Max Sandlin

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, the new minority report released today by the Committee on Ways and Means shows that the latest unfair tax scheme proposed by the majority will be one of the largest tax increases on working families in American history. The new proposed national sales tax will result in the wealthiest 1 percent of American taxpayers receiving a $225,000 tax break per year, while working families will see an average yearly tax increase of $3,200 per year. This new national sales tax will punish the middle class and working families every single day. Mr. Speaker, $100 of groceries will cost $130. A $20,000 pickup will be $26,000. Need a new TV? Mark it up 30 percent. And health care, a visit to the doctor for your children, or how about prescription drugs? Add 30 percent, Mr. Speaker. The truth is, the new national sales tax proposal is just another scheme to give tax cuts to those that ship our jobs overseas, leaving the rest of us stuck with a bill and stuck with a new and unwelcome tax.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I first off want to thank the distinguished minority whip for his leadership of the entire United States Congress on the issue of tax simplification and fairness, an issue that affects every working family in America. Just last week our whip said, ``Taken individually, of course, nearly all of the tax preferences that clutter the code can be rationalized. Collectively, however, they are a jumble of confusion that leads to unfairness.'' That is certainly being kind. So we appreciate all that the whip is doing to lead not just our caucus but the entire Congress in this issue that affects us all. For more than 10 years, my friends on the other side of the aisle have made tax reform and simplification a cornerstone of the economic program. However, for all of their expertise, or maybe all of their obsession, they seem to have fallen far short. In Texas we would say that the record strongly suggests that on tax issues the Republican majority is ``all hat and no cattle.'' The Republican majority talks a lot about giving the American people their money back. We all agree on that. We all agree that the American people are better stewards of their own money than is the government. However, the Republican tax themes and schemes have the perverse effect of taking from Peter to pay Paul, and in virtually every instance, the middle-class Peter is paying the millionaire Paul. Middle-class families are feeling a serious pinch from the economy. Ten years ago they had no problem making their house and car payments, putting food on the table or sending their kids to college. Ten years ago, more likely than not, they had a stable and secure job in America, not China, not India, and they had benefits like health insurance and a pension that they took for granted. Faded memories, how they linger. Ten years later and 10 years into the Republican contract on America, those same families are getting the squeeze. Foreclosures and personal bankruptcy are at record levels in this country. Consumer debt has a stranglehold on the average American family. Tuition is skyrocketing while student aid is being cut year in and year out. Secure employment with health insurance and a pension has been replaced with reduced pay and no benefits. Just ask yourselves, are things getting better or worse? Do you have more money for your family or do you have less? The middle class is hurting, but where is Congress? While the Republican majority is cutting student aid while talking about the importance of education in the 21st century marketplace, the middle class is getting squeezed out. The Republican majority refuses to fully fund the centerpiece of President Bush's education policy, No Child Left Behind, while handing out annual $100,000 tax cuts to individuals making $1 million or more per year in income. We have passed permanent extensions of the child tax credits and marriage penalty relief, but to no avail. And why is that? What the Republican majority knows, but apparently does not want to talk about, is how its failure to enact meaningful reform of the alternative minimum tax has the perverse effect of eliminating, that is eliminating any benefit middle-class families would realize from the enhanced child tax credit and marriage penalty relief. My friend and colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) has devoted untold hours to devising a reasonable solution to the AMT problem, but the Republican majority absolutely refuses to fix this serious and enormous problem which Nina Olson, the IRS' National Taxpayer Advocate, labeled the most serious problem faced by American taxpayers. The alternative minimum tax was enacted in the late 1960s and was designed to affect only the wealthiest Americans as it was explained earlier tonight by the minority whip, and in the interest of time, I am not going into that. However, the reality is far from that ideal. For most of its existence, the AMT has affected few taxpayers, less than 1 percent in any year before 2000, but its impact is expected to grow rapidly in the next few years and affect more than 20 percent of the taxpayers by the year 2010, many of them middle-class taxpayers. Call it what you will. It is a Republican tax increase, that is what it is. So I ask you, where is the solution? The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) offered one, maybe there are others, but the Republican majority prefers the status quo just as it is today. What does the status quo foretell for America? Twenty percent of all taxpayers and 40 percent of married couples will owe AMT in 2010. This again is a Republican income tax increase on the American public. And where is the fairness? While only about 30 percent of taxpayers with an adjusted gross income over $500,000 will pay the AMT in 2010, in comparison, two-thirds of American taxpayers with an adjusted gross income between $50,000 and $100,000 will have AMT liability in 2010, two-thirds, again, a Republican tax increase on the middle class. Taxpayers with an AGI between $100,000 and $250,000 will be hit the hardest by the AMT. In 2010, over 90 percent of those individuals will have AMT liability. So despite the symbolism of passing marriage penalty relief and other relief, the Republican majority's refusal to meaningfully reform the AMT eliminates most of the benefits for middle- class families, totally eliminating them. And not only does it eliminate the benefits, it passes on increased tax liabilities to American working families. You can call it Ray or you can call it Jay, but whatever you call it, it is a Republican income tax increase on the working class in America. I thank the whip again for his fine work on this issue, and we appreciate his leadership.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, our honorable chairman mentioned maybe we should rename the act because we had been criticizing it, and maybe call it the ``Taxpayer Rationalization Act.'' Well, I had already proposed calling it the ``All Sizzle and No Steak Taxpayer Act,'' and certainly we would accept that moniker. The honorable chairman indicated that we are unfairly criticizing the bill, but I might mention, we are only criticizing it because it is wrong. Adding ``single'' to the ``head of household'' is just simply incorrect. If it was so simple, we would not have to be debating and talking about it so much. In fact, the Tax Code contains 1.4 million words, 10,000 of which have been added since the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) got into the majority, and now we can make that 10,001 words, as we add the word ``single,'' although it certainly is incorrect. I feel that in looking at this we have to clarify what the bill does and does not do by asking ourselves certain questions and asking the author certain questions about the intent of the bill. The questions would be: Does the bill deny the tax benefits of head of household status to a married woman whose husband has abandoned her and the kids? And the answer to that would be ``no.'' Does the bill deny tax benefits of head of household status to a married man who is legally separated under the laws of a State of this Nation, who has custody of the children? And again the answer would be ``no.'' So if the provision does not apply only to single taxpayers, what does the provision do other than add confusion by using the word ``single,'' which is inapplicable. Finally, I am curious about the other provision of the bill, which would require the IRS to change the short forms to allow taxpayers with higher incomes, up to $100,000, to use the forms. My questions are: Does the code need to be amended, added to, to change how tax forms are printed and formatted? And the answer would be ``no,'' they have authority to do that under the current law. And do the experts at the IRS and the Treasury think that these forms that we currently have should be changed? And I think obviously not or that would have been done. Now, possibly some of these issues could have been addressed if we had gone through the regular order and process of the House, as was mentioned by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). The rules are there for a purpose. Possibly if we had gone through the Committee on Ways and Means to consider this bill, these issues could have been addressed. We could have renamed the bill the ``All Sizzle and No Steak Act.'' We could have made sure that the word ``single'' was inserted if it was accurate, and not inserted if it was not. But again, the rules are there for a purpose. We did not follow the rules, and we find ourselves here today in this confusion. So again this legislation may be marginally helpful, but why miss an opportunity for real tax simplification? Since 1994, the majority has enacted 42 new public laws with 3,533 changes to the Tax Code contained in those more than 10,000 additional pages of complex public laws. That averages 360 changes a year with no serious efforts made to provide simplification. The Tax Code currently contains about 1.4 million words. The Tax Code has more than 4,700 pages. The Tax Code content has grown by at least 15 percent since the majority took over in 1994. It has grown 15 percent. The Master Federal Standard Tax Reporter used by accountants and lawyers is more than 60,000 pages. Since 1994, that manual has increased by 2,000 pages. Today it takes average, middle American families 7.5 hours longer to fill out their tax return than it did in 1994, an increase from 11.5 hours in 1994 to 19 hours today. That is a full day's work for most Americans. And what do we do to simplify? We add the word ``single.''

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal). (Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again I want to restate my commitment to reform our Tax Code in ways that meaningfully benefit America's working families. While I support this bill, I am afraid that we missed an opportunity. H.R. 4841 offers little meaningful benefit. It is, as we say in Texas, all sizzle and no steak. In effect, the bill before the House does three things, only one of which provides any real benefit to the American taxpayer; and even that particular change does not require any legislative action by this body. The IRS could accomplish that same result by regulation. First, under the current law there is special filing status for heads of households. The bill before us does not change the criteria for qualifying for that filing status, but simply inserts the term ``single'' before ``head of household.'' This decision or provision does not change or simplify anything. Indeed, it may create some confusion because some individuals who are legally married under State law, but otherwise considered unmarried qualify for head-of-household status. For example, a spouse living apart with children can qualify for head-of-household status even though that spouse is married. Second, the bill would make the form 1040EZ and form 1040A short forms available for individuals with incomes up to $100,000; currently, the limit is $50,000. Also, the bill allows the filer to have more than $1,500 in interest income. There is no question but that this change is useful, particularly as individual incomes rise in concert with inflation. Nevertheless, this change does not require an act of Congress. The IRS is fully empowered to make tax form revisions without additional legislation. Finally, the bill purports to repeal some deadwood language on the Tax Code on the grounds that the language has no legal effect. However, the majority apparently is uncertain that all of the provisions no longer have effect. Therefore, the bill includes a savings clause. The savings clause in effect reenacts the repeal provisions if it turns out that anyone would benefit from the provisions in the future. Once again, it is all sizzle and no steak. Mr. Speaker, we need real reform. We need real simplification. The bill may be entitled and named ``The Tax Simplification for Americans Act of 2004,'' but adding one modifier to the head of household's filing status provision has no effect and may, in fact, be contrary to the stated purpose and introduce confusion rather than clarity. Moreover, changing legislatively what can be accomplished through agency action does not serve meaningfully to simplify an onerously complex Tax Code. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before the House today is simplification in name only. We can and must do better in this House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SANDLIN

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

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I consume. In 1996, then-Speaker Newt Gingrich stated the Tax Code over the years has become increasingly politicized and is seen less as a simple tool for raising revenues than as an instrument for social and economic engineering, exponentially increasing the complexity of the code. The current system is indefensible. Clearly, the small business community in America has been subject to more tax law complexity year after year. For example, the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 makes 657 Tax Code changes which expanded the Tax Code by more than 50 pages. The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Act of 2003 made 51 Tax Code changes and expanded the Tax Code by 12 pages. The IRS estimates that the average taxpayer with self-employed status has the greatest compliance burden in terms of preparation, 59 hours. And this is about 10 hours longer than in 1994. Even the House-passed version of the FSC/ETI bill from this year has 109 tax changes. This will encompass at least 200 additional Tax Code lines and at least 50 new pages of statutory language and footnotes. Mr. Speaker, America's small businesses are the engine powering the largest, most robust and most innovative economy in the world. They deserve a more meaningful effort by this Congress to ensure that valuable time and resources are better invested in the success of their business and not wasted in preparation of returns and to make sure that our business people, entrepreneurs, are not raked over the coals by a Tax Code that requires a lawyer, a CPA and a computer programmer to understand it. We can and must do better by our small business men and women and individuals in this country. Mr. Speaker, again, I am proud to support and cosponsor this fabulous piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to join with me in casting a vote for small business owners and their employees across this Nation. At the same time, however, I am hopeful that this legislation is the beginning of meaningful reform and not the end of the line. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and clearly, there is a need for tax simplification. Today, the IRS now prints more than 1,000 publications, forms, and instruction booklets, and while the Tax Code was a mere 500 pages in 1913, financial publisher CCH says its Standard Federal Tax Reporter, which is the guidance for tax preparers, has grown to more than 60,000 pages today. The cost to individuals and business in America of the complexity of our code are staggering. More than $100 billion a year in accounting fees and the value of taxpayers' time to complete their returns, according to Joel Slemrod of the University of Michigan, are used up each year. This is roughly equivalent to what our Nation spends to operate the Departments of Education, Homeland Security, and the Department of State each year. According to the IRS, small business owners are required to devote 60 hours, almost 8 full work days each year, to prepare their taxes. While the bill we debate today is a good piece of legislation, it will not do enough to reduce this burden, and we must do more, working together. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott.) (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. I thank my friend from Ohio for his work on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of tax simplification. There can be little doubt that taxpaying individuals and American businesses, particularly small businesses, spend far too much time, not just preparing their tax returns and paying their taxes, but in even figuring out just how to file or which forms to fill out, what tax preferences they qualify for, what they can deduct, and what elections they should make to best serve the interests of the business, its employees, and themselves. On top of that is the anxiety that many small business owners experience when confronting the daunting complexity of the Tax Code and trying to make sound business and tax planning decisions with the prospect of taking a wrong turn in a numbing maze that makes tax lawyers and accountants shudder. Such complexity is both unnecessary and unhealthy, Mr. Speaker, for small business and our Nation's economy. So, Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly support meaningful efforts to reform our tax system and to reduce an extreme burden on our small businesses and individuals and to ensure efficiency. Moreover, I am pleased to rise in support of the legislation introduced by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane). I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the legislation that somewhat eases the burden borne by America's small businesses, truly the engine that drives our economy. Mr. Speaker, at a very modest cost, H.R. 4840 provides two valuable benefits to our Nation's small businesses. First, the bill extends enhanced section 179 expensing for small businesses for 2 years. Last year Congress passed and President Bush signed into law legislation that increased the amount of equipment that small businesses may expense from $25,000 annually to $100,000 annually. The 2003 law also increased the phase-out range from $200,000 of capital expenditures to $400,000, significantly expanding the number of small businesses that qualify for section 179 expensing. Both amounts are indexed for inflation. The bill the House considers today extends these improvements to section 179 for 2 additional years through 2007, thereby providing much-needed relief as our economy continues to recover and to grow. Second, H.R. 4840 eases the accounting burden on small businesses by preserving the cash accounting method for more small businesses. Generally, under current law, businesses with $5 million or more in gross receipts must switch from the cash method of accounting to the accrual method. The bill offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) preserves the value of the $5 million limit by indexing it for inflation so that more small businesses will not be forced to use the more complicated accrual method. Finally, but less directly beneficial, H.R. 4840 cleans up the Tax Code by eliminating outdated, rarely used and unnecessary provisions of the code. Repealing these deadwood provisions certainly has the effect of reducing clutter in our code, but its practical effects and benefits to small business are somewhat limited. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4840 is a fine bill. It is a good first step, and I am proud to support it. However, this Congress needs to do more to relieve the burden borne by America's small businessmen and -women and individuals. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my profound opposition to House Resolution 683, a piece of legislation that should be limited to providing for consideration of the FY 2005 Defense Appropriations Act. However, true to form, the Rules Committee has reported a rule under cover of darkness that goes well beyond the normal procedural provision. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership of this House talks a lot about fiscal discipline. It talks a lot about the success of its economic policy. The chairman of the Budget Committee boasts about the success of his budget, about reining in spending, and about reducing the deficit. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, as this rule makes clear, all that talk and stated pride is little more than smoke and mirrors, and this rule is a shameful abuse of the prerogatives of the People's House. I am appalled that the Republican leadership of this House would try to hide its budgetary shortcomings by sneaking an increase in our Nation's debt limit into a bill to provide for our national defense and the needs of our Nation's service men and women. The leadership of this House should not use such an important legislative vehicle to mask its failings, and that is exactly what this rule attempts to do. It's just wrong. Mr. Speaker, there are few pieces of legislation that the Congress considers each year that are as important as the annual Department of Defense Appropriations Act. This legislation is vital to ensuring that the brave men and women who put their lives on the line for this country have the resources they need to protect our Nation against its enemies at home and abroad and to preserve our Nation's most precious resource--freedom--for posterity. I heartily support the Defense Department appropriations bill to which this rule applies and will join with the vast majority of my colleagues in voting for it. Mr. Speaker, if there is one issue about which all of us can agree, it is that we must provide all the resources necessary to a robust national defense. Our national security--and the very security of our families and homes--depend on it. This legislation is almost never--and should never be--a partisan measure. In Congress, despite frequent partisan rancor, we historically stand united behind our nation's armed services. Speaking with one voice on such a critically important matter has extraordinary value for friends and foes alike--at home and abroad. It makes clear that our resolve is firm and our commitment sure. That is why, Mr. Speaker, it is especially appalling that this legislation, on which we should be united, is being cluttered with a completely unrelated provision increasing our nation's debt limit beyond its already crippling size. This is among the most cynical acts undertaken by the Republican leadership of this House during my time in Congress, and that says a lot. Of course, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious to anyone observing this debate why the leadership of the House has been forced to do this. The Republican leadership of this House does not want a simple up-or-down vote on increasing the debt limit. They do not want to admit to the budgetary woes that our nation feels as a consequence of their failures to live up to the promises of their press releases. Mr. Speaker, since coming to Congress, I have advocated an open and honest budget process, an open and honest debate on the economic choices before the country in the light of day. The cynical and covert tactics we are witnessing today fully vindicate my view. And so I say to the supposed fiscal conservatives on the other side of the aisle, ``Come out! Come out, wherever you are.'' You should be disgusted by this rule, by this process, as I am. Just last year, the Republican leadership pushed through an increase in the debt limit of almost $1 trillion, by far the largest increase in the debt limit in history, without an up or down vote in the House of Representatives. Appallingly, this sneak attack on our children and grandchildren came less than 8 months after we raised the federal debt ceiling by a whopping $450 billion. Well, Mr. Speaker, once again, the spirit of Yogi Berra appears to be guiding the leadership of the House. ``It's deja vu all over again.'' Today, we launch another sneak attack on future generations--hiding behind the brave men and women who put their lives on the line to preserve freedom for our children and grandchildren--by slipping through another $700 billion increase in the debt limit without any debate. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the national debt will exceed $10 trillion in just over 4 years under the budget policies of which the House leadership claims to be so proud. What better way to underline the sacrifice of our Nation's service men and women, than to compromise their and their children's futures with an ever-increasing, staggering ``debt tax.'' Mr. Speaker, this House should have a full and open debate and vote up or down any increase of our national debt limit. It is a breach of the compact we have with the American people to hide behind parliamentary maneuvers to statutorily increase the debt limit without addressing the grave, structural budgetary problems our nation confronts. If the Republican leadership honestly believes that tax cuts with borrowed money is a good economic policy, they should be willing to stand up and vote to increase the national debt to pay for their tax cuts instead of relying on undercover parliamentary tricks. Mr. Speaker, today should have been a day to discuss our national defense priorities and to send a clear signal to the rest of the world that the United States is strong and will not shrink from challenges to its security. However, this rule has cast a cloud over that message, and that is a shame. I will proudly stand up for our national defense and the brave men and women who risk their lives every day to protect us and our families. I will proudly cast a vote for the Defense Department Appropriations Act because of its critical importance to our national security. But, Mr. Speaker, I deplore this rule, urge my colleagues to oppose this underhanded abuse of the procedures of this House, and urge the Rules Committee to report a clean rule for the consideration of this vitally important legislation. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines deserve better.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to claim a victory for Texans, but I remain uncertain that this bill is a victory for Americans or American jobs. For Texans, I am pleased that after a great many months of work and much discussion, this legislation finally returns some fairness to our nation's tax code that had been missing for almost twenty years. Since 1986, some 54 million American taxpayers--almost 20% of our nation's population--have been denied the ability to deduct the state tax burden they bear from their income solely because the seven states where they live rely only on a retail sales tax to meet their needs. Mr. Speaker, as a consequence of the reinstatement of the deductibility of sales tax provided in this bill, the taxpayers in my home state of Texas will save almost a billion dollars from their federal income tax burden in this year alone. That works out to around $300 in federal tax savings for every family in Texas, and, Mr. Speaker, that's a good thing. This bill is not. While I am pleased that this legislation provides 22 million Texans with the ability to deduct their state tax burden from their income, I am disappointed that Chairman Thomas's provision only allows Texans this benefit for two years. In the Ways and Means Committee on Monday, in the Rules Committee this morning, and in discussions over the past several weeks, I have insisted that Texans and the 42 million other Americans who live in states with a retail sales tax and without a state income tax deserve better than temporary equality. I have insisted that the deductibility of sales tax payments be made permanent. If the deductibility of sales tax was good tax policy before 1986 and it is good tax policy for the next two years, then it appears clear to me that the ability to deduct sales tax payments is good tax policy on a permanent basis. The citizens of Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Washington, Wyoming, and Texas have for too long borne a disproportionate share of the federal tax burden. That is not fair. That is not American. While I wish that the deduction had been made permanent and made more generous, I am pleased that this bill at least rectifies an obvious inequity and reinstates the deductibility of sales tax payments, however temporarily. However, Mr. Speaker, the good news for Texans is tempered by what is a terribly flawed bill. A wise man once said, ``There are two things you never want to see made: legislation and sausage.'' After witnessing the development of this bill for the past two years, I am convinced that he was right. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today takes a $40 million problem and purports to solve it with $150 billion. In doing so, it passes on at least $34 billion in debt to the American people--to our children and grandchildren. I say that it adds ``at least'' $34 billion, because the bill is riddled with budget gimmicks such as delayed provisions and sunsets that obscure the true effect of this bill on the national debt. It is estimated that without these gimmicks the true cost of this bill could be as much as $300 billion over ten years--that comes out to $1,000 in corporate tax breaks for every man, woman and child in this country. As a Blue Dog, Mr. Speaker, the continuing glut of deficit spending that we have witnessed in the past few years is of great concern to me and to my constituents. Potentially adding $300 billion to the national debt to solve a $40 billion problem--a problem that the Senate has proven can be solved without adding a penny to the debt--is a tragic breach of faith with the people who sent us to this House, whose best interests we are supposed to be representing. Adding $1,000 to the ``debt tax'' owed by every man, woman and child is simply bad tax policy, not to mention bad financial policy for the generations to come who will have to pay for this bill. Mr. Speaker, this bill has some good provisions. Texans and others need to be treated fairly under our tax code; they need the ability to deduct their state tax burden, just as other Americans have the last 18 years. This bill allows that, and that's a good thing. Mr. Speaker, our nation's corporations thrive on their capacity to innovate. Innovation is driven by their ability to invest in research and development, and this bill extends the very important R&D tax credit that drives the innovation that makes America's corporations the envy of the world. That's a good thing. Mr. Speaker, this bill fixes the problem for which U.S. companies are being subjected to international trade sanctions. That repair will take a significant burden off the backs of our nation's exporters and once again enable them to compete effectively around the world. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill reduces the tax rate for American manufacturers, which frees up necessary capital to continue to build their business and keep American business on its best game. These are good things, to. However, Mr. Speaker, while those provisions may be good for American business, for American taxpayers, and for American workers, the vast majority of the 450-page bill is so larded with special interest corporate giveaways, that it gives the term ``pork barrel'' a bad name. I for one have never been whaling, but I am no sure why native Alaskan subsistence whalers need a tax break. But of one thing I am absolutely certain, my children and grandchildren should not have to pay for it.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. I thank my colleague for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, it is with a profound sense of loss and sadness that I rise today to honor the memory of one of our Nation's most influential leaders, former President Ronald Reagan. Much has been said, and rightfully so, about President Reagan's infectious love of this great Nation. Ronald Wilson Reagan firmly believed that the United States of America had a unique role to play in the world and a singular place in history. In his first inaugural address he reflected on this faith in country in attributing the unparalleled prosperity and opportunity of this great land to the fact that ``freedom and the dignity of the individual have been made more available and assured here than in any other place on Earth.'' Mr. Speaker, his singular commitment to the inherent worth of the individual is a hallmark of Ronald Reagan's personal and political legacy. His sincere devotion to that core idea defined his personality, and it defined his Presidency. President Reagan defied then conventional wisdom that American heroes were a thing of the past. He said, ``Those who say that we are in a time when there are no heroes just don't know where to look. You can see heroes every day going in and out of factory gates. Others, a handful in number, produce enough food to feed all of us and then the world beyond. You meet heroes across a counter, and they are on both sides of that counter.'' President Reagan's heroes were, in his words, ``the citizens of this blessed land.'' Mr. Speaker, President Reagan has often been called the Great Communicator, but President Reagan told us himself that he preferred to think of himself as a communicator of great things. However, to reduce Ronald Reagan to the words he spoke would be a tremendous disservice to his legacy, just as it would be wrong to reduce Abraham Lincoln's legacy to the Gettysburg Address or FDR's to the eloquent power of his fireside chats. President Reagan truly believed the ideas he communicated, and that faith drove in many ways a shift in the course of American politics. Mr. Speaker, President Reagan was a unique figure in our politics. His devotion to principle, his commitment to the American people, his singular faith in the power of one were infectious. Yet despite his unrepentant drive to achieve what has been appropriately called the Reagan Revolution, he pushed his agenda with a smile and he relished open and honest debate. Notwithstanding sometimes profound disagreements, President Reagan understood that at the end of the day, we were not Democrats and Republicans but, rather, Americans and friends. He truly understood that there is a tremendous difference between strong beliefs and bitter partisanship. Mr. Speaker, President Reagan was an eternal optimist who changed the world with hope and taught Americans that, even in the face of trials and tragedy, ``nothing ends here; our hopes and journeys continue.'' It has been said of President Reagan that although he was our oldest President, he made America young again. And so, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deepest sympathies to Mrs. Reagan and to the President's children and their families and to honor the memory of a great American who loved America at least as much as she loved him.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, the new drug discount card is nothing more than the old bait and switch. The Republican leadership continues to try to trick our seniors into thinking they are getting a Medicare prescription drug benefit, while in reality offering nothing more than an 18-month sham program that fails to offer any significant savings to seniors. Not surprisingly, this temporary program prioritizes the pharmaceutical companies' profit over the health care expenses of our Nation's seniors. While the administration has claimed that these cards will have savings ranging from 10 percent to 25 percent, there is no guarantee of this; and there is absolutely no control over the prices charged. Additionally, the drug companies determine what drugs to discount and how much seniors pay. And while seniors are locked into a drug card for a full year, the drug companies are at liberty to change what discounts they offer from week to week. As a matter of fact, some have already changed their drug prices so that it does not cut into their bottom line. The truth is that a better solution with real benefits is available. With drug costs increasing at 3.5 times the rate of inflation, we owe it to our Nation's seniors to finally allow them access to drug reimportation. It is time to do the right thing and offer real savings to our seniors. We cannot afford not to do so.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, if we knew that there was going to be a terrorist attack sometime in the next 5 years but did not know what kind of attack it would be, who would carry it out, or where in the United States it would occur, what actions would we take to prepare and how would we allocate our human and financial resources to do so? The tragic events of September 11, 2001 brought home to the American people the magnitude of the danger posed by terrorism on U.S. soil. Now, almost 3 years later, we as Americans must assume that terrorists will strike again, possibly using chemical, biological, radiological or even nuclear materials. The unthinkable has become thinkable After the horrific September 11th terrorist attacks, the country pulled together and we began to take steps to make our homeland more secure. We enacted legislation to overhaul our airport security; we provided new border security measures; we created the Department of Homeland Security. And yet, despite the steps that have been made, many believe that our Nation is in even more danger today than it was 3 years ago. In fact, Administration officials recently announced that they expect another terrorist attack here in the United States before November. They have resigned themselves to the inevitability of more terrorist attacks and are warning us--the American public--to be prepared. Despite our awareness of the very real threat of terrorism here at home and despite renewed efforts to prepare since September 11, we remain, as a country, dangerously ill-prepared to handle another catastrophic attack on American soil. That is simply unacceptable. Much more needs to be done to make Americans safer and more secure than they are today. Securing our homeland must be the number-one priority of our Government. Indeed, our Nation's very charter--the Constitution--in its preamble states clearly that among the first priorities of Government is to provide for the common defense. Improving the safety of the American people at home must be undertaken as aggressively as pursuing terrorists in far-off lands. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce an appropriations measure that will provide the resources needed to secure our hometowns and ensure our police, fire fighters and paramedics--the Nation's first responders--are fully prepared for anything they may face. Unfortunately, our efforts have too often been--as we say in Texas--a day late and a dollar short. In this case, however, the $3 billion shortfall contemplated by the budget passed yesterday is dangerous and unconscionable. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce an appropriations measure that would meet these critical needs and would-- Improve Our Hometown Response Capabilities by providing. $3.874 billion for the Office for Domestic Preparedness; $180 million for Emergency Management Performance Grants; $800 million for Fire Grants; $60 million for Metropolitan Medical Response System grants; $515 million for Hospital Preparedness Grants (in HHS); $940 million in Bioterrorism Aid to Health Departments (in HHS); and $250 million in Rail and Transit Security Grants. Secure Our Borders and Meet Airport Security Mandates by providing: $700 million for Federal Air Marshals; $650 million for explosive detection systems purchase and installation; $100 million for air cargo screening; $250 million for port security grants; $161 million for the Container Security Initiative; $400 million on border and port inspection and surveillance technology, including radiation portal monitors in U.S. ports; $50 million for radiation portal monitors at overseas ports (in DOE); $100 million more for border patrol and inspector staffing; $96 million for the northern border airwing expansion; and $50 million more for bus, trucking and port pilot grants. Mr. Speaker, we have nothing less than a moral obligation to ensure that our nation is fully prepared and vigorously defended. We have troops deployed around the world fighting the war on terror, but we cannot forget our frontline defenders here at home. I urge my colleagues in this, the People's House, to act now to provide our police; officers, our firefighters, our paramedics and all other emergency personnel the equipment and support they need to protect our hometowns. I hope the House will take up this carefully drafted piece of legislation soon and provide our Nation the security we need.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, with nearly 44 million Americans lacking basic health care coverage, it is time to take action. Health care is a basic necessity--not a luxury--for all Americans. The House Republicans claim to be concerned about the uninsured, but actions speak louder than words. Consider what they've passed this year. Their budget resolution decimates Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The Republican budget requires a $2.2 billion cut in Medicaid funding, which will compromise the well-being of over 500 million children, their parents, seniors, and disabled individuals. This comes at a time when States are already in fiscal crisis, resulting in nearly every State cutting their own Medicaid program by slashing eligibility, cutting benefits, raising co- payments and reducing provider payments. Republicans have also tried to allow $1 billion in SCHIP funding to expire on September 30, despite the critical need to provide health care coverage to needy children. Earlier Federal and State cuts to Medicaid and SCHIP have already caused irreparable harm to families in Texas. Since SCHIP cuts in Texas took effect last September 1, 2003, enrollment for kids has dropped from over 507,000 children to 377,051. For those children fortunate enough to retain some health coverage, they have had to endure the loss of all dental, vision, and hospice benefits. How is this acceptable? How can we tolerate cuts that will compound this problem? Mr. Speaker, it is a commonly held misconception that people without health insurance are people who don't work. Nationwide, more than eight in ten of the nearly 44 million uninsured persons in 2003 lived in families where the head of the family worked. In fact, in most States today, a significant portion of the workforce is without insurance. Too many hard-working, tax-paying American lack even the most basic health insurance coverage. It is time to move beyond the rhetoric and take action. My home State of Texas actually leads the nation with 27 percent of our employed or self-employed workers without health insurance. This can be partially attributed to the fact that many of those uninsured are working in small businesses. In 2000 more than 17 percent of the labor force in Texas worked for businesses with 20 or fewer employees. The prohibitive expense of health insurance is a barrier to most small employers offering health coverage. The United States Chamber of Commerce recently estimated that it costs small businesses approximately $9,000 a year to provide health insurance for each employee. Mr. Speaker, join with 87 of my colleagues today in offering legislation that will provide immediate, concrete relief by introducing the Small Business Health Insurance Promotion Act today. This legislation will help secure affordable coverage for millions of self- insured individuals and employees of small businesses. As an incentive to provide coverage, the Small Business Health Insurance Promotion Act would make small businesses or self-employed individuals eligible to receive a 50 percent tax credit for four years to defray the cost of health insurance. The bill would also authorize funding to create state and national multi-insurer pools to provide comprehensive and affordable health insurance choices to small employers and the self-employed. To receive the tax credit, participating employers must offer all of their employees coverage through either the qualified state or national health insurance pools. These purchasing pools would ensure comprehensive and affordable health insurance. Participants would receive a choice of plans virtually identical to those available to Members of Congress and other Federal employees. I also join my fellow democratic colleagues today in introducing the FamilyCare Act and the Medicare Early Access Act. The former builds upon the Medicaid and SCHIP programs by providing new funding to cover working parents. This legislation is expected to cover over 7.5 million low-income parents as well as improve coverage of children. The Medicare Early Access Act addresses the serious problem faced by the many retirees who lose or do not have health coverage in retirement but are not yet eligible for Medicare. This legislation will allow uninsured people between the ages of 55 and 64 to purchase Medicare. Enrollees will be given a 75 percent refundable, advanceable tax credit which will make it affordable. This legislation could result in coverage of 3.5 million previously uninsured people. There are grave consequences for families without health insurance. People without coverage are less likely to get important preventive care and therefore are concomitantly more likely to suffer from serious health complications as problems go untreated. It also harms our economy. Sick people are not productive people. It makes sense to fortify the health of our nation. The Small Business Health Insurance Promotion Act, FamilyCare Act and Medicare Early Access Act that we are introducing today offer real solutions to real problems. Together these initiatives could provide health coverage to more than \1/2\ of the 44 million uninsured Americans. They represent a great step in the right direction that I am proud to be a part of.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, with nearly 44 million Americans lacking basic health care coverage, it is time to take action. Today, in a disingenuous public attempt to respond to the crisis of the uninsured, the Republican leadership has decided to spend the valuable time and limited resources of the American taxpayers debating Association Health Plan (AHP) legislation that has already been voted on in the 108th Congress. The absolute irony, of course, is that instead of strengthening the health of our nation, AHPs will increase the ranks of the uninsured, increase the health insurance costs for small businesses that don't participate in AHPs and destroy consumer protections currently safeguarded by state regulations. Clearly, this is not sound policy. Why are AHPs so bad? The creation of Association Health Plans will destabilize health insurance markets by forcing the state-regulated market and national AHP market to compete with each other. Few will benefit and most will suffer from this damaging division. Small businesses who choose to stay in the safer, state-regulated health insurance market will see their health insurance premiums skyrocket by 23 percent. The reality is that AHPs can offer lower premiums mainly because they offer fewer benefits--which is attractive to people in good health. With the AHPs siphoning off healther people into their market, state-regulated insurers will be responsible for covering a larger proportion of people with higher health care costs. Rather than risk being spread out and absorbed by many, it is divided, thereby threatening the solvency and accessibility of the state-regulated insurance businesses. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Association Health Plans hurt American workers and their families. The lower costs available to small businesses opting into AHPs are simply not worth it when you consider the damaging strings attached. This legislation allows AHPs to pre-empt over 1,000 important state laws that States enacted to protect the basic health care needs of our communities. These laws include critically necessary benefits like mammographies, diabetes care, well- child visits, mental health services, and direct access to OB/GYN and pediatricians. Pre-empting state laws also allows AHPs to redline and re-underwrite insurance for higher risk people, allowing discrimination against consumers and causing insurance premiums to rise. Employees will be further compromised by the lack of rights afforded to them under their AHP policies. If consumers are denied important healthcare treatment, they will not be allowed an independent external review and/or Consumer Ombudsmen program as state consumer-protection laws regulate. Further, there are very weak protections against insolvency under the AHP program which means small employers, American workers and their families may be burdened with millions of dollars of unpaid claims, which is exactly what health insurance is supposed to insure against. Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is worth noting that a recent study by Mercer and the National Small Business Association concluded that AHPs would swell the ranks of the uninsured to rise by more than one million people--an increase of 8.5 percent. This is because as premiums for small business employers in the state-regulated market increase, some firms would drop coverage. Further, businesses covered by AHPs might have to drop coverage if they are forced to pay new, higher premiums if someone in their group gets sick. Mr. Speaker, it's hard to imagine why anyone would vote for such a flawed piece of legislation that would be devastating to American families. Sadly, the answer is clear: The Wall Street Journal recently said that a major business trade organization stands to reap more than $100 million of annual revenue by selling AHP policies if H.R. 4281 is passed. Mr. Speaker, our constituents deserve better than this. The fact is that there are clear alternatives. Yesterday, I introduced H.R. 4356, the Small Business Health Insurance Promotion Act. This legislation will provide immediate, concrete relief by securing affordable health insurance coverage for millions of self- insured individuals and employees of small businesses. Mr. Speaker, as an incentive to provide coverage, the Small Business Health Insurance Promotion Act would make small businesses or self- employed individuals eligible to receive a 50 percent tax credit for four years to defray the cost of health insurance. The bill would also authorize funding to create state and national multi-insurer pools to provide comprehensive and affordable health insurance choices to small employers and the self-employed. Regardless of whether a business elected to enter the state or national pool consumers would be guaranteed quality coverage--coverage in each pool must be substantially similar to health benefits coverage offered in any of the four largest health plans in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program (FEHBP). In this legislation, unlike in AHPs, important consumer protections would be safeguarded, the same coverage available to Members of Congress and other federal employees. Forget the gimmick. Rather than offering up stale legislation which will hurt--not help--the health of our nation, let's take real action and pass sound coverage policies. Pass the Kind substitute, and take up the Small Business Health Insurance Promotion Act, as well as other new Democratic initiatives like the FamilyCare Act and the Medicare Early Access Act. Together these initiatives could provide health coverage to more than one-half of the 44 million uninsured Americans. Our American families deserve no less.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today just as I did almost exactly 14 months ago in strong opposition to the so-called HEALTH Act. Of course, today, we are spending the valuable time and limited resources of the American people debating the HEALTH Act of 2004, which, ironically, is precisely the same--virtually word-for-word--as the HEALTH Act of 2003, legislation this House already passed. Mr. Speaker, it is as if the leadership of this House is being guided by the wisdom of that great American philosopher, Yogi Berra, who once said, ``It's deja vu all over again.'' Apparently, the Republican leadership of the House is at a loss as to how to fix the very real problems our nation is facing, so we find ourselves here in the People's House deliberating legislation that we have already considered and passed. I don't know about the rest of the Members of this House, but I am pretty confident that my constituents in East Texas would consider our action on this flawed legislation to be a profound waste of time and money even in the best of times. However, Mr. Speaker, these are not the best of times for our Nation. The fact is the United States is facing difficult times at home and abroad. Today, as a Nation, we have 135,000 military personnel on the ground in Iraq fighting a shadowy and lethal insurgency and struggling to bring stability to a troubled part of the globe. The United States remains in serious danger of terrorist attacks at home with vulnerabilities in our ports and other infrastructure in desperate need of improved security. Many of our first responders--the very front line of defense for our hometowns--lack interoperable communications and other resources critical to their success. Mr. Speaker, today, almost 9 million Americans are unemployed, including almost 3 million manufacturing jobs that have been lost during the past three years. Our Nation has accumulated a national debt of over $7 trillion--more and more of which is owned to foreign nations, including China. Despite our burgeoning debt, the House Republican leadership refuses even to acknowledge a problem, refuses to adopt sensible ``pay-as-you-go'' rules that recognize the very real cost of both spending increases and tax cuts, and insists on budgets with larger and larger deficits, including a deficit in excess of $360 billion in FY 2005 alone. Mr. Speaker, as we complete our work during ``Cover the Uninsured Week,'' almost 44 million Americans--15 percent of all Americans--have no health insurance. That number includes almost 8 million children. Almost 44 million Americans have no health insurance, despite the fact that the vast majority of them have full-time jobs. So, Mr. Speaker, we have a health care crisis in this country that demands a solution. Nevertheless, to paraphrase President Reagan, ``here we go again.'' Instead of working on real solutions to cover the uninsured and to solve the many other very real and immediate problems the country faces, today, we are spending the People's time and money to consider again legislation we have already passed. Mr. Speaker, our nation's health care providers--our doctors, our nurses, our hospitals and nursing homes--are confronting skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance premiums. They need relief now. What they don't need is the warmed over illusory promise of relief that the HEALTH Act represents. The HEALTH Act will not provide the relief American physicians, hospitals and other health care providers need. It didn't do anything to reduce escalating medical liability insurance premiums when we passed it last March; legislation like it has not done anything to reduce premiums in the many states that already have enacted damage caps; and it will not magically result in reduced premiums if it passes the House again today. The simple fact is that claims from the Republican leadership that limiting liability for medical negligence will cure the healthcare cost crisis are without merit. Focusing solely on limiting malpractice liability, without insurance reform, does nothing to reduce the ever increasing costs of medical malpractice insurance. Damage caps such as those in H.R. 4280 do accomplish one thing: they boost insurers' profits. With damage caps, malpractice insurers win at the expense of physicians, nurses, hospitals and other health care providers. Mr. Speaker, last year, after we last considered the HEALTH Act, my home state of Texas enacted comprehensive tort ``reform'' legislation strikingly similar to the HEALTH Act we considered and passed in March 2003 and that we consider again today. During the long debate on that legislation, proponents of the damage cap legislation repeatedly assured opponents that imposition of liability limitations would lead to dramatic medical liability insurance premium decreases. Not surprisingly, however, the imposition of damage caps did not have the predicted effect. To the contrary, all but one medical malpractice insurance carriers in Texas proposed increases in physician premiums. Consequently, malpractice insurance premiums for physicians are reported to have risen an average of 12 percent statewide despite the damage caps. For Texas hospitals and nursing homes, the news was even worse--an average proposed increase of 20 percent. Moreover, the only carrier reported to offer reduced premiums provided a rate reduction that fell far short of even recapturing the dramatic premium increases it imposed on physicians during the past three years. In Texas, as in other states with caps, the evidence does not support the rhetoric; those who suggest the HEALTH Act or its ilk as a panacea simply fail to make their case. Clearly, old line thinking and the ``reform'' embodied in the HEALTH Act will not cure what ails the system and will not reduce premiums. Mr. Speaker, 14 months ago, I stood on the floor of this House and called on my colleagues to stand up for the doctors and stand up for the hospitals. Because the House Republican leadership has seen fit to conduct debate on that same legislation, I suppose I am on solid ground reiterating what I said then. Mr. Speaker, malpractice premiums are choking America's physicians, and H.R. 4280 is nothing but a sham because H.R. 4280 does not mention one time, from front to back, soup to nuts, does not ever even mention malpractice premiums. We need to do something about those premiums for the doctors. We need to do it now. We need to do it today. H.R. 4280 will not do it. And how about frivolous lawsuits? Frivolous lawsuits need to be stopped. If a suit is filed with no basis in law or in fact, it should be dismissed at the cost of the plaintiff, and he plaintiff should be sanctioned. But what does H.R. 4280 say about frivolous lawsuits? It does not say one thing. That is a shame. That is outrageous. We are only talking about benefits for insurance companies. We are talking about caps. The only people protected are insurance carriers. The only people celebrating today are executives in tall buildings owned by insurance companies. H.R. 4280 is not good for doctors; it is not good for hospitals; it is not good for patients. Let us stand up for them. Let us do the right thing. Mr. Speaker, the HEALTH Act was not progress in March 2003, and it's not progress now. Apparently, the House Republican leadership wants to prove that Yogi Berra was wrong when he said, ``The future ain't what it used to be.'' In the U.S. House of Representatives, the future appears to be exactly what it used to be. And that's a real shame and a tragic disservice to the People who sent us to this great House. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 4280.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, April 18, 2004, the people of the world memorialized Yom HaShoah--a special day of remembrance honoring the martyrs and heroes of the Holocaust. Holocaust Remembrance Day is a day that has been set aside to remember the victims of the Holocaust and to remind each of us what can happen when bigotry and hatred are not confronted. Mr. Speaker, I am humbled as I rise today with my colleagues to honor the memories and the lives of the more than 6 million victims of Nazi hatred and aggression during the pogrom known to us as the Holocaust. I am also humbled to stand in this cathedral of freedom and honor the lives of the many heroes who fought so bravely against unimaginable odds to defeat a genocidal madman. More than 60 years ago, Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime set out to eradicate European Jewry. So committed were they to the accomplishment of this goal, their so-called ``Final Solution,'' that even in the waning days of World War II, when defeat was imminent, the Germans continued rounding up Jews all over Europe and sending them to their deaths. Mr. Speaker, driven by a radical and uncompromising anti-Semitic ideology, the Nazis redoubled their efforts to reach every last Jew before the war ended. They were in a rush; time was running out. Depleting sorely-needed resources from the war effort, German forces swept across Europe, assembling and annihilating community after community, individual after individual, from their homes, ghettos and hiding places. Mr. Speaker, during the last year of the war in Europe, German defeat was all but accomplished, and yet their hatred and bigotry survived and thrived. Consequently, the Nazis murdered more than 700,000 Jews in the last full year of the war, including most of the Jews of the last large community in Europe, Hungary. In one of the most efficient deportation and murder operations of the Holocaust, the Nazi and Hungarian regimes deported 437,000 Jews to Auschwitz-Birkenau in just eight weeks, and killed tens of thousands more later that year. Six decades have passed since Allied troops liberated the labor and death camps, and yet the memory of the horrors perpetrated against the Jewish people is seared into the collective conscious of the world. However, Mr. Speaker, sadly, we cannot undo history, and we cannot reverse the atrocities carried out by a barbarous German regime. What remains for us is to honor and preserve the memories and lives of both the victims and the survivors of the Holocaust. Out of the great tragedy of the Holocaust emerges a tremendous object lesson for humanity: hatred and bigotry can never be taken for granted or left unchecked. We must never forget. Mr. Speaker, memory is critical--our own and that of the victims of unprecedented evil and suffering. The Holocaust is an era we must remember not only because of the dead; it is too late for them. Not only because of the survivors; it may even be too late for them. Preserving memory is a solemn responsibility, aimed at saving men and women from apathy to evil, if not from evil itself. We must never forget. Mr. Speaker, sixty years ago, much of the world overlooked the deadly plight of an entire people until it was almost too late. We have a sacred obligation--in order to truly keep faith with the principles upon which our great nation was founded--to remain vigilant, to remember the horrors of the past, to learn from them, and to protect against them for all eternity. We must never forget. Mr. Speaker, Nobel laureate and Holocaust survivor, Elie Wiesel, perhaps summed it up best when he said, ``to remain silent and indifferent is the greatest sin of all.'' As Americans, we must heed his call and embrace his challenge. We must never forget.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York for yielding me time. Madam Speaker, today there are 171,917 National Guardsmen and Reservists on active duty. They are facing increasingly difficult circumstances with the most recent extension of the deployment of troops in Iraq. As a consequence of their service, many of our National Guardsmen and Reservists have been forced to resort to their savings, savings that are vital to the economic well-being of their families. Many of our Guardsmen and Reservists have been forced to liquidated IRAs and other retirement accounts in order to pay their families' day- to-day expenses. I am pleased that the bill we have before us today provides these servicemembers relief from the 10 percent penalty normally imposed on individuals making early withdrawals from those accounts. This relief is important, and I am pleased to support it as a first step. Curiously, the bill does not take the next logical step, the next important step. While H.R. 1779 would permit the individual to recontribute the money to the retirement plan, the bill eliminates any tax benefit for the recontribution. As a result, individuals making those recontributions could ultimately face double taxation. They paid regular income tax on the initial distribution; they would have to pay regular income tax on the final distribution. Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to support H.R. 1779, but only as a first step. These folks are risking their lives. Let us not force them to risk the financial security of their family.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, the root causes of the crisis in our Nation's medical malpractice insurance system are numerous and complex. Unfortunately, while Congress debates the various approaches to reform, doctors, hospitals, and other healthcare providers face the harsh reality of skyrocketing premiums today. Ensuring that Americans continue to have access to doctors of all specialties while Congress finds a comprehensive solution to this crisis is crucial. A temporary, but immediate malpractice premium tax credit would provide much-needed relief to healthcare providers who want to continue offering care, but are struggling to pay their malpractice premiums. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join today with 30 of my colleagues in introducing the Medical Malpractice Relief Act of 2004, which would allow doctors, hospitals and nursing homes to claim a tax credit for a percentage of the malpractice premiums they are paying and will pay during tax years 2004 and 2005. Doctors who specialize in an area with increased risk of complications would be eligible for a tax credit equivalent to 20 percent of their total malpractice premium. The credit could be taken for premiums up to twice the average for a similarly situated doctor, i.e. same specialty and geographic area. High-risk doctors include those in all surgical specialties and subspecialties, emergency medicine, obstetrics or anesthesiology; or who do interventional work that is reflected in their malpractice premiums. Doctors who practice in lower risk specialties, such as general medicine, allergy, dermatology and pathology would be eligible for a tax credit equivalent to 10 percent of their total malpractice premium. The credit could be taken for premiums up to twice the average for a similarly situated doctor, i.e. same specialty and geographic area. For-profit hospitals and nursing homes would be eligible for a tax credit equivalent to 15 percent of their total malpractice premium. The credit could be taken for premiums up to twice the average for a similarly situated hospital. As many American hospitals and nursing homes are nonprofit institutions that do not pay taxes, this legislation would establish a 2-year grant program in the Health Resources Services Administration at the Department of Health and Human Services. Nonprofit hospitals would be eligible for grants up to 15 percent of their malpractice premiums. The maximum allowable grant would be for premiums up to twice the average malpractice premium among similarly situated hospitals. Mr. Speaker, medical providers across the country are facing a crisis, and they need our help now. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues in the People's House to act now to provide physicians, hospitals, and nursing homes the relief they need, so that they can turn their full attention to their genuine calling--caring for our Nation's health. I hope the House will take up this carefully targeted piece of legislation soon and provide our Nation's health care providers the relief they need.