Jim Turner

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my Democratic colleagues who have joined me on the floor today for this Special Order hour. We are here this afternoon on a beautiful fall day, here in this House Chamber, trying to urge this Congress not to adjourn for the year until we finish the job of meeting the health care needs of America's families. Democrats in the House have worked for the entire 2-year session of this Congress to give America's families a strong Patients' Bill of Rights to ensure that you and your family make your health care along with your doctor, rather than having some insurance clerk who has never had a day of medical training, decide the treatment that you need. We have worked to make sure that when you are ill and when you are fighting for your life, that you do not have to also fight your insurance company to get the help that you need. Democrats in this Congress have been united also in the fight to give a prescription drug benefit to our senior citizens. We have worked for an optional part D under Medicare to guarantee that our seniors will never again have to make the choice between buying groceries and paying the rent or filling their prescriptions. And the Democrats in this Congress are united in our efforts to protect Americans' access to quality health care. We are fighting as we speak during the ongoing negotiations in the closing days of this Congress to answer the pleas from our hospitals, from our home health care providers, from our nursing homes and our other health care providers that we must strengthen Medicare, because many of us know that we have Medicare- dependent hospitals that will close their doors if Congress fails to get this job done. Home health agencies have already closed by the thousands and our teaching hospitals are no longer able to pursue teachers, research, and indigent care due to lack of funding. The American people have a right to know where this Republican- controlled Congress has failed to lead and failed to solve these pressing problems that confront every American family. They have a right to know who is on their side, and they have a right to know who is fighting for them. The answer is all too clear. The Republican-controlled Congress has become the special-interest- controlled Congress. The powerful special interests are in the driver's seat, and the public interests are in the backseat. On these three critical issues, patient protection, prescription drugs and protecting Medicare, the Republicans have danced to the tune of the big insurance companies and the big prescription drug manufacturers. On patient protection, the powerful insurance industry has fought in every State legislature and in this Congress to defeat meaningful patient rights. I carried the first patient protection legislation in the country when I was a State senator in Texas. The State Senate there and the State House voted almost unanimously in favor of a bipartisan patient protection bill. That bill was vetoed by Governor Bush, and he vetoed it after the legislature had adjourned when we had no opportunity to override. Fortunately, the legislature came back in the next session 2 years later and passed almost the identical package in four parts, and Governor Bush signed three, but let the fourth, regarding accountability of HMOs, become law without his signature. Fortunately, we have patient protection in many of our States, but we know that we must also pass a Federal bill to be sure that all patients under all plans are covered with these protections. Early in this session of Congress, this House passed a strong patients' bill of rights with near unanimous support from Democrats and the courageous support of Republican Members, like the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), only to see the bill watered down in the Senate and now languish in a conference committee with no action. I ask the American people, who is on your side? Who is fighting for you? On prescription drugs, Democrats have united in support of a voluntary universal prescription drug benefit under Medicare, but our Republican friends have joined with the pharmaceutical industry to defeat our plan. The pharmaceutical industry created a front group called Citizens for Better Medicare, if you can imagine, and spent millions of dollars in advertising across this country to say to the American people that private insurance can take care of the problem of prescription drugs for our seniors. We know that Medicare is the system that our seniors trust, and we know that the big pharmaceutical manufacturers do not want a prescription drug benefit under Medicare because they know if Medicare is in the business of helping our seniors get prescription drugs, Medicare is not going to pay the same high prices that our seniors are having to pay every day when they walk in their local retail pharmacies. Our Republican friends even introduced and passed a bill on the floor of this House authorizing insurance companies to offer prescription drug-only plans to seniors when even the president of Blue Cross and Blue Shield testified to this Congress that the plan was neither workable nor affordable for our senior citizens. Well, that plan backed by the Republican leadership and by the big pharmaceutical companies never has become the law fortunately; but still we have been unable to pass a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. Democrats want to update Medicare to make it consistent with the times, because we know that prescription drugs are now a big part of all of our health care costs. It is time to end the pharmaceutical manufacturers' practice of charging America's seniors the highest prices paid anywhere in the world for prescription drugs. I ask the American people, who is on your side? Who is fighting for you? Finally, when we look at what is happening today, this week, in this Congress, when we are fighting to increase funding for Medicare to save our hospitals and our health care providers, the Republicans put forth a bill and passed it on the floor of this House, which the President has pledged, fortunately, to veto, that dedicates 40 percent of the increase in funding directly to the insurance company HMOs with no guarantee that any of that money will ever get to our hospitals, our health care providers, or our senior citizens on Medicare. Why with only 15 percent of America's seniors living in an area where they even have access to a Medicare HMO plan would the Republican leadership give 40 percent of the increase in funding to the insurance industry? I ask the American people, who is on your side? Who is fighting for you? We, Democrats, have gathered on the floor today to talk about these issues, and it is a pleasure for me to yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), one of the best and hardest working Members of this Congress. The gentlewoman has worked on prescription drugs for seniors as long as any of us, and I am proud to yield time to her to discuss these important issues.

Mr. TURNER. I thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), and I appreciate her hard work on these issues. Her work in committee as well as on the floor has meant much to all of us. Mr. Speaker, I yield now to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), one of the most effective younger Members of this Congress, another Member who has worked with us very closely on these very critical issues.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I know we all agree with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) completely. I appreciate his conviction on the issue. Another Member who has worked tirelessly on this effort to bring fairness in prescription drug prices and a prescription drug benefit under Medicare to our seniors is the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird). Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) on this subject.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) certainly brought the issues right down to home by the examples that he gave. I think many times people feel like we are down here debating some high-minded set of issues. But the truth is these issues make a difference to America's families. They make a difference to our hospitals and our districts. They make a difference to those health care providers that are out there trying to take care of the needs of the people we represent. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), one of my Texas colleagues who has also worked very hard on these issues, who comes from a background where he has firsthand familiarity with the home health care industry, an individual who has fought hard on behalf of the people of his district and of Texas.

Mr. TURNER. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson). Well, Mr. Speaker, we have heard from a clinical psychologist; we have heard from the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), who has experience in home health care; in a minute I am allowing that we will hear from the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), who has a background in pharmacy. But now I want to yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), an outstanding Member who brings to this body her experience as a registered nurse.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, we appreciate so much the experience the gentlewoman brings to this body with her background in nursing. It gives us a unique perspective. I want to yield now to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry). He was one of the original cosponsors of the Prescription Drug Fairness Act. He comes to this body with a background of training in pharmacy, and I think he brings not only the expertise of pharmacy to bear on these issues but I have found him to bring the common sense of rural Arkansas to bear on these issues, and for that I have been very appreciative. So I am honored to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. TURNER. I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry). He has a unique way of bringing it right down to home in good common sense terms. As I asked in my opening remarks for this Special Order hour of the American people, who is on your side, who is fighting for you, I think it is clear that you and the other Democrats in this Congress are working hard to provide the prescription drug benefit, the Patients' Bill of Rights, and funding for the Medicare program that the American people want. It is almost amazing as I heard you express it when you talked about the issue, when you try to identify who is against these things, who would want this Congress to fail to pass a Patients' Bill of Rights, who would want this Congress to fail to pass a prescription drug benefit for seniors. There are only two groups, the insurance industry and the big pharmaceutical manufacturers. Everybody else would say, ``Let's move on and get the job done.'' As you said, we are here and we are ready to go to work and get it done before this Congress ends. The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) brought experience as a pharmacist. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) brought his experience as a clinical psychologist. The gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) brought her experience as a nurse. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) brought his experience to the table from home health care. It is now an honor and a privilege to yield time to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), a medical doctor.

Mr. TURNER. I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder). I know all of us have been confronted with that front group called Citizens for Better Medicare, which there is no citizens there. It is just the big drug companies pouring money into these issues, trying to influence the outcome of elections, and it is wrong and I hope the American people understand who is on their side and who is fighting for them. We have only a minute or two left. I want to yield to the gentleman from Washington because he wanted to share some of his thoughts about the unfairness of pouring the lion's share of the money into the HMOs for the Medicare+Choice side instead of giving it to our rural hospitals and other health care providers.

Mr. TURNER. I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird). I appreciate his participation along with the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder) as we have tried to lay out before the American people the issues to let them have the choice and the decision as to deciding who is on your side on these critical issues. We are going to continue to work to get the job done for the American people.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. It is good to join my colleague here on the floor tonight to talk about the important issues that are still pending before this Congress that have not been acted upon. Here we are, very near the end of this session of Congress, and still we have been unable to see the patient's bill of rights put into law, which is so very essential to all Americans to ensure that they are able to make their medical decisions with the consultation of their doctors and not have that interfered with by the insurance company clerks that work for the HMOs. I think it is way pastime for Congress to act on this very, very critical issue. I had the opportunity when I was in the Texas legislature in 1995 to carry the first patient's bill of rights. It passed overwhelmingly in the legislature, had only 4 no votes, as I recall, out of 31 members of the State Senate. It passed by voice vote in the House. We recognized early on, as many States did, that we needed patient protection to be sure that doctors and not insurance companies are making medical decisions affecting our lives and our health. Unfortunately, in 1995, our governor, Governor Bush, vetoed that bill. We were at the end of the session and had no opportunity to override, which we certainly would have done had time not run out on the session. But we did see the legislature in 1997 come back and pass similar legislation. And part of that the governor signed, and another part, relating to accountability, he let become law without putting his signature on the bill. In any event, we found ourselves in a position, after many States adopted patient protection legislation, of seeing lawsuits arise, filed by the big insurance companies and the HMOs, alleging they should not have to be bound by these State protections that many legislatures adopted, simply because, they said, they were multi-State plans and covered by Federal law, which preempted all State regulations. So that is why in this Congress many of us have united together to try to provide protection for all patients, whether they are covered under a State plan or whether they are covered under a multi-State plan that does not have any regulation or patient protection unless we in the Congress pass a Federal law to protect patients. Thus far, as the gentleman has pointed out so clearly, even though we have passed a good strong, bipartisan bill in this House, the Senate watered it down, and that bill is stuck in conference committee because the majority, who passed that bill in this House, were not appointed to that conference committee. That bill has never been moved forward. I think that is a great disservice to the people of this country, and I am hopeful that we can see action soon on a good strong patient's bill of rights. I also believe it is a failure of this Congress not to deal with the problem of prescription drug coverage for our seniors under Medicare. I was looking at a Texas paper the other day, the Dallas Morning News, that had a long article talking about the problems that our senior citizens have faced with affording prescription drugs. This article is entitled ``A Dose of Reality.'' It tells the stories of three seniors. Their stories are like the many that I have heard in my district over the past 2 and 3 years, since we have been working to try to get some action out of this Congress on this issue. Those stories, over and over again, tell about seniors who are taking six, eight, twelve prescriptions a month and are having to make the difficult choice of do they fill their prescription or do they buy their food or pay for their utilities or pay the rent. And in a country as prosperous as we are and as compassionate as we would like to say we are, one would think that we could provide a prescription drug benefit under Medicare to allow all of our seniors to be able to afford their prescription medicines. I am hopeful that this Congress will act on this issue before we adjourn, because I think it is a sign of a true failure of this Congress if we fail to provide our seniors some help on prescription drugs. The gentleman from New Jersey and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), who is here with us tonight, have all worked diligently on this problem. There is no reason in a country like ours to think that our citizens have to pay prescription drug prices that are twice as high as anyone else in the world pays. I think, frankly, when it comes right down to it, the inaction of this Congress can be traced straight to the influence of the big drug manufacturers over some in leadership in this Congress. Because the truth of the matter is, the drug companies have spent millions of dollars trying to defeat our efforts to put a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. And it is easy to understand, because they know that if we ever have a prescription drug benefit under Medicare, the government is not going to pay the same high prices that a senior is having to pay today when they walk in a local retail pharmacy. They will not pay those kind of prices. The big drug companies have it their way now and they do not want to give it up. I was very proud when the Vice President made as a part of his agenda a prescription drug benefit under Medicare to provide affordable prescription drug coverage for seniors. The truth is we cannot wait another 4 or 5 years to provide that kind of coverage. And this idea that Governor Bush has espoused of giving a little money to the States to just take care of the low-income seniors, that is only half a loaf. The truth is, whether or not an individual is low-income or not does not determine whether or not they are having a hard time paying for their prescription medicines. It is how sick an individual is as well as how big their pocketbook is. I guaranty my colleagues there are many middle-income seniors in this country today that have high prescription drug costs, and they cannot afford them. Even though they may be classified as middle income seniors, they simply cannot afford those six and eight and twelve prescriptions they are having to fill every month. Those people also need help. And if we all believe in Medicare, and everybody around here seems to say they believe in it, then there is certainly nothing wrong with bringing it up to the 21st century to be sure that it covers prescription drug costs. I think, frankly, when President Lyndon Johnson, from my State of Texas, signed Medicare into law in 1965, it would have had a prescription drug benefit if prescription drugs had been as large a portion of our health care costs as they are today. So these are the items that this Congress has failed to deal with, and I am proud to be among those on this floor tonight who have worked hard to try to bring this kind of prescription drug coverage and this kind of legislation to protect patients enrolled in managed care, because the American people want it. And I do not think they understand the influence of the insurance industry and the drug industry that is keeping us from being able to get a majority of this Congress to support this legislation. So we are here tonight to sound the call for action once again, and I am proud to join with the gentleman.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell the gentleman that I think the medical providers and the hospitals across this country have figured out what was wrong with that bill that the Republican majority passed on the floor of this House the other day. I have got a letter here in my hand that came in just a couple of days ago. This is from a hospital administrator in my district, George Miller. George is a real fine administrator of Christus Jasper Memorial Hospital down in Jasper, Texas, in my district. Here is what he writes me. He says, ``We are extremely concerned because, in the present language in the bill,'' referring to the one that was passed yesterday, ``it provides one-third to one-half of the Balanced Budget Act relief,'' that is the money, one-half to one-third of the money, ``over 10 years would go to HMOs, leaving less for providers and beneficiaries in East Texas, such as Christus Jasper Memorial Hospital.'' Further, he writes, ``The bill does not prohibit HMOs from dropping benefits or leaving the community, as they have done here in Texas and left many of our patients without HMO coverage. We need your help.'' This is from my hospital administrator in my district in Jasper. I want to tell my colleagues, I have had town meetings in my district during the August break and I went around to talk about the problem of prescription drug coverage for seniors, and what I was confronted with was seniors who were angry because they had just received their letter of cancellation from their HMO, seniors that had signed up for Medicare Choice HMO plans solely because the HMOs said, we will put on a little prescription drug coverage for you if will you go with us and get off traditional Medicare. As long as we cannot get this Congress to approve a prescription drug benefit under Medicare, those HMOs have a real strong leverage to appeal to those seniors. That is another reason we are having a hard time putting a prescription drug benefit under Medicare is because not only do the drug companies oppose it because they are afraid they cannot charge the same high prices to the Government as they are doing to our seniors, but the insurance industry knows that they are sunk if we put a prescription drug benefit under Medicare because they have been selling seniors HMO Medi- care+Choice plans with the benefit of some prescription drug coverage and if they lose that advantage, our seniors are going back to regular Medicare. And why are we promoting seniors going into HMO Medicare+Choice plan, whether, as the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) pointed outside, the General Accounting Office, the bipartisan agency that advises this Congress, tells us that Congress is already spending more money allowing seniors to be enrolled in HMOs than they would if we just let them be in regular Medicare. So we have got an issue before this Congress right now, and I am confident the President is going to veto that bill when it ever reaches his desk. Because the truth of the matter is I have got hospitals in my district that are about to close because we have not provided enough money to them under the Medicare reimbursement plan. I just do not think it is right to be lining the pockets of the insurance companies by increasing dramatically almost half of the money going into Medicare is going to these HMOs to allow them to increase the bottom line profit for them while I have got hospitals in rural East Texas that are going to close because we are not putting the money into the Medicare program that will reimburse them for their services. Instead, this Congress wants to give it to the big insurance companies. That is just not right. And I am proud the President has already spoken out saying he is not going to stand for it. And I think sooner or later the American people are going to figure out who is on their side in this Congress. And I guarantee you, it is not the insurance companies and the big drug companies and those who are dancing to their tune.

Mr. TURNER. If the gentleman will yield, it is really amazing when you really get down and look at the hard, cold facts of the bill that was passed in this House yesterday, that gave almost half of the additional funding for Medicare goes to the HMOs and the insurance companies, because, the truth is, there are only about 15 percent of America's seniors that even have or live in an area where they have the opportunity to select a Medicare+Choice HMO plan. In my 19 county Congressional district, today there are only two counties where there is even an HMO Medicare+Choice plan offered by the insurance companies. Now, why in the world, if only 15 percent of the senior population of this country even have the opportunity to buy one of those HMO plans and take advantage of the little add-ons they are able to offer, prescription drug coverage, eyeglass coverage, why would we give almost half of the additional money that we choose to appropriate this year to those HMO plans which are only available to 15 percent of the seniors? It is just not right, particularly when you have got hospitals all across this country that are about to close their doors because the Medicare reimbursements are so low. Now, it does not take a smart person to see the fallacy in what is going on around here, and I think it is pretty apparent that the insurance industry and their lobbyists are carrying the day, not the American people. In Texas, in Texas we have 270,000 seniors who were forced to skip a necessary prescription in 1998 because they could not afford it. We had 800,000 seniors in Texas who were forced to pay for their own prescription drug costs because they had no insurance coverage of any kind. You would think that, surely, we can do better. And I believe we must do better. Prescription drug coverage for seniors under Medicare, patient protection legislation to be sure everyone enrolled in managed care gets to make their medical decisions with their doctor, not having some insurance clerk interfere, and to think that we cannot figure out how to accomplish these things in this Congress is really more than many of us here can understand. So I am just hoping and praying that we will get the kind of legislation that the American people want and need. I was here yesterday, sat right up here in the gallery with a young family, husband and wife and a young daughter from Newton County in my district. The young daughter has leukemia. I sat there and listened to the father talk about their experience with managed care. He even told me about his experience of his wife, who needed surgery a few months back and had to fight her managed care company to get the surgery approved, and, after they finally got it approved and she had it, they had to fight with the same HMO to get the bill paid. There are people all across this country that can tell similar stories about dealing with their HMOs, and I think this Congress must act. I am proud to be here tonight with my colleagues to continue the battle that ultimately we will win, because we are on the right side of this issue for the American people. Yes, I think, as the vice president said, it is really a choice of are we for the people, or are you for the powerful, and I think we had better come down on the side of the American people.

Mr. TURNER. If the gentleman will yield, you know, I think you are right on target. When you combine that fact with the fact that these Medicare+Choice plans are not even available, and you hear the proposal that Governor Bush makes to give the seniors a voucher so they just get 25 percent of the premium for their insurance covered by the government, what we are moving toward, and I think it is wrong, it is a system where no longer do you have the same coverage no matter where you live in this country. Medicare, as I have always understood it, said that no matter where you live in this country, whether you live in the city or in the country, in rural America, urban America, you have the same coverage and the same benefit. And when you refuse to provide a prescription drug benefit under Medicare, and you only allow the HMOs to offer plans that can add on a prescription drug benefit, what you have done is changed in a very dramatic way what Medicare should mean to every senior, no matter where they live in this country.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2712, the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000. This is a good government piece of legislation that would allow all of our Federal agencies to consolidate into a single annual report a whole variety of different financial and performance reports that they are required by law to submit. This will go a long way toward reducing administrative burdens within the agencies and avoid unnecessary duplication. It is a provision that will allow the public and the Congress and the agencies themselves to see in one document a variety of various reports that need to be in one place in order to adequately review them and to make them more useful to this Congress in pursuing our goal of trying to improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of the Federal agencies. The administration has made good progress in trying to improve management practices and performance. Our committee carefully reviewed the activities of every agency. I commend the gentleman from California (Chairman Horn) for his work and his leadership in trying to be sure that the oversight function of the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology was carried out to the fullest degree possible. In short, this legislation is another example of a good, bipartisan piece of legislation that I think has been the hallmark of our subcommittee during this Congress. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Here we are 25 days after the end of the fiscal year, and we still do not have all of the appropriations bills passed to keep the government running. Frankly, that is no way to run a railroad. One would not run one's business that way, one would not run one's household budget that way, but here we are. Some may say, what is wrong with it? Well, what happens when we get in this predicament is exactly what we see playing out. The back room deals end up being made out of the light of day and we end up spending more money than this Congress should spend. My friends in the other party always talk about the Democrats as the big spenders. I want to tell my colleagues those old fables just do not work anymore. The truth is this is the fourth year in a row that the Republican- controlled Congress has passed appropriations bills with higher discretionary spending outlays than the President requested. By contrast, the Democratic-controlled Congresses of the Reagan and Bush years more often than not appropriated less than the President requested. We all talk about this big budget surplus. The presidential candidates are talking about it, how they want to spend it. The truth of the matter is this Congress is frittering away that budget surplus. It may not even be here if we continue along this path. We talk about a $2.2 trillion on-budget surplus, but it is based on a whole lot of iffy assumptions. If we continue increased spending at an annual rate of 5.5 percent as this Congress has done since 1998, we will wipe out two-thirds of that projected surplus. Now, to put this in context, just a year ago, the Republicans in Congress proposed cutting taxes a trillion dollars. Now, I am for cutting taxes. But the truth of the matter is, if we had passed that legislation, we would have wiped out the surplus, considering the increase in spending that this Congress seems intent to do. The problem that we face today is to pass a budget that preserves our surplus and ensures our future prosperity.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 1707, as has been mentioned, is intended to enhance the independence of the Inspector General of the Tennessee Valley Authority by making the position presidentially-appointed. Under current law, the Inspector General of the TVA is appointed by the agency head. As all of us understand, the Inspectors General in all of our agencies perform a very important watchdog function. In order to be able to carry that out effectively, they need to be independent. Therefore, this bill would make the Inspector General of this agency similar to all agencies of the Federal government and require that the President appoint the Inspector General, rather than the agency head. In addition, this bill authorizes such funds as are necessary to establish a criminal investigator academy and a forensic laboratory for the Inspector General community. It is clear that the Inspectors General need to have adequate and continuous criminal investigative training, and this academy will provide such training. Also, the Inspectors General have a need for forensic lab capability, which this bill authorizes. Mr. Speaker, I support the bill, and I commend Senator Thompson and Senator Lieberman for their bipartisan work on the matter. I believe the bill will enhance the Inspector General of the TVA and promote economy, effectiveness, and efficiency within that important Federal agency, and I urge adoption of the measure. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the efforts of thousands of firefighters who have struggled against one of the worst fire seasons in decades. In Texas we saw over 31,000 fires destroy almost 600,000 acres of forests, grasslands, homes, and businesses. The wildfires that swept across East Texas this summer were part of a nation-wide fire season that burned almost 7 million acres, equal to the entire state of Maryland. It is difficult to imagine the destruction we would have witnessed if it were not for the thousands of brave men and women who fought the fires that threatened their homes and their communities. Without the work of these firefighters, many more acres would have been reduced to charred fields and skeletal homes. Many more forests would have been left smoldering, and many more lives would have been put in grave danger. I offer my heartfelt gratitude to every person who took part in the dangerous fight to combat these devastating fires. Their work in protecting our lives, our families, our property, and our environment is deeply appreciated by all East Texans. Fighting fires is trying and exhausting work. Hot, smoke-filled air and ash clog the lungs, and East Texas summer temperatures often climb well over 100 degrees. In addition to directly attacking the fires, our firefighters spent their time cutting fire lines, burning out dangerous areas, and mopping up after fires so that they do not flare up again. They walk fire lines for miles and spend hours scrapping, chopping, and digging while wearing stifling protective equipment. Sleep is infrequent, uncomfortable, and rarely uninterrupted. There's no 9 to 5 shift on the fire line; crews work around the clock, pushing themselves past the point of exhaustion. Blistered feet and bloodshot eyes are universal, while heat exhaustion and serious injuries are common. Occasionally, a brave firefighter will lose his life. Entire communities have banded together fighting the fires. Fire support teams have volunteers working as drivers, equipment managers, and assistant paramedics. It is a mental and physical challenge, and our firefighters have shown commitment, strength and determination that make us all proud. As children, our parents told us stories of all types of heros. From David fighting Goliath to knights in shining armor, from Greek warriors to great patriots like George Washington, Sam Houston, and Davy Crockett we strive to reach their level of courage, bravery, determination and faith. We admire them for protecting their families, their lands, and their communities. This summer, the firefighters of East Texas have given us new stories to tell our children. Their sacrifices saved countless lives, buildings, and acres of natural resources. We owed them a great debt. I hope that our children will listen closely to the stories we tell. When they grow up, we can only hope that they will follow the example set by these heros. Our firefighters represent the highest standards of public service.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bipartisan legislation, H.R. 3218, the Social Security Number Confidentiality Act, which amends the law to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to make necessary changes to ensure that Social Security numbers are not visible through the unopened mailings of government checks or other drafts. I appreciate the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) for bringing this legislation forward, and I also commend the Department of the Treasury which also noted that this change needed to be made. In fact, in August of this year, the Treasury Department announced that Social Security numbers would no longer be visible through the envelope window of checks mailed to Social Security recipients. This past September, the Treasury Department began using the check numbers rather than the Social Security numbers to identify and to retrieve payments that are ineligible for delivery. This was a welcome and a necessary change. I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) and the Department of the Treasury both for noting that this important change needed to be made on the mailings of our Nation's Social Security checks. It is interesting to note that there are a number of House Members who also have privacy bills that are pending who are anxious to have this House act on their legislation. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka) has H.R. 1450; the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) has H.R. 4857; the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) has H.R. 4311; the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) has H.R. 4611. All of these bills are worthy of consideration by this Congress. Unfortunately, time seems to be running out on these important measures that are designed, as the bill of the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) is designed, to protect the privacy of American citizens. Again, clearly, our citizens do not deserve to have their Social Security numbers displayed to the public on the envelopes in which they receive their Social Security checks. Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to join in adopting this resolution. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise in support of H.R. 5210, which names a postal facility after George Atlee Goodling, the father of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), who has served with such distinction, himself, in this House. I suppose there is no greater occasion than when we have the opportunity to pay tribute to our fathers. I know it is with a great deal of pride and satisfaction that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) can stand today before this House and pay tribute to his father in this way. Clearly, both Goodlings served with distinction in this House and served the people of Pennsylvania very, very well. So I take a great deal of pride and satisfaction personally in being able to be a part of joining in support of H.R. 5210, to name this postal facility after George Atlee Goodling. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 5016, Madam Speaker, names a postal facility after J.T. Weeker. The legislation was introduced by my friend and committee colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Blagojevich), on July 27 of this year. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) representing the great City of Chicago.

Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to join the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Blagojevich) in urging the House to adopt this resolution naming this postal facility after an outstanding public servant who worked every day to be sure that the mail arrived on time. All too often, I think, we fail to acknowledge the contributions that are made every day by the fine employees of our Federal Government. So, Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of H.R. 5016. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to rise in support of this legislation this evening. I join in the remarks of those who preceded me. I thank each Member on the floor who has worked so hard to bring this bill to fruition. I particularly want to thank the National Forest Counties and Schools Coalition, that coalition of over 1,000 rural education, government, and business leaders, who worked hard to put this legislation together. That coalition included groups like the National Education Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Association of School Administrators, and the National Association of Counties. Many representatives and community leaders from across the country have come to Washington to work on this bill over the last several months. Two of them are good examples from my district, my own county judge, Chris Vanderhof, and Trinity County Judge Mark Evans, who served on the National Coalition. This is a good bill. It returns stability to the funds that flow to over 700 counties across this country that have national forest lands within their boundaries. It means a lot to the school districts in those counties. This will return some stability to their flow of funds, and it will provide a good source of funding for education for many rural school children across this country. I urge adoption of this legislation.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the good work that the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) has put in on this bill. It is clear to all of us that the American people are demanding action and that their privacy be protected by this Congress. I think it perhaps is one of the most critical issues and one of the most difficult issues we face. I think we also understand that there are very complex issues surrounding the discussion of privacy, and there are many opinions that have been voiced to us in the course of proceedings on this bill and others that indicate that the Congress must carefully consider legislation in this area. H.R. 4049 is a bipartisan measure which would establish a commission charged with studying issues relating to the protection of individual privacy and the balance to be achieved between protecting privacy and allowing appropriate uses of information. The commission would submit a report to Congress and the President within 18 months after its appointment. As a cosponsor of the bill, I commend my colleagues, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) for their leadership on a topic of this importance. I commend the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), on his willingness to work with us on the issue. I agree with him, that there are bills pending in this Congress that can be acted upon and should be acted upon prior to the final report of this commission. The Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology of the Committee on Government Reform held 3 days of legislative hearings on this bill, heard from a number of witnesses, hearing various points of view. The witnesses testified regarding the commission's scope, the relationship of ongoing and past privacy efforts, the composition of the commission, and other issues. I want to commend the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) for his willingness to accept an amendment, a manager's amendment, at the full committee level which clarified that the intent of this bill is not to delay or obstruct any pending, ongoing privacy initiatives in this Congress. It has been more than 20 years since a privacy commission studied this issue. It is clear to me that we need a comprehensive reevaluation of the subject; that legislation that is pending can be considered and passed while we are studying this issue, but there are enough problems in the area of privacy regulation, privacy protection, to justify a commission with the expertise that is laid out in the bill as far as the creation of a commission and its membership. I believe Congress should strictly adhere to the intent of the bill, which calls for the commission to be used as a supplement to and a sounding board for ongoing legislative privacy initiatives rather than any means of delay. Again, I commend the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) for their good work, and I urge the House to adopt this bipartisan measure.