,023 through July 31, the interest alone running at $1 billion per day. We must pay down this debt. We must have fiscal responsibility in this country. Mr. Speaker, that is the daily Blue Dog report.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the U.S. free trade agreements (FTAs) with Chile and Singapore. I do so, however, with serious reservations, and appreciate this opportunity to explain my concerns. Critics of the Chile and Singapore trade agreements assert that these FTAs contain inadequate labor protections, and specifically note that they include only one labor rights provision that is enforceable through dispute resolution proceedings. While it is accurate that the Chile and Singapore agreements would subject only the ``enforce your own laws'' standard to dispute settlement, critics of these agreements are well aware that this is only the case because Chile and Singapore's labor laws currently exceed the International Labor Organization's (ILO) five core labor standards, and both countries (especially Chile) have strong, effective labor movements. Similarly tough labor laws and movements did not exist in Mexico during consideration of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and in Jordan during consideration of the U.S.-Jordan FTA. Consequently, NAFTA and the Jordan agreement needed multiple enforceable labor standards included in them. Opponents of these trade agreements fear that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) will use the Chile and Singapore agreements as templates for future FTAs. I strongly believe that each free trade agreement should be examined on its own merits, and do not believe that these agreements should be used as templates for future trade agreements. The treatment of workers varies widely from country to country; accordingly, the numbers of enforceable labor standards in future trade agreements need to change to fit the particular circumstances of the parties involved in each agreement. The USTR has indicated its intention to complete negotiations on the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) by the end of this year, and, as both a member of the Ways and Means Committee and a member of the full House, I will be closely following the progress of these negotiations and the final terms of the agreement. Failure to include significant enforceable labor standards in CAFTA, which includes several Central American countries with disgraceful working conditions and histories of virtually nonexistent enforcement of labor statutes, will doom this agreement. I will vigorously oppose a weak Central American Free Trade Agreement, and will oppose any other future trade agreements that reward countries with poor labor conditions. During my time in Congress, I have worked hard with my colleagues from both parties to ensure that core labor standards are both protected and enforced. In 2002, partly in response to serious concerns regarding labor protections in the Trade Promotion Authority Act, I voted against granting fast track authority to the President. I believed then, and continue to believe, that fast track authority contains within it the potential to adversely affect American workers through the loss of domestic jobs in Texas and across the country. In general, I believe that many of our industries in Texas and the country at large, such as agriculture, financial services, telecommunications, and computers, can benefit from available and fair markets in other countries. Access to foreign markets for U.S. goods and services, however, must be balanced with a concern for domestic industries that are most threatened by uneven trade agreements. I have too often witnessed the downside of trade agreements that allow subsidized foreign imports to overwhelm domestic products such as steel and softwood lumber, which are significant sources of jobs for thousands of East Texans. My qualified support for the U.S.-Chile and U.S.-Singapore free trade agreements is based largely on my belief that these agreements will benefit American exports while not threatening domestic industries in America. As Congress seeks to influence future trade negotiations and agreements, I will continue to work with my colleagues to craft trade deals that are fair to American workers, working people across the world, and our domestic industries.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to join my colleagues in speaking against the House leadership's ill-conceived plan to abandon our Nation's most vulnerable children, through their latest attempt to dismantle Head Start. The re-authorization of Head Start grants Congress the express opportunity to honor and strengthen the original intent of this landmark anti-poverty legislation. Instead, we stand here today with legislation that directly assaults Head Start by weakening the academic, health, social and civil rights protections created by the Office of Economic Opportunity as part of President Johnson's War on Poverty social programs. Furthermore, we have once again been robbed of the opportunity to amend and improve H.R. 2210, through the leadership's restrictive, unfair rules denying us a voice in this process. It is unconscionable to play legislative games with politics that affect our most vulnerable citizens' lives. First implemented in 1965, Head Start has been a beacon of hope for low-income families and has fostered their dreams for their children's successful futures. By offering comprehensive services, including early childhood development, educational support, social development, healthcare, dental services and parenting classes, we recognize the unique needs of disadvantaged children, and offer much needed assistance to level the playing field. The leadership's so called reform legislation will only serve to undermine Head Start and the success of the children whose futures we debate here today. By block granting Head Start, states will be permitted to create their own achievement and readiness standards, while allowing them to gut the crucial programs currently used to achieve national objectives. Under H.R. 2210, class sizes can increase, programs can be shortened, and unproven curricula can be implemented. Make no mistake about it, the existing Head Start guidelines value the communities that implement the program. Currently, funding is sent directly to the school systems, nonprofit organizations, and agencies that assist our Nation's low-income children. By block granting Head Start to states, funding will have to endure an extra level of bureaucracy, with an extra level of administrative costs, without the national accountability. Our leadership's abysmal funding for Head Start is also indicative of the low priority it holds for this essential program. The bill's authorization does little more than cover inflationary costs by providing only 2.9 percent more than the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. In addition, while increasing teacher quality degree requirements, a new unfunded federal mandate is enacted by its failure to provide the funds to achieve these measures. Even worse, H.R. 2210 cuts funding for training and technical assistance. Jodi Ogden, the executive direct of Community Services of North East Texas, told me she is currently able to serve over 500 children in 10 Head Start centers under her purview. Weeks before the fall school year has even begun, five of these centers have wait lists for needy children. These children should not have to be waitlisted for essential services. We should do better by them today. Finally, we should be ashamed that this Head Start program, a hallmark of federal social assistance, will allow nationwide discrimination under the new reauthorization legislation. Current law allows faith-based organizations to participate in the Head Start program, as long as they do so fairly. However, under the reauthorization these organizations will be permitted to use discriminatory hiring practices to favor job applicants of certain faiths over others. This is not how our scarce federal tax dollars should be used. It is sadly ironic that a program intended to create equity would permit such an inequitable hiring practice. Like many of my colleagues, I have been gratified by the opportunity to visit with those at the front lines that are providing Head Start services to our disadvantaged children. They know the benefits of Head Start. They see how families are helped by comprehensive Head Start services. They know that we must augment, not annihilate the valued tenets of the Head Start program. Any reform to essential programs must be thoughtful, balanced, and reflect our citizens' most essential needs for successful lives. As Karen Swenson, executive director of Greater East Texas Community Action, wrote to me about this legislation, ``I do not want children to suffer just because of the idea of change.'' Mr. Chairman, this terrible legislation will cause children to suffer. Knowing this, I am forced to vote against it today.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, speaking from the center, it is an issue of priorities. We have to ask ourselves in this House, who do we stand for? Who do we stand for in this House? Mr. Speaker, as we are well aware by now, last month the other body voted 94 to 2 to immediately give an increased child tax credit to the 12 million children of 6.5 million working families. They voted to do that immediately. The time is long overdue for the House to likewise pass the language included in the bill passed by the Senate. As the nearly unanimous vote in the other body indicates, this issue enjoys broad bipartisan support. Leave it to the House Republican leadership to turn a popular, bipartisan effort benefiting children into an unnecessary, nasty battle. It is not difficult to figure out the priorities of the Republican Party. All you have to do is follow the money. The Republicans somehow managed to find room in their tax bill for people with an income over $1 million. Now, is that not special? Tax filers who make over $1 million per year will receive an average tax cut in 2003 in that 1 year, an average tax cut of $93,500 for the year. We have plenty of money for the millionaires. At the same time, during conference committee negotiations between the House and Senate, House conferees intentionally and knowingly dropped child tax credit relief at the last minute, for working families who earn between $10,500 and $26,625 per year. They just cut them out, said they get nothing, zero, nada, zilch. And what is funny about it is, they admitted it. Just listen to what Ari Fleischer said, the White House press secretary. He said ``Everybody was aware in the conference of what was in and what was out; so that was very well known to all the conferees, including the White House.'' He told the truth. No wonder he is out of the White House. He is not over there anymore. They cannot take that kind of candor. The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means summarized the Republicans' attitude best when he said in response to a question regarding the passage of an accelerated increase, ``There are worse things than its not happening.'' Now this charming sentiment was echoed by the majority leader when he stated bluntly in regards to passage of the Senate child credit, ``Ain't going to happen.'' Of course, this was entirely consistent with his previous opinions. Earlier he had said ``There's a lot of things more important than that.'' This week, on July 25, the Treasury Department will begin sending out millions of checks for the expanded child tax credit provided in the new law, just as the House adjourns. However, the 6.5 million hard- working families, including the children of the 200,000 military families currently serving in Iraq and other combat zones, will get no check or a significantly smaller check than would be provided under the Senate bill because of the opposition of the House Republicans. Again, the Republican majority leader said, ``There's a lot of things more important than that.'' My question is, like what, Mr. Leader? Like what? What is more important than that? Like what? What is the answer? It is outrageous that the Republican leadership is determined to leave town until September without enacting tax relief for working families. In 13 States 20 percent or more of families would be helped by expanding the child tax credit, as the other body has proposed. In my home State of Texas, the bipartisan child credit bill passed by the other body would benefit 23 percent of working families in Texas. Conversely, the Republican bill disproportionately penalizes the people who can afford it least, black and Hispanic children; 2.4 million black children, one in five, and 4.1 million Hispanic children, one in three, are penalized. Two hundred and sixty thousand children from families of active military will lose at least some of the credit under the Republican bill. The children of the folks fighting in Iraq will lose the benefits. That is outrageous. That is misplaced priorities, Mr. Speaker. That is just flat-out wrong. Strengthening our Nation means investing in all of our children and making opportunities available to all people and especially to our working families in America. There are not many things more important than that, regardless of what the majority leader says.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in strong support of H.R. 2658, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for FY 2004. I applaud the bipartisan effort that has brought this vital and carefully balanced legislation to the floor, and regret that I was unavoidably detained in my home State and, therefore, not able to cast my vote in favor of this bill. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on this extremely important legislation. The bill before the House today deserves the strong support of every Member as it continues the efforts of Congress to ensure that our nation's military is ready for the challenges of the 21st century. As has been repeatedly demonstrated during our ongoing confrontation with terrorists and tyrants around the world, these challenges are as daunting as any our great nation has ever faced. I am gratified that my colleagues understand that our security and the defense of freedom must remain above the partisan fray and demand our full commitment. We have been thrust into an age of warfare that demands heretofore unimaginable speed, complexity and flexibility for our fighting machines and the men and women who design, build and operate them. This bill provides for the most forward-looking technology in our aircraft, ships, ground weapons and missile defense. We must press forward in developing leading edge technology, looking not only to the needs of today but to 2020, 2050 and beyond. The most crucial commitment we must fulfill, however, is the one we make to the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who remain unquestionably the foundation for the United States' continuing status as the world's sole superpower, unrivaled in our ability to defend and support freedom anywhere in the world. The funding provided in this bill is critical to ensuring that the brave men and women in our armed services have the tools and resources necessary to accomplish a swift, sure and decisive victory over tyranny and oppression across the globe. The best of America, and thousands of the best from my home state of Texas--our men and women in uniform, active duty and reserve components alike--are now in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan, on the high seas and at the far corners of the world. These brave Americans now risk their lives to confront the oppression, tyranny, and terrorism that plague and threaten the world and our nation. Through our support of this bill, Mr. Chairman, we show our unequivocal support for our military men and women by providing them with improved pay and benefits and better working and living conditions. We can never do enough to compensate these dedicated men and women for their sacrifices in defense of our freedom, but this bill represents continuing movement in the right direction. One of this nation's finest traditions is our support of our men and women in uniform. American forces, whether deployed here at home or across the globe, fight not for narrow interests or for reasons of national pride. American soldiers, sailors, airman, and Marines are engaged in combat today so that our people do not live in a world in which tyrants armed with weapons of horror hold free nations hostage, and in doing so threaten freedom itself. Accordingly, it is our solemn obligation to stand solidly behind our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines and to give our men and women in uniform the full and complete support they must have in order to prevail in this war and come safely home. This appropriations bill is an appropriate step in fulfilling our obligation. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to lend their full support for H.R. 2658. Our nation's service men and women deserve no less.