Charlie Stenholm

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4280. Health care costs have been increasing dramatically over the past decade, while insurance has become prohibitively expensive for over 40 million Americans. There are a number of factors which have contributed to the skyrocketing cost of health care, and the costs associated with medical malpractice are one factor. This Country's tort system encourages litigation and large awards in medical malpractice suits, which has led to high malpractice insurance rates and increased health care costs through the practice of defensive medicine. Last year, my state of Texas enacted reforms of our medical malpractice system in order to avert a growing health crisis in the Texas health-care system. Too many lawsuits against health-care providers were driving up the cost of practicing medicine, resulting in reduced access to affordable health care. There are early signs that the reforms enacted in Texas have helped improve access to affordable health care. Essentially, every doctor in Texas is either paying less malpractice premiums today or avoiding scheduled increase in premiums. The bill before us today contains the same proven reforms that will translate directly into increased access to affordable health care for all Americans. Without Federal legislation, the exodus of physicians from the practice of medicine will continue, especially in high-risk specialties, and patients across the country will find it increasingly difficult to obtain affordable health care. In rural areas, we are particularly sensitive to the impact malpractice insurance costs have in discouraging physicians from locating in rural communities, leaving residents without health care. Here in Washington, if an obstetrician decides to stop delivering babies because the malpractice insurance costs are too great, the yellow pages will still list hundreds of other choices of physician care for expectant parents. In rural communities, the same physician decision may well mean that young couples must entirely uproot and relocate to urban centers just so they can have a family. The ultimate result of this legislation will be greater protections for quality health care, keeping precious health care dollars in direct care rather than feeding our legal system, and buttressing access to care for all Americans. Medical malpractice reform isn't a magic bullet that will solve the problems of skyrocketing health care costs by itself, but it is one part of the larger process of reforming our health care system to control costs and improve access to health care.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here tonight in the well in personal support of our law enforcement officers, all of them all across the United States. Along with our military members serving so bravely in harm's way overseas, our law enforcement officers deserve high recognition and a special place in our hearts for their service in the name of security and safety. With this being National Police Week and Saturday, May 15, being National Peace Officer's Memorial Day, I think it is important for us to pause to recognize the noble duty performed by our peace officers. I recognize the special difficulties that come with being both a crime fighter and a keeper of public safety. I cannot imagine the hazards faced by these brave men and women every day. Not only do law enforcement officers fight crime, they work tirelessly, night and day, to prevent crime from happening in the first place. According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, 145 law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty in 2003. On average, more than 58,066 law enforcement officers are assaulted each year, resulting in some 16,494 serious injuries. We have all witnessed frightening scenes and events where no one else would want to go, but the first people who respond to these incidents and accidents are the police. To me that encapsulates the honorable service of our Nation's police officers. They go places that most folks want to avoid. In fact, just today an alert in the Rayburn House Office Building notified us of a suspicious substance that was found. I admired the officers of the Capitol Police who were there to cordon off a corridor during this alert. I thank God that the alert proved negative, but the mission and duties of all law enforcement officers were brought into sharp relief, and at that moment I was thankful for the protection of us in this body of the Capitol Police. Fighting crime is not an easy job, and I am certainly not a police officer, but I think I am safe in that assertion. It is a scary job with a lot of danger, but the brave men and women of law enforcement take up the banner of justice and safety for us all. We should be very proud of that. Mr. Speaker, a tremendous amount of our homeland security falls on the shoulders of local police officers. Our police are the ones who investigate and apprehend suspects who would unleash terror in our homeland. They are the ones we look to for protection and safety against the tragedy of crime and disaster. Mr. Speaker, any investment that we make in public safety is a winning proposition. There is a great need to support law enforcement not only through our words but through our actions. Coming from a rural area, I know all too well the challenges faced by people who do not live in or near major cities. There is a unique set of circumstances that confront our rural law enforcement officers every day. That is why I am pleased to join my friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Carson) by cosponsoring H.R. 4276, the Rural Safety Law Enforcement Improvement Act. This is good legislation that not only goes a long way to making rural communities safer, but helps to heal some of the damage caused by drug abuse. Rural areas suffer from the same problems that urban and suburban areas do, but the rural areas must make do with fewer resources. Mr. Speaker, I am fully committed to honoring and providing for our law enforcement officers from all regions of our Nation. I am hopeful that we all remember them not just during National Police Week but year around. They provide immeasurable service to us and I hope that we remember them when it really counts. To all law enforcement officers, I thank you and may God continue to bless you and your families.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to reflect on this important day in history where a relatively small group of valiant men met and overcame tremendous odds to bring hope and unity to a struggling nation. On Cinco de Mayo, 1862, General Zaragoza led an untrained and outmatched group of 2,000 Mexican fighters to defend the town of Puebla against the French. Under the command of Napoleon III, these 6,000 French soldiers were among the best-trained and best-equipped armies in the world. However, their sophisticated armor and weapons were no match for the iron will and solidarity of the Mexican people. Their victory became a symbol of the pride and patriotism of the Mexican people, who defended themselves against a superior force. In the United States, Cinco de Mayo has become a celebration of the achievements and rich contributions Hispanics have made to our great nation, as well as a reminder of the values and freedoms all Americans hold so dear. Hispanics in my Congressional District, and across the nation, have added much to the cultural fabric of our country. As the fastest- growing minority population in the nation, they are a driving force in the U.S.--economically, politically, and socially. That is why I am proud to cosponsor House Concurrent Resolution 163, a resolution which recognizes the historical significance of Cinco de Mayo and calls upon the American people to observe the date with appropriate festivities. I know in West Texas, folks are participating in local festivals and gatherings to commemorate Mexico's victory at Puebla. Hispanics share with other Americans the common goals of freedom, opportunity, and a chance to build a better life. I am happy to be here and remember this momentous day as we are reminded that all people-- regardless of their race, color, creed, or gender--deserve the opportunity to experience liberty, freedom and the right to self- determination. America stands behind these ideals and appreciates the contributions of Hispanics everywhere.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the previous question so the House might be able to consider the Baird amendment restoring the deduction for sales tax, State sales taxes. This is one of those issues that I wish the Committee on Ways and Means would have brought to the floor of the House 2 years ago. The AMT question is a very serious question of which there is a lot of concern about. But this is not the way to handle it in the bill today and the tax cut of the week, and obviously the lack of participation by my friends on the majority side shows how political this is and how substance is being thrown away. But I want to talk about the State sales tax deduction which was eliminated in 1986. Citizens from States that do not have State income taxes such as my home State of Texas have been unfairly penalized. While taxpayers living in States that have an income tax are entitled to deduct their State sales taxes from federal taxes, folks living in States without income taxes do not receive an equivalent deduction. And my State is now in the process of increasing the sales tax on all citizens of Texas, which will compound the problem that we are talking about today. The result is that citizens of States like my State of Texas are paying more taxes than are citizens in other States with identical incomes, and I do not understand why the Committee on Ways and Means does not take up the question of tax fairness. The Baird amendment would restore fairness to the Federal tax system by allowing taxpayers who have no State income taxes to, instead, deduct their State and local taxes. Why not? What is wrong with that? Why not have a discussion of that on the floor instead of the tax cut of the week, which is purely for political purposes that will show up in campaign ads all over the United States as evidenced by the lack of participation in the substance of that which we are talking about today? I also believe that the fundamental bill, if we are going to have to, on the floor, ought to be paid for. I agree that this exemption of State sales taxes will cost an estimate of $1.2 billion, but it ought to be paid for and it should be paid for in the interest of fairness. States should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to adopt an income tax instead of being pressured to do so because the Tax Code is biased in favor of a State income tax instead of a State sales tax. What is wrong with that picture? Why can we not have a serious debate on this floor about tax reform? Instead of just talking about it in campaign slogans, which we do, flat tax, et cetera, a fundamental question, why can the Committee on Ways and Means not take up the bill that they bring to the floor today and have a serious discussion of that within the committee? Why not let Members in a bipartisan way participate in these issues? Instead, it is a campaign issue. If they want a campaign issue, this is a campaign issue. In Texas, the inability of Texans to deduct sales taxes should be an issue on the hearts and minds of every single Texan, and the vote on the previous question will clearly identify in this body who is in favor of fairness and who is not. Vote against the previous question. Allow fairness to be discussed on the House floor.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is great rhetoric, and I will yield again, but I want to respond to that. The gentleman from Pennsylvania put a budget out. How many votes did the gentleman get for his budget?

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, that is the problem. I can put a budget out too.

Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. STENHOLM. On your budget, I opposed it, because it increased the deficit.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, it is truly amazing when we come to the floor and have this debate over and over and over again. We are fighting a war today, and I believe I would be factually correct to say this is the first war we have fought by reducing the amount of revenue. I suggest our troops are paying dearly for that, because as we all know, they have not received that which they need in order to protect themselves while they are doing for us what we are unwilling to do for them. This is a pretty straightforward amendment; and despite the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), despite the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) and all of his rhetoric, nobody is talking about raising taxes. That is just rhetoric that will be used in campaign slogans. All we are saying is, if we are going to cut taxes and reduce the amount of revenue to pay for the war, we have to provide either cuts in spending, which we do, in spite of the fact, all of what you talk about never happens because spending has gone up, up, and up since Republicans took over this House, and how you can stand on the floor and keep lecturing Democrats on spending, you have no conscience.

Mr. STENHOLM. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. STENHOLM. You could not pass it. I take back my time. I take back my time. Yes, it is great. You can come out, but the problem that comes out today is we have to live under the rules of the majority party. And for years I was criticized by the gentleman's side because it was my party that was doing to the economy what you said we were doing. Today, you are in charge; and no matter how many times you say it, you cannot overcome the facts. Republicans have spent more in the Reagan-Bush years, in the Bush years than we did in the Clinton years. You have spent more, period, and that record stands up. All we are talking about today is a simple resolution saying, let us put us all under the gun. If you put your budget on the floor under pay-as-you-go, I will have to vote for it, if it is under pay-as-you- go, because I am sincerely for it. I did not vote for the last tax cut because it is with borrowed money on my children and grandchildren. I did not vote for last week's tax cut because it is with borrowed money; and I will not vote for the additional tax cuts with borrowed money on my children and grandchildren's money. But your rhetoric and mine should match. Where is the mismatch?

Mr. STENHOLM. Then if it is a bipartisan problem, that is what we are suggesting today is a bipartisan solution.

Mr. STENHOLM. No, with all due respect, well, if you want to fight the war by shortchanging the troops in order that you can have your rhetorical answers on that, fine. I will be happy to yield for a simple discourse, but every time you start that rhetoric that has put us into a $2.4 trillion hole in 4 years.

Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) did not deliberately attempt to misspeak to this body, but revenues in 2000 were $2.025 trillion, revenues in 2003 were $1.782 trillion; projected CBO for this year is the $1.817 trillion. I understand that you are putting the best spin forward, on this year, it is going up, but look at what it has done under the policies that you continue to advocate. What we are talking about is what Chairman Alan Greenspan would like to see us do; what the Concord Coalition would like to see us do: Put some fiscal responsibility into all our actions. The gentleman keeps referring to the Reagan years. I was here. I helped pass the first Reagan tax cut. It did not work as was intended. It built up $1.8 trillion of debt in 8 years. The Bush 41 built up another $1.5 trillion of debt. In the 8 years of the Clinton administration debt went up $1.4 trillion; and it is estimated under the Bush 43, debt will go up $2.4 trillion. That is what we were suggesting doing something about. It is called fiscal responsibility. It is called living within your means. It is called making tough decisions. Yes, there are tax cuts that grow the economy, but there are also tax cuts that increase the deficit. Let us make that decision, instead of just coming here and rhetorically talking about things that just are not so. With all due respect, it just is not so from the standpoint of the deficit coming down. If you talk about spending, I just have to smile and get myself under control, every time I hear a Republican stand up on this floor and talk about spending, and I would yield to the gentleman to answer to a question, who has been in control of this House since 1994?

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman. The short- changing of our troops is bipartisan. I am \1/435\ of this body and anything we have not done, I accept my share of the blame for; but I am not in control. I am not in the majority. And the minority has been totally ignored on most of these issues, but I still have to take my responsibility for that action. And the fact is we have not done a real good job. On the question of providing for spousal benefits for military retirees, we have a bill that has 300 cosponsors of and we cannot get it on the floor of the House in order to debate.

Mr. STENHOLM. We are talking about pay-as-you-go.

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, that is not the intent of this amendment. It is not to get into taxes or spending. It is just to say to this body, we have to make a decision regarding how much more we borrow on our children and grandchildren.

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

Mr. STENHOLM. Because nothing in PAYGO precludes tax cuts, nothing does.

Mr. STENHOLM. Right.

Mr. STENHOLM. We did it in 1997. It was Democrats like me that stood up with Republicans and got it done.

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago is when this debate began and those of us that believed that we had a little better plan, we lost that battle; and today, we are still fighting the same battle we did 3 years ago. We were told if we instigated the tax cuts that we would balance the budget in 4 years. It did not work out quite that way. We cannot argue with the fact that the budget, that is somewhere out there in never-never land between the House and the Senate, includes an increasing of the debt ceiling, the amount which this country can borrow, to over $8 trillion. In the last 2\1/2\ years, we have borrowed $1 trillion. In the next year and a half, we are going to borrow in excess of another $1.5 trillion. We cannot escape that those are the facts. We all know the reason why. This amendment today just suggests that this generation ought to be doing some of the paying rather than just blindly following a theory that does not work, the theory that we can balance the budget by cutting the amount of revenue when we are at war. This is the first war in the history of our country that we have fought by cutting taxes, and the results are predictable. It is amazing. Most main-line economists agree with what we are talking about today, making it tough to raise spending, being very scrupulous on the manner in which we spend our taxpayer dollars, but also take a good, hard look at what we are leaving our children and grandchildren and take a good, hard look at who is buying our debt. The Japanese will soon own over $600 billion of our debt. The Chinese are at $200 billion and going up rapidly; and if that does not bother my colleagues who is the banker of the United States, then continue to say, as some so-called conservatives continue to say, deficits do not matter as long as we are following the great game plan that has been totally rhetorized today by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey); and he does a good job, and I respect the fact he is sincere. That is something that I can respect on this floor because he puts his money where his mouth is. The problem is there are not 218 Republicans that agree with him, but there are 218 Members of this body that would agree on pay-as-you-go and would get our fiscal house in order as we did in 1990 when Democrats were in control and a few of us voted with Republicans to put some fiscal order, and as we did in 1997 when Republicans could not pass their budget in 1997 without Democratic support, and I was there and I helped because I believed in that compromise legislation that then ultimately gave us the economic growth and expansion that we saw in the 1990s. Now, we are arguing a theory today, and I understand there are some that just cannot say, I was wrong, I did not make a mistake, I am perfect, everything we are doing we have just got to keep on plugging and we can send that debt to our children and grandchildren and look at them with a straight face. I have three grandsons, and I cannot do it; and that is why I will continue to say we will reach out the hand to the folks on the other side of the aisle, and we will work together to bring our fiscal house in order; but we cannot do it with the game plan that they are advocating.

Mr. STENHOLM

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I want to take time to recognize an important group of individuals who are being honored today, Tuesday, May 4, National Teacher Day. Growing up in Stamford, my own teachers played an important role in my upbringing. It is one reason why I chose to become a teacher myself. Since starting out as a vocational agriculture teacher, education has been a passion of mine. That is why I now spend so much time in our schools. And I certainly realize the important role that teachers play in our children's lives. Our teachers go above and beyond the call of duty time after time to help their students learn and be successful. I'm happy we take this day to honor those who have chosen to enter this profession. It sometimes can be a thankless job. But it is rewarding to see the kids grow and mature before your very eyes--even after they have left your classroom. I am pleased to cosponsor several pieces of legislation that support America's teachers, including: The LEARN Act (H.R. 1643), legislation that would provide a $2,000 tax credit to teachers and principals who work in low-income schools. Student loan forgiveness legislation (H.R. 1751, H.R. 934 and H.R. 2811), designed to result in the recruitment of new and talented teachers to educate the next generation of students. These bills would provide student loan forgiveness up to $17,500 to a teacher who teaches for five years in a low-income school, rural school or in high-demand subjects such as mathematics, science, special education, foreign languages and bilingual education. The Social Security Fairness Act (H.R. 594), which would end unfair discrimination against Texas teachers and other public employees who currently are denied the Social Security survivors benefit. I strongly support this legislation, and have signed a discharge petition that would bring H.R. 594 to the House floor for a vote. As a former educator and grandfather of three, I will continue to be concerned about providing the best educational opportunities to all American children. Yet, the successful education of this nation's children is inextricably tied to the quality of the teachers educating them. We must provide the proper financial and workforce incentives to retain the dedicated core of education professionals who daily shape the hearts and minds of the children of West Texas. Today we recognize this important and influential group of people. My hat is off to our Texas teachers. And I encourage all Americans to take time on Tuesday to thank our teachers for the great job.