Jim Turner

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, the debate we are entered upon today has the gravest of consequences for our Nation and for our future. Having recently returned from Bosnia, I had the opportunity there to learn a little bit about the attitudes present in that region. One thing that I did learn is that our allies, our NATO allies, have a strong commitment to keeping peace in the Balkans and they feel very strongly about our willingness as a NATO partner to stand tall with them in this crisis. I also learned from talking to some of our military leaders that there is a clear relationship between the situation in Bosnia and the developing events in Kosovo. Our investment in Bosnia, as one military leader told me, is clearly threatened by the developments in Kosovo. I also had the opportunity to talk with soldiers on the ground who are doing an excellent job keeping the peace in Bosnia, and, as one first sergeant shared with us in testimony before a committee hearing, he has made a spiritual investment in Bosnia and believes very strongly that we have done the right thing in trying to help keep the peace there. He said because of our soldiers children now go to school in Bosnia, can safely play in playgrounds without fear of land mines or snipers. We have clearly accomplished the objective of keeping peace in Bosnia, and the relationship between the situation in Kosovo and Bosnia is undisputed by those who serve us in our Armed Forces. I also learned that there are clear limits to what we can hope to accomplish in that part of the world, and for that reason there must be clear guidelines before we commit troops to any mission, any joint NATO mission, in Kosovo. Those principles were set out by the President in a February 4 address, and I think we must include those principles in the resolution that will be adopted here today.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I returned Monday from Bosnia with a group from the Committee on Armed Services led by the chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman). For those in Bosnia, our troops tonight who may very well be listening to this debate, I want to say that we were very much impressed with the spirit and with the quality of our troops. An all-volunteer force, war fighters at their best, are keeping peace tonight in Bosnia. I rise in opposition to the Fowler amendment for four reasons. First of all, the Fowler amendment would jeopardize the potential for success of the current peace negotiations that will reconvene in France in just a few days. It strengthens Milosevic's hand, and it will harden his resolve not to cooperate with the negotiators. Second, the Fowler amendment turns our back on our NATO allies, and it relinquishes an important leadership role that we have always exercised in that alliance for over 50 years. Third, the Fowler amendment would send the wrong message around the world, where American resolve and American strength is the only barrier to those who would exercise, through the force of arms, violence and terror against their neighbors. Finally, the Fowler amendment fails to recognize that clear relationship between the safety of our troops in Bosnia tonight and the developing events in Kosovo. Milosevic's hand will clearly be strengthened were we to adopt the Fowler amendment. On February 4 of this year, in a speech at the Baldrige Quality Awards Ceremony, the President set forth his four preconditions for involvement of U.S. forces in Kosovo. He said, first, we must have a strong and effective peace agreement signed by the parties. He said, we must have a commitment by the parties to implement the agreement and to cooperate with NATO. Third, he said we must have a permissive security environment, with withdrawal of enough Serbian security forces and an agreement restricting the weapons of the Kosovar paramilitaries. Finally, the President said we must have a well-defined NATO mission with a clear exit strategy. I would hope this resolution, this sense of the Congress resolution that we are considering tonight, would have no less. The Gejdenson-Turner amendment which is before this body, which the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) is attempting to amend, our amendment requires that there be reasonable limits on U.S. participation. That, we think, is only fair. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) offered an amendment requiring a fair and just agreement signed by the parties before any U.S. troop involvement. I offered an amendment to limit our troop participation to 15 percent of the total NATO force. This is not a number that came out of the air. This is a number that the President acknowledged and that our military leaders have acknowledged that is being negotiated as we speak with our NATO allies. These limits are appropriate for two reasons. First, our European NATO allies should properly bear the lion's share of this peacekeeping mission, and they understand that. Second, these limits are ones that I think in the Balkan region represents the maximum commitment that we should have, considering our current total troop strength and the need to maintain our readiness to address threats to our national interest in other parts of the world. Yes, there is a cost to keeping peace, but its cost is far less than the costs of war. In this world which grows ever smaller, peace and security in the Balkan region is in our national interest, and is consistent with our moral and political leadership. We must not tell the young sergeant that I spoke to in Bosnia this week that his mission will be placed in jeopardy tonight by virtue of the fact that we fail to make a commitment toward peace in Kosovo. We should not shoulder the total responsibility, but neither can we be a shrinking violet and fail to shoulder responsibility. Vote no on the Fowler amendment. Vote yes for the reasonable limits in the Gejdenson-Turner amendment.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment clarifies that agencies do not have to use a common application or reporting form unless it is appropriate. This amendment was also negotiated by and between the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). Mr. Chairman, It was never intended that this bill require agencies to use a common form at the expense of gathering necessary information. They need to manage their financial management programs and assure that Federal dollars are well spent. Any common form that would need to address all the programs of the Federal Government would be immense, be easily reaching, I suppose, hundreds or even thousand dollars of pages, and the bill is not intended to require agencies to use a common form when that form would be inconsistent with other statutory requirements. The amendment simply clarifies the intent of the bill in that it is the intent that the agency use common forms when appropriate and make sure that the bill is internally consistent.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to this amendment, and I support it.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) for his consideration.

Mr. TURNER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would simply require that the plans developed by the agencies be consistent with the Paperwork Elimination Act of 1998. This amendment has been discussed by both the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). It is my understanding that there is no objection to the amendment that has been negotiated. It is simply intended not to create confusion for State agencies. It has been a request that was brought to us by the Office of Management and Budget, and we believe that it should be adopted without objection.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, I would simply say again that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) have done outstanding work in bringing this bill to the floor. I think every American that depends upon Federal grant assistance will find that this bill will make it much easier for them to get through the red tape that so often they have to get through to access Federal dollars. This is a good bill. It is good for this country. I appreciate the bipartisan spirit in which the sponsors have brought it to the floor, as well as the good work of the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) on the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology for his outstanding leadership on this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to recognize the hard work and the leadership provided by the original sponsors of H.R. 409, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). Both of these gentlemen have put in countless hours working on this bill, which will improve the ability of the people of this country to access Federal grant funds that we make available here in the Congress. Without their initiatives, we would not be able to be here with this legislation today. This bill did bypass the normal committee process and its sponsors obtained a waiver from the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform. This was possible only because of the hard work of these two Members and because of the bipartisan spirit with which the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) and the subcommittee that had jurisdiction over this bill handled the markup of the legislation last year. H.R. 409 is designed to streamline and to consolidate the Federal financial assistance process. There are over 600 Federal programs that provide financial assistance to State, local and tribal governments and nonprofit organizations. These funds and the organizations that use them help provide vital services to the American people. Countless Americans rely on Federal financial assistance for loans, education, job training, childhood programs, welfare benefits and medical care, among other things. Federal funds support 163 different job training programs and over 90 early childhood programs. Unfortunately, unwieldy administrative barriers can reduce the effectiveness of Federal financial assistance and the services it provides. Similar programs can be administered by numerous different agencies, and administrative requirements can be complicated and duplicative. As a result, programs run with Federal funds by State, local and tribal governments and nonprofit organizations are forced to use time, effort and money that is better applied to providing the vital services to the American people. H.R. 409, the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999, will help solve these problems. The legislation would streamline the application and reporting process for Federal grants, promote the establishment of consistent procedures for financial assistance programs when applicable, and encourage the use of electronic application and reporting process. The bill would let local governments and nonprofit organizations spend less time on paperwork and more time doing the work that improves the lives of people. It also assures that the Federal Government will receive timely and accurate reporting from the grantee of these funds. With large grants, such as block grants to States, we should require accountability from the grant recipients. The American people are entitled to know that their Federal tax dollars are being spent wisely by those who receive Federal grants. We have overcome a number of issues in crafting this good, bipartisan bill, and I am glad to be here today as an additional sponsor of the bill. This is bipartisan legislation at its best. It has the support of a wide spectrum of politicians, both State and local, and nonprofit organizations. Simply put, this is good, common-sense government. Again, I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for their outstanding work on this legislation Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who has worked very hard on this issue, the original Democratic cosponsor of this bill with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I join with our other colleagues in support of the amendment. It does represent a sense of this Congress, that Federal dollars should be spent where they are most needed, and there is nothing that undermines the Federal Government any more than granting funds to an agency or a community or an individual who is not truly in need or entitled to those funds. And I commend the gentleman on stepping forward today, offering this sense of Congress amendment, and we join with him and support its adoption.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to first commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), my good friend, for his outstanding leadership on government management issues generally and in particular for his leadership in debt collection, which is the subject of this bill before the House today. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) has sponsored a number of debt collection initiatives as the former ranking member on the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology, which she did during the 105th Congress. And I would also like to commend the gentlewoman for her outstanding leadership in trying to bring a bill before the House that is a true bipartisan bill that will improve the debt collection practices of the Federal Government. H.R. 436 is a fiscal reform bill. It finishes a process begun in 1996 with the Debt Collection Improvement Act, which represented a bipartisan effort by the gentleman from California (Chairman Horn) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). Under the Debt Collection Improvement Act, the Treasury Department is authorized to use new tools designed to recoup as much as $1 billion in delinquent nontax debt each year. The Federal Government currently carries about $30 billion in delinquent debts on its books that could be potentially collected. Much of this debt, however, is old and perhaps it is unrealistic to be collectable. But the older the debt gets, the more difficult it is to recover. This bill would encourage Federal agencies to initiate debt collection activities and to sell nontax debt that is not an integral part of the agency's mission. Additionally, this bill encourages the government, when awarding contracts to private collection agencies, to consider those agencies' past performance records, including the amount of money they have previously collected and the existence and frequency of debtor complaints. H.R. 436 provides the government with the necessary flexibility to evaluate its contractors to assure that the government can consider factors other than just the net collections. For example, it is important to the government to utilize private contractors to assess the feasibility of debt collection and, in turn, to send out debt collection notices, conduct the necessary paperwork, and to resolve claims through administrative processes that may not necessarily result in any collections. By providing flexibility and encouraging agencies to optimize debt collection incentives, we can ensure that the government is more efficient and more effective. Mr. Chairman, this resolution focuses attention on debtors who owe the United States Government over $1 million in nontax debt. By working to decrease these high-risk debts, our government should reduce its outstanding delinquent debts substantially. The bill also authorizes the Department of the Treasury to withhold certain Federal Social Security, black lung, and railroad retirement payments from those owing past-due child support, an area that the gentlewoman from New York has taken a strong interest in the drafting of this legislation. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that these withholdings should result in an additional $10 million in child support collections for those who are due such support across this country. It is possible that this provision could recoup even more than the $10 million. This bill should provide the government with an increased capacity to recover money that is rightfully owed to the taxpayers of the United States. The bill should result in an additional $18 million that can be returned to the taxpayers over the 1999 to the 2004 period. It should continue to provide this kind of return well into the future. Mr. Chairman, this bill passed out of the Committee on Government Reform with bipartisan support, with the leadership of the gentleman from California (Chairman Horn) and the gentlewoman from New York. Both have been very active in the area of debt collection and have created the framework that we now have in the Debt Collection Improvement Act. The gentleman from California has been very receptive to the administration's concerns regarding this bill, and the administration is not opposed. For these reasons, I am glad to join with my colleagues here today in support of H.R. 436. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), who has worked countless hours on this bill as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would merely close by again commending the gentleman from California (Chairman Horn) on his leadership in this effort to improve the debt collection practices of the Federal Government. I think the taxpayers are the winners for the effort that he has made along with the efforts of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) on working on this issue for many years. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the opportunity to be here on the floor with my Blue Dog Democrat colleagues today talking about issues that really form the backbone of the reason that the Blue Dogs exist in this Congress. As each of us here understand, the Blue Dog Democrats have worked for years for fiscal responsibility. I am proud to be here this afternoon and to be able to talk about the budget and some of the issues that are important to helping us preserve Social Security. As I look at the issues and I think about some of the positions that we have taken in years past, when it comes to budget issues, it seems that there are certain standards and certain principles that we as fiscally responsible Members of this body all believe in. First of all, I think we all believe that the budget must be balanced without using any surplus accumulated in any of our trust accounts. We believe that the Social Security trust fund should be left alone, that the surplus that exists in Social Security belongs to Social Security, and that we should not be taking away from the Social Security trust fund to fund other operations of our Federal Government. We also believe very strongly that as surpluses begin to materialize in our country, we should reserve those surpluses until we ensure the long-term solvency of both the Social Security trust fund and the Medicare trust fund which is under increasing stress. I come from a rural area in deep east Texas. Many of our rural hospitals operate on very small margins. We know in east Texas that we have got to preserve the Medicare trust fund to be sure that we keep those rural hospitals open to meet the medical needs of the people of east Texas. Another principle that Blue Dogs believe in very strongly is that we believe that the balanced budget surplus beyond what is needed to save Social Security and to save Medicare should be allocated first to reducing the national debt. We believe it is a priority that this Congress should not forget. As we reduce that national debt and reduce the amount of interest that we are paying every year out of our budget, they tell me that just a couple of years ago we were paying 17 cents out of every tax dollar collected by the Federal Government from the American people just to cover the interest on the national debt. Next year that number will be down to 12 cents out of every tax dollar to cover the interest. We are making progress. But that is because this Congress and we as Blue Dog Democrats are committed to reducing that national debt. We also believe that there is room for tax relief for the American people in our overall budget plan. But we believe it ought to be targeted, it ought to be tax relief that is meaningful, tax relief that is needed by middle-class working people to help make their lives better. We live in an economy today that is booming. We believe that the economy that we have now if it is sustained will allow us to accomplish all of these goals as well as to invest in the legitimate needs that we in America have to improve education, to improve health care, to improve our national defense, to be sure that our military personnel are adequately compensated, and that we remain the world's strongest military power. These things can be done with the projected surpluses that we now see. But we also believe that any additional spending and tax cuts must be paid for through credible and politically feasible spending cuts and tax cuts. We believe that we should not backload tax cuts. That is, we should not pass a tax cut and say it is not effective now, it is just effective later, on down the line. And we believe that when we try to improve education or strengthen Medicare, that those spending decisions should not become effective in the future but we should deal with them on the short term. We do not believe in pushing unrealistic tax cuts into the out years. And we believe very strongly that the budget rules that this Congress has passed, that it is the law of the land, should be honored. We believe the 1997 budget act, the pay-go rules, the budget enforcement acts, the caps that we have established is a principle that should be maintained, and that changes in any of those should be approached very, very cautiously. Finally, we believe that any budget projections should be based on honest, realistic budget projections. We believe that if this Congress will follow these principles and adopt a budget resolution which this Congress failed to do in the 105th Congress, for the first time in the history of this Congress it failed to pass a budget resolution, that if this time, in this 106th Congress, we exercise our responsibility and do what the law requires us to do and pass a budget resolution in a timely way, preserving the principles that I have mentioned, we will keep America on a course of fiscal responsibility and we will preserve the principles that will continue us along the road toward economic prosperity.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I believe that the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) said that he had no further speakers, so I will close by simply saying that I appreciate again the gentleman's leadership on this legislation and his efforts to work in a bipartisan way; and I also want to thank the minority members of the committee who worked on this bill, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for their efforts. I urge an ``aye'' vote for this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) for his hard work on this legislation. As he mentioned, this bill passed this Congress overwhelmingly in a bipartisan fashion last session. I want to say, as the new ranking Democratic member of the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology, that it has been a pleasure to work with the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn). He conducts his committee in a bipartisan way, and we have come up here with a piece of legislation that will have overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle. I thank him for that. H.R. 437 was reported out of our committee just last week, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) mentioned. The White House has been consulted regarding this legislation, and I appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) in that regard. This bill is called the Presidential and Executive Office Financial Accountability Act. Its major component is that it requires the appointment of a chief financial officer in the White House. It would mandate that this chief financial officer in the White House comply with all the provisions of the Chief Financial Officers Act that was passed in 1990. But it does give the President significant discretion in implementing the act to meet the unique needs of the executive office. This bill, as I said, is an expansion of an existing law which was noted to be landmark legislation when it was passed in 1990. I am proud to say it was sponsored by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), then the chairman of the Committee on Government Operations. This bill was passed in a bipartisan way in 1990, and it brought about needed improvements to the executive branch by requiring for the first time financial audits and sound management practices in all of our executive agencies. This legislation is widely credited with changing the way the Federal Government keeps track of all of its finances. In addition to this landmark legislation passed in 1990, this Congress passed in 1994 the Government Management and Reform Act, another bipartisan piece of legislation which mandated that major Federal agencies conduct independent annual audits of their financial statements. The Government Management and Reform Act of 1994 grew out of Vice-President Al Gore's National Performance Review initiatives. I was very pleased to see the Clinton administration and Vice President Gore initiate the National Performance Review because, as a former member of the Texas legislature, our State during that time provided the initial leadership for the idea of reinventing government, making it more accountable to the taxpayers. In 1993 Vice President Gore was appointed to lead the National Performance Review. That effort has resulted in saving over $137 billion in taxpayer monies. It has reduced the Federal civilian work force by 351,000, creating for us the smallest Federal civilian work force as a percentage of the national work force since 1931. The National Performance Review has placed in our Federal agencies over 350 reinvention labs, where management and labor are working together to try to make government work more efficiently. In the process of implementing the recommendations of the National Performance Review, we have eliminated over 16,000 pages of Federal regulations and we have rewritten and recodified an additional 31,000. In our Federal agencies we have created organizations, over 500 of them, that are attempting to make the Federal Government and its agencies more customer-friendly. I am pleased that this legislation to create chief financial officers in all of our Federal Government was part of Vice President Gore's National Performance Review. Again, I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) for his leadership in expanding that act to cover the office of the President. When we look at this legislation, what we see is that the Federal Government, in a bipartisan way, is attempting to make the Federal Government and its financial practices accountable to the taxpayers. The presence of a chief financial officer in our Federal agencies and the requirements of that act have dramatically improved the financial management practices throughout government. We believe that a chief financial officer in the Executive Office of the President will continue that positive trend which has been established in our Federal Government. For this reason, we are pleased to join with the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) in bipartisan support of H.R. 437. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) for the leadership that he has given to this issue. And as a pharmacist, the gentleman knows better than any of us the difficulties that the cost of high drug prices are having on our senior citizens. It is a privilege to have joined the gentleman from Arkansas, and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), and the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) yesterday to introduce once again into this Congress the Prescription drug Fairness For Seniors Act, a bill that we introduced at the end of the last session of Congress and that we are reintroducing now, early in this session, because we believe that we will now have the opportunity to see this legislation become law. When I first became acquainted with this issue it was because of my membership on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, where our staff prepared a study of prescription drug costs in my district, as well as in the district of the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) and many others who are with us here today. That study revealed that the big drug companies are heavily discounting prices to their most favored customers and passing on much higher prices to local retail pharmacists, which means that our senior citizens, who have to buy their prescription drugs in their own communities, are paying the highest prices of anyone. This is not a new phenomenon. Local pharmacists, I understand, have known this for years. In fact, as I traveled across my district talking about this bill, I found that many of our local pharmacists, who have gone out of business in recent years, have done so because they have been unable to compete because of the discriminatory pricing practices that have been carried on for these many years by the big drug companies. And most citizens, for years, have known that if they just fly or drive into Mexico, or across into Canada, they can buy their prescription drugs much cheaper than they can in their local pharmacies here in the United States. We all understand the big drug companies have made great progress in their research and in providing the best pharmaceutical products the world has ever known. And yet, in the course of the pursuit of that practice and that good research, they have engaged in a discriminatory pricing practice that has resulted in our senior citizens, those who are least able to afford to buy prescription medications, having to pay the highest prices. One individual that particularly impressed me was a lady that I met in Orange, Texas, when I held a brief press conference talking about this bill toward the end of last year. Her name is Miss Frances Staley, and a story about Miss Staley was recounted in the Houston Chronicle back on November 22nd of last year. Miss Staley is 84 years old. She has a Social Security check that she has to live off of that totals about $700 every month. She spends over half of that $700 just to pay for the 14 prescription medications she has to take every day. Miss Staley in this article said this: By the time I get through paying for my medicines, I have very little to live off of. She goes on to recount that at one point she began to take a pill and split it in half to stretch out her supply of her prescription, but she was stopped after a stern rebuke from her doctor. No senior citizen in this country today should have to struggle to be able to pay for their prescription medications. Retirees, such as Miss Staley, who must pay the full cost of their prescription drugs, are the hardest hit of anyone due to the discriminatory pricing practices that have been pursued by the big drug manufacturers. Let us look at what that discrimination really is. I have here a chart that shows three different prescription drugs that are used by our senior citizens. One of them, right here in the middle, is synthroid. That is a hormone treatment. The big drug companies sell synthroid, a month's supply, to their most favored companies, the big insurance companies, the HMOs, and even the government, for $1.78. People like Miss Staley, in my district in Texas, they would have to pay $25 for that same prescription. That is just not right. Another drug, micronase, which is a medication for diabetics, the most favored customers, the big insurance companies can buy that from the drug companies for $6.89 for a month's supply. Miss Staley would have to pay a price of $45.60. Now, those high prices to Miss Staley are not the result of the local pharmacy marking up that drug. The local pharmacies in this country today have a very small margin. In fact, that margin has decreased in recent years. That is why I was mentioning a minute ago that many of them are having to close their doors. We want to solve this problem, and the way we try to solve it in this legislation is we simply provide that local pharmacies may purchase their prescription drugs that they resell to Medicare eligible beneficiaries directly from the drug manufacturers at the same prices that they are currently selling to the government, to the big HMOs, and to the hospital chains. We think that is only fair, that is only right. Our senior citizens deserve to be treated better. I am proud to join with the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) and the others here today in trying to enact this into law.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize the dedicated public service and accomplishments of a good friend and great Texan, Ms. Anne Wynne, as she completes her term as a member of the Texas Transportation Commission. As the first woman on the Commission, she has served our state in one of the most demanding of all appointed positions in our state's government. Anne tackled her tasks with more common sense than East Texas has pine trees and a compassionate heart bigger than Big Bend National Park. Her sense of humor became her trademark throughout the Texas Department of Transportation as she visited with employees throughout the state. During her term, Anne was instrumental in developing a spirit of partnership between the Texas Department of Transportation and the contractors who do much of the actual highway work throughout the state. She encouraged the department to move toward a diversified workforce and she worked with the legislature to create innovative ways to respond to the ever increasing costs of transportation projects. She also continually challenged the department's managers to operate the government agency like they would their own private business. Those of us fortunate enough to be close to Anne Wynne know that at the core of her philosophy regarding her responsibilities on the Commission has been her great love for the State of Texas. The Commission and TxDOT will miss her deep commitment and dedication to the Texas Department of Transportation's mission. Mr. Speaker, I know that all of my fellow Texans join me in this expression of thanks to Anne Wynne for her exemplary performance of duty. I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating her and wishing her all the best in her future endeavors.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Clinton's personal conduct was wrong, but no amount of outrage or indignation can obscure the fact that the rule of law begins with the reading of the Constitution and a review of the history of the Constitutional Convention debates of 1787, a principle well recognized by every court in our land. The framers of our Constitution and their forefathers had fled a monarchy and wanted to be sure that the person serving in the newly created position of chief executive did not usurp his powers and seek to reinstate the unlimited powers of the throne. Impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors gave Congress the power to defend the Constitution against acts that would destroy the constitutional order or extend the presidential power beyond its defined limits. For other crimes and misdemeanors, the framers chose to again depart from the monarchial tradition and they left the President subject to the same laws and to the same judicial penalties and punishments and protections as every other citizen. The President is not above the law, and today an independent counsel retains the power to indict the President and try him after he leaves office for any crime he may have committed. My oath of office does not require that I defend the President, but I cannot fail to defend the Constitution. Under that solemn oath, I cannot vote in the present case to remove the President from office. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said ``Judge not, lest ye too be judged.'' God forbid that we would judge the President today by any standard other than that set forth in the Constitution. This is the responsibility each of us readily assumed when we raised our right hand and swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. The issue before us it not to be decided by what the polls say or even by what our colleagues say here today. In this moment, every Member must reach deep into their mind and soul and ask ``What does the Constitution say?'' While we may all agree that Mr. Clinton's personal conduct was wrong, no amount of outrage or indignation can be allowed to obscure the fact that the rule of law begins with a reading of the Constitution and a review of the history of the Constitutional Convention debates of 1787. That is fundamental to the rule of law as recognized by the common practice of every court in our land. I have carefully read the notes and records of the debates of the Constitutional Convention regarding the language of Article II Section 4. The framers were careful to create a system of government with three separate and independent branches of government--none with undue power over the other. They and their forefathers had fled a monarchy and they wanted to be sure that the person serving in the newly created position of Chief Executive did not usurp his powers and seek to reinstate the unlimited powers of the throne. The clear intent of the impeachment power was to give Congress the power to protect the Constitution and the office of the Presidency from acts that would destroy the Constitutional order or extend the Presidential power beyond its defined limits. For other crimes and misdemeanors the framers chose to again depart from the monarchial tradition and leave the President subject to the same laws and to the same judicial penalties and punishments--and protections--as any other citizen. Yes, we should severely censure the President as an expression of our collective disapproval of his actions. And we should not forget that the Independent Counsel retains the power to indict the President and try him after he leaves office for any crime he may have committed. I am not called upon by the oath that I took to defend the President but I must defend the Constitution. Under that solemn duty, I cannot vote in the present case to remove a President elected by the people from the highest office in the land.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a member of the Committee on National Security in support of this resolution and in support of the President's decision to act swiftly and decisively in response to Saddam Hussein's defiance of the United Nations resolution requiring Saddam to grant permission to the inspection team for full and unfettered access to suspected sites as well as to documentation relating to the production of chemical and biological weapons. Just one month ago, Saddam Hussein was given a second chance to demonstrate his willingness to comply with the United Nations resolution. In spite of Saddam's record of noncompliance, the President agreed to withhold the use of force. However, the President stated unequivocally that the trigger would remain cocked and if Saddam failed to keep his word, there would be no further delay in our actions. When Saddam refused to keep his word and the U.N. inspection team leader, Mr. Butler, withdrew his inspectors and filed his report, the United States had no option but to carry out military action. Our credibility, our Nation's word and our credibility as a leader of world peace was at stake. May God be with our Nation and with our troops as they defend liberty and freedom on this day.