Jim Turner

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Horn) for his hard work on this bill. It has been a pleasure to serve on the subcommittee with him; and, as always, I appreciate the bipartisan manner in which he conducts his business. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman) for his leadership in trying to clarify the bill. I know the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) had similar concerns, and through their work we were able to address those concerns. We certainly hear the request that was made and look forward to working as this bill moves forward to be sure we have accomplished the desired result. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1827, the Government Waste Corrections Act of 1999. I want to commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) for his leadership on this issue. I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), ranking member, for his hard work on the bill, as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) stated it very correctly, this is a bill that will save money for the taxpayers. It is a wonderful opportunity to have a bill like this before the floor. So many times we find ourselves spending money, and this bill, clearly, will save money for our taxpayers. This bill requires the use of a technique referred to as recovery auditing. Recovery auditing is a proven financial tool that has been used to identify overpayments in the private sector for a number of years. It has been used by the automobile industry, by the retail trades industry, and by food services industries. It is a practice employed by most of the Fortune 500 companies. However, few agencies of the Federal Government have ever utilized this technique. The exceptions are the Army and Air Force Exchange Services, which recovered $25 million in overpayments through the use of recovery auditing in 1998. Every year Federal agencies make billions, and I say billions of dollars in overpayments. No matter how efficient a financial management system, we must face the fact that overpayments do occur in government. In fact, the larger the volume of government purchases, the greater likelihood of mistakes in overpayments. As an example, the Department of Defense, which contracts for billions of dollars in goods and services every year, found that between the years 1994 and 1998 defense contractors in the private sector voluntarily returned $984 million in overpayments to the Department of Defense. These returned payments were unknown to the Department of Defense until the money was returned. Clearly, there is a need for recovery auditing in the Federal Government. This legislation requires Federal agencies to conduct recovery audits on all payment activities over $500 million annually on goods and services for the use or direct benefit of the agencies. Recovery audits will be optional for other payment activities. Agencies would be authorized to conduct recovery audits in-house or contract with private recovery specialists or use a combination of the two. At least 50 percent of the overpayments recouped would go back to the general treasury, and not more than 25 percent of the overpayments recouped could be used for a management improvement program designed to prevent future overpayments and waste by the agency. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that H.R. 1827 will result in collections of at least $180 million in the first 5 years. This bill was introduced by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) back in May of 1999. We had a hearing before the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology, and the full committee reported the bill with some amendments. There were a number of concerns that were discussed at the time of the hearing on the bill, and these have been addressed. In full committee, I offered an amendment relating to privacy protection for individually identifiable information, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) offered another amendment which requires agencies to conduct a private-public cost comparison before deciding whether to contract out in the private sector for recovery auditing services or to do the task in-house with agency personnel. I appreciate the bipartisan manner in which the chairman, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), approached both of these amendments; and we are pleased that they were included in the bill. In an effort to alleviate other concerns, discovered after the full committee markup we have clarified the bill's intent by adding several new definitions and making technical clarification in other parts of the bill through the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton). Under the amendment, agency heads are now expressly authorized to request an exemption from the program if it goes against the agency's mission or would not be cost effective. And in response to concerns raised by vendors who feared that recovery auditors might barge into their offices as a part of the recovery auditing process, the amendment in the nature of a substitute prohibits a recovery auditor from establishing a physical presence, that is, setting up shop at the entity that is being audited. Finally, we also stipulated in the amendment in the nature of a substitute that recovery auditing will apply only to the Department of Defense's major weapon system programs after the contracts have been closed. These concerns were expressed to the committee and to the chairman and myself by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman), by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), and others; and the amendment clarifies the bill in this regard and addresses those concerns. Mr. Chairman, this bill clearly represents a significant step forward in dealing with the billions of dollars in overpayments that are made by the Federal Government. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the bill. It is simply good government. Again, I commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) for his leadership on the issue. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here with all of the Members who have spoken on this issue. I really do appreciate the fact that we have this hour to talk about this very important issue. It has been almost 2 years since we first addressed the problem of discriminatory pricing in drugs, the problems of lack of access to prescription drugs at affordable prices. I appreciate the leadership the gentleman has given, as well as the leadership of the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) here tonight on the floor next to me from Arkansas, and on my left the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows), who has filed a discharge petition. That is why we are here tonight talking about this issue, because tomorrow we are going to have for the first time an opportunity to get a chance to bring this issue to the floor of the House of Representatives. After these many months of collecting support, of cosponsors, I believe we have close now, with over 140 Democrats who have joined wanting to do something about the high price of prescription drugs. Tomorrow we will have that chance by joining and signing the discharge petition that will bring the bill that the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), and I introduced back almost a year ago, as well as the other bill to provide a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. This issue hits very close to home for all of us. I know in my district, I have 84,000 senior citizens, the highest number of seniors in any congressional district in Texas. I hear from them. We saw the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) bring to the floor a stack of letters. I have a similar stack. Seniors are concerned about the problem of the high price of their prescription medications. Just to give an example, I visited with a lady over a year ago in a pharmacy in Orange when we were going around talking about this issue initially, Ms. Frances Staley. She is 85 years old. Mrs. Staly is blind. She is a beautiful lady. She spends about half of her $700 Social Security check every month just on her prescriptions. That is her sole source of income, Social Security. I had a letter from Billy and Joe O'Leary. I have met them and know them well and they wrote, they live down in Silsbee, they spend $400 a month for eight prescription medicines. I want to read just a little section from the letter that they sent to me. It really makes a whole lot of sense. We hear this cry from the big drug manufacturers that, oh, well, we cannot do anything about drug prices or we will not have any money for research. Well, none of us want to cut off funds for research in the pharmaceutical industry. We have a lot of new drugs that have come on the market, done a lot of wonderful things but here is what Mr. and Mrs. O'Leary had to say about it in their letter to me. They said, what good is research and finding cures for disease if a large part of our population cannot afford the medicine for the cure? That is the bottom line. We have to be sure that our seniors have access to affordable prescription drugs. Archie and Linda Davidson of Vidor, Texas, have spent more than $3,500 in the last 6 months just for their prescription medicines. I had a nice visit with a gentleman down in Hull in Liberty County, Texas, a few months ago; and he came up to me, and this is hard to believe, but he has told me, he said, my wife and I both have a lot of prescription medicines we have to take every month. He says, it costs us $1,400 a month. Now, I do not know how long the gentleman from Hull can pay that kind of cost; but the truth is, everyone that has had to buy prescription medications knows that the prices are higher and higher and higher every month that passes. This is, indeed, a national problem, and I think that it is time that we do something about it. Let us look at the big picture. Senior citizens spend three times as much of their income on health care as compared to that which is spent by the average American. The elderly, who are 12 percent of our entire Nation's population, purchase one-third of all prescription drugs and yet nearly 40 percent of all senior citizens have no prescription drug coverage. One in five of our elderly citizens takes at least five prescription drugs a day, and more than 2.2 million seniors spend more than $100 a month for medication and many pay much more. The bottom line is, senior citizens in our country today are paying the highest prices for prescription drugs of anyone in our society. The studies which the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) did, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) did, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows) did, and many of the others that are here, show indisputably that senior citizens pay on average twice as much as the favored customers of the big drug manufacturers. The favored customers are the big hospital chains, the big HMOs. Those are the folks who are getting the good deals and our senior citizens, without prescription drug coverage, who walk into their local pharmacy, are paying twice as much as those favored customers. That is just not right. When we did the international study, we found that folks in the United States are paying over twice what the folks in other industrialized countries around the world are paying. We have to do something about this problem. We have to do something about it soon, and tomorrow is our first opportunity to sign the discharge petition, which is a procedure that we use around here to force an issue to the floor that we feel strongly about. I thank the gentleman for the leadership he has given, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), on this critical issue.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for us all to understand that both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, favor marriage tax penalty relief. But the truth is, bringing this bill to the floor at this time is not only a violation of the Congressional Budget Act, section 303, but it is totally contrary to common sense and it is fiscally irresponsible. It defies common sense to bring a bill to the floor that is a major tax cut before we have even drawn up the budget. Every city council, every school board, every State legislature that adopts an appropriations act or tax cut first adopts a budget. To think today that we would come to this floor and act on a major tax bill before the Congress has even adopted a budget is simply irresponsible. It violates the basic rules that every American family understands. Every American family understands that it is important to have a family budget. They know that sitting around the kitchen table and deciding what they are going to be able to spend for the year, what their income is going to be, is important before they embark upon a spending plan. Every family understands that when one creates a budget, everybody in the family needs to try to buy into it. This bill comes to the floor without any hearings, without any consultation with the White House, without any consultation with the Democratic side of the Congress. Every American family understands that one needs to pay off one's debts first when one establishes one's budget. We have a $5.7 trillion national debt. That ought to be the priority. We ought to be sure we are going to deal with that before we pass major tax relief. Every family understands one does not spend money that one does not have. One man on the other side of the aisle this morning said we had a $1.8 trillion surplus. Well, that is only true if one assumes that we are going to stay with the spending levels that we have in the year 2000. I suspect we will probably see inflation causing some of our spending to go up. For all of these reasons, we need to be sure that we oppose this rule and oppose this legislation.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for yielding. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) always does such an outstanding job on trying to be sure that we stay on a fiscally responsible course in this Congress through his membership on the Committee on Ways and Means and his leadership of our Democrats who are members of the Blue Dog Coalition, which, as the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) mentioned, is a group of Democrats, about 30 of us, who meet together every week and talk about being sure we keep this country on a fiscally responsible course. Now that is the main mission of the Blue Dog Coalition is to be sure we are fiscally responsible. And it is hard to understand how we can be here in the second full week of this Congress and have the Republican leadership come to the floor tomorrow with a marriage penalty tax cut bill. Now, all the Blue Dogs are united in favor of tax cuts. And the marriage penalty is one issue that we believe very strongly needs to be dealt with by the Congress. The problem is the Republican leadership have decided to take the same old approach that they provided in the trillion-dollar tax cut that they proposed last year that we Democrats opposed and the President vetoed, they have decided to take that trillion-dollar tax cut and cut it up into little bits and pieces and roll them out on the floor in one little bit and piece at a time. The same old proposal. Now, the House rules provide very clearly that you cannot consider a tax proposal, a tax cut, a tax bill until the Congress has adopted the annual budget. And that rule makes a whole lot of sense. You do not put the cart before the horse. The Committee on the Budget in this Congress has the responsibility to adopt a framework for the fiscal affairs of the Federal Government every year and to adopt a budget. Once we have adopted a budget and have decided how much we are going to allocate for the various spending needs, how much we have to pay down the national debt, how much we are going to apply to tax cuts, then we are ready to come to this floor and pass individual pieces of legislation, appropriation bills and tax cut legislation, to fit within the framework of the budget. For some reason, I guess in a complete abdication of fiscal leadership, the Republican leaders have decided they will just forget about a budget and they are going to bring the first of a series of tax cuts to the floor beginning tomorrow. Now, the truth of the matter is we all believe in cutting taxes. But the American people spoke loudly and clearly last year when, throughout my district, they told me they believe that the first priority of the Congress is to pay down that $5.7 trillion national debt. If we divide that debt out among all the families in America, for a family of four, it is about $84,000 per family. Now, that debt was run up over the last 30 years. When I came to Congress 2 years ago, 3 years ago now, one of the objectives I had was to be sure that we do not pass on that $5.7 trillion debt to our children and our grandchildren. And what better time to try to pay down the national debt than right now when economic times are good. This may be our best opportunity to deal with the national debt that, as the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) pointed out, takes about 13 percent of our budget every year just to pay the interest on that national debt. The debt is too big. We have had expert after expert come before this Congress and testify that the best tax cuts we can give the American people is to pay down the national debt. Because when we pay down the national debt, we take the Government out of the business of borrowing so much money and that means there is less demand for funds and interest rates all across this country will be lower. For most families trying to make ends meet, pay off a home mortgage, buy a car, send their children to college, and most folks have to borrow the money to do it, a lower interest rate will mean more to them than reduced taxes. When the trillion-dollar tax cut was brought to this floor and passed in this house, the Democrats unanimously proposed a better option. We said take 50 percent of our estimated future surplus, which we hope will be there, nobody knows for sure, but let us take 50 percent of the estimated surplus and let us use that to pay down that $5.5 trillion national debt; let us take 25 percent of the future surplus and use it to save Social Security and Medicare, which is going to be under great stress when folks my age begin to retire about 15 years from now; and let us take the last 25 percent and dedicate it to a good tax reduction that will benefit average working Americans.

Mr. TURNER. That point is certainly well taken. I think the benefits of paying down the debt maybe are not quite as obvious to the American people as we need to try to make it. Most of the people I talk to in my district are fiscally conservative folks that believe if you owe $5.7 trillion dollars, you ought to try to pay that down. They do not believe in owing money. Many folks do not realize in addition to paying down the debt, as the right thing to do, that we will get an interest dividend that the gentleman from Minnesota talked about. I really believe that the important thing for us to emphasize to the American people is that our Republican leadership, beginning tomorrow, is coming back with the same $1 trillion tax cut that they tried to pass last time and that the American people realized was just a ploy to try to show who could be for cutting taxes the most, and now they are breaking that big $1 trillion tax cut down into little pieces and trying to roll them out here on the floor, because it is harder to vote against a little tax cut than it was that $1 trillion one, hopefully forcing the Members of this House to vote for a tax cut. We are going to vote for a marriage penalty tax cut as Democrats, but we are going to do it in the context of a budget that reduces the national debt, that saves Social Security and provides the kind of tax relief that average working Americans need.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate an important milestone in the history of Bethel Missionary Baptist Church, of Crockett, Texas. On October 10, 1999, Bethel Missionary Baptist Church celebrated 134 years of service to this East Texas community. As the church members celebrate this important anniversary, I ask all of my colleagues to join with me today in recognizing this milestone. I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate Reverend Delvin Atchison for his continued leadership of the Bethel congregation. Organized in 1965 by newly-freed slaves, Bethel Missionary Baptist Church today is a vibrant and growing ministry. As a resident of Crockett, I can truly attest to the tremendous impact the church and its members continue to have on the lives of Houston County residents. Bethel Missionary Baptist Church has become known throughout Crockett and surrounding communities as ``A Community of Caring Christians.'' Through the years Bethel Missionary Baptist Church as profoundly influenced the life of our community because it has been blessed with lay leaders who have also been leaders in the civic, cultural and political affairs of Crockett, Houston County and the State of Texas. In addition, Bethel has benefited from the leadership of many gifted and talented ministers exemplified by its current pastor, Delvin Atchison. My personal relationship with Reverend Atchison and with the late Reverend J.T. Groves has been a blessing to me and my family. Their leadership has expanded the boundaries of influence of Bethel Missionary Baptist Church. Bethel's ministry has contributed not only to meeting the spiritual needs of the congregation but to the healing, reconciliation and racial harmony of the larger community. During the past 134 years, the members of the Bethel Missionary Baptist Church congregation have been at the forefront in advancing civil rights and civic participation and have fostered unity, justice and social progress for all citizens. Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my other distinguished colleagues to join me in congratulating the congregation of Bethel Missionary Baptist Church, under the guidance of Reverend Atchison, as it celebrates its 134th anniversary. All past and present church members and pastors should be proud of the numerous contributions Bethel Missionary Baptist Church has made in the spiritual life of the Crockett community over the past 134 years. May God continue to bless this ministry of service and caring.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1827, the Government Waste Corrections Act of 1999. I want to first commend the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), as well as the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), for their work and leadership in bringing this proposal to the floor. Mr. Speaker, it was shocking for our committee to learn that every year Federal agencies pay out millions of dollars to vendors and to government contractors that the agencies do not even owe. For example, between 1994 and 1998, private-sector defense contractors voluntarily returned to the government almost a billion dollars. Even more alarming is the fact that the government, the Department of Defense, did not even know that these overpayments had been made. No matter how efficient a financial management system is, overpayments do occur. And, in fact, the larger the volume of purchases, which in the case of the Department of Defense is in the billions of dollars, the greater the likelihood of overpayments. This legislation addresses this problem by requiring Federal agencies to use a financial management tool that is called recovery auditing. Recovery auditing is used to identify overpayments due to financial system weaknesses, problems with fundamental recordkeeping and financial reporting, incomplete documentation, and other weaknesses in a financial accounting system. It has been used very successfully by the automobile, retail, and food services industries in our country for more than 30 years. It is currently employed by the majority of the Fortune 500 companies. However, only a very few Federal agencies have utilized the process. One agency that has used recovery auditing is the Army and Air Force Exchange Service, which recovered $25 million in overpayments through recovery auditing in 1998. H.R. 1827 would require Federal agencies to conduct recovery auditing on all payment activities over $500 million annually on goods and services for the use or direct benefit of the agency. Recovery audits would be optional for other payment activities. This bill provides that the contractors simply identify potential overpayments. They have no authority to make determinations or to take collective action. These functions remain at all times with the agency itself. Audits are to be structured to produce the greatest financial gain to the government and must comply with a recovery audit standard to be set forth by the director of the Office of Management and Budget. Agencies would be authorized to conduct recovery audits in house, contract with private recovery specialists, or use any combination of the two. The agency head would have the authority to use contingency contracts, whereby a contractor would be allowed to retain a percentage of collections from the overpayments they identify during the audit. The agency head would also be free to adopt compensation arrangements other than contingency fees. The bill provides the amounts recovered will be available to pay for a recovery audit contractor or to reimburse appropriations for recovery audit costs incurred by the agency. At least 50 percent of the overpayments recouped will go back to the general treasury of the government. Up to 25 percent of the overpayments recouped may be used for a management improvement program designed to prevent future overpayments and waste at the agency. During the subcommittee markup on this bill, a number of concerns were discussed regarding reservations that the health care industry had about this bill. At that time, we, as a committee, pledged to work out a solution to those concerns before full markup. In keeping with that commitment, on November 10 the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute which limited this bill to direct services to the government. It is my understanding that this substitute alleviated the concerns that were expressed by the health care industry. Also, at the full committee I offered an amendment which the committee adopted relating to privacy protections for individually identifiable information. This amendment will provide safeguards and remedies to people who might have had their records misused by private recovery auditing firms. Additionally, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member, offered an amendment which was also adopted by the committee which ensures that the agency head will conduct a public-private cost comparison before deciding to contract for recovery auditing services on the outside. I appreciate the bipartisan manner that both of these amendments were negotiated under and which H.R. 1827 passed out of the committee on a voice vote. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1827 represents a significant step toward dealing with the billions of dollars in Federal overpayments that our committee discovered were made every year. I am pleased to be a cosponsor. Recovery auditing is simply good government. I again commend the gentleman from Indiana (Chairman Burton), the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), and the gentleman from California (Chairman Horn) for their leadership on the bill. I urge the House to adopt H.R. 1827. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for yielding the time and also for his leadership on the Committee on Agriculture in allowing us to pass this bill out of the committee and now bring it to the floor. I also want to thank the many who have joined together, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal), and the others, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) to be sure that we have a bill that we have reasonable expectations of seeing passed through the Congress, through the House, through the Senate. I want to emphasize at the outset that this bill is a very carefully crafted compromise; and though there will be an amendment offered today, at least one, I want all of the Members of the House to understand that the efforts that have gone into crafting this compromise, this very delicate compromise, is very important to preserve, to ensure that this bill will be well received when it reaches the Senate. This bill really arises out of a problem that has been growing for a number of years in many of our counties that are dependent upon revenues from our National Forest to support our county budgets and to support our school district budgets. In my own case, in east Texas, where we have four National Forests, the problem has been particularly acute, because we have been under an injunction in east Texas that has, for almost 2 years now, halted all harvesting in our National Forest. I think if we look at the situation in east Texas and all across the country, what we see is that our school districts and our county governments have been held hostage to the ongoing national debate over National Forest policy. I think that it is time for us to let our counties and our school districts be free of the impact, the adverse impact of that national debate. This bill is designed to do that by providing a guaranteed level of funding from our National Forest for those forest dependent counties and school districts. This is a very real problem. In fact, today we have with us here in the gallery two county judges from my own district, Judge Mark Evans and Judge Chris VonDoenhoff, who have fought the problems that have been brought about by the lack of revenues from our National Forest on their particular county budgets. They were a part of the coalition of school districts and county officials that have worked to bring this bill to the floor, a coalition that has 800 different organizations supporting this legislation. The counties that they represent each have lost significant dollars as a result of the injunction that now exists halting all harvesting of timber in our National Forests. In fact, when we compare the revenues that those two counties, Houston County and Trinity County, in east Texas received in 1996 to what they are receiving today, they have lost 90 percent of their revenues from the National Forest. So this is a very serious problem for all of the counties and school districts in areas where there are National Forests. We talked to an individual today in one of our school districts who advised us of the hardship that they are feeling as a result of the loss of revenues. There was even an article in one of my local papers recently that talked about the fact that one of the school bus drivers is having to drive a broken down school bus solely because the school district had to lay off the mechanics that take care of the maintenance of the school buses because of the loss of Federal forest revenues. So I am very pleased to be an original cosponsor of this bill. I am very pleased to have all of the Members that have joined with us on this compromise legislation. I think it is important for us all to understand that this is a bill that not only should be well received by those who are dependent upon forest revenues to operate their schools and their counties, but this is also a bill that should enjoy the support of the environmental community because it does have the effect of taking our school districts and our counties out of the middle of the national debate over National Forest management practices. I think it is time to do this. Our school districts deserve this kind of protection. Our counties deserve the protection. In the long-term, I think it is the right thing to do for the country. I hope all the Members will reject any amendments, help us preserve this compromise and vote in favor of this very good piece of legislation. Announcement by the Chairman pro tempore

Mr. TURNER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Udall amendment. It is interesting to listen to the debate thus far, and what we see is those who offer the amendment are opposed and will vote against the legislation, no matter whether the amendment goes on or not. In fact, it is important here to understand that when the delicate compromise was put together on this bill, the provision that we are now debating, the 20 percent set-aside for local projects, when that was placed in this delicate compromise, it was a major concession by the county officials, the school officials who formed the coalition that represents the group that is pushing the passage of this bill. I think it is important for us to understand that the passage of this bill will be a major victory, not only for the counties and schools that depend on forest revenues to run their counties and their school districts, but this bill will be a major victory for the environmentalists, because the formula placed in this bill will minimize the impact of harvesting of timber in our national forests, on our county budgets and school district budgets. That effect will remove our counties and school districts from the national debate over the management of our national forests, and that clearly is a big victory for the environmental community. With regard to the specific amendment being offered, I think it is interesting to note that if we survey the national battle over forest management policy, what we will find is more often than not the only discussion over that policy occurs in the courthouse when somebody files a suit, as happened in my own district in East Texas, where currently we are under an injunction where we cannot harvest timber, creating a severe financial hardship for my counties and school districts. What this amendment does, it basically requires the interested parties to get together and talk about the national forest, to talk about the proper utilization of it. The language was carefully crafted to ensure protection of environmental interests, because the advisory committee that will make a determination, with the approval of the Secretary, of what the 20 percent will be spent on locally consists of, and I am reading from the bill, ``Local resource users, environmental interests, forest workers, organized labor, elected county officials, school officials, or teachers.'' That is the coalition, that is the advisory group that will make the determination as to what happens with the 20 percent. So I say it was a major concession on the part of county officials and school officials to accept this language, which is a pro- environmental language section of the bill which ironically is now being opposed by those who purport to represent the environmental interests. I say that we are at a critical point in time in the national debate over forest policy. To defeat this bill would give up a historic opportunity to strike a compromise that will end the battle that has been ongoing between our school districts and our counties and the environmental community. So I would urge rejection of the Udall amendment, not because it is offered in bad faith, but because it jeopardizes a compromise that was reached with environmental interests that was agreed to by the coalition that supports the bill in the first place, and it will jeopardize the future of this legislation in the Senate.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill attempts to deal with a problem in Terre Haute, Indiana, represented by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pease). This problem he faces is not unlike a problem that many of us have or will experience in our own districts. Many of us have Federal buildings within our districts that oftentimes were built during the Depression era, buildings that are no longer up to current standards and are having difficulty being leased. These buildings, I think, are many times located in prime areas of our communities, in downtown locations, in commercial areas and many times these buildings have historical significance that warrant preservation. H.R. 2513 by the gentleman from Indiana deals with such a building located in his hometown of Terre Haute and it is a building that is currently owned by and partially occupied by the Postal Service. I have committed to helping the gentleman from Indiana with this bill not only because of my personal respect and admiration which I hold for him but also because I know that any one of us can and do face the same problem in our own districts. I am aware of the fact that the gentleman from Indiana has worked diligently for over 2 years to try to find a solution to this problem. This bill would transfer the Postal Service building from the Postal Service to the General Services Administration. The General Services Administration as consideration for the transfer would be obligated to permit the Postal Service to continue to occupy approximately 8,000 square feet of the building that has about 45,000 square feet of rentable space for free for a period of 20 years. The bill would also authorize an appropriation of $5 million to the GSA to renovate the building and to acquire parking. I fully appreciate the value of this building to the community of Terre Haute. This structure, which was constructed through a public works project during the Depression, is listed on the National Register of Historical Places. Aside from its historical significance, the building goes a long way toward enhancing the value of downtown Terre Haute by providing citizens a host of services that are easily accessible to the public. Citizens like to be able to walk across the street to visit the post office, visit the Social Security Administration. Time, however, has taken its toll on this building. It is deeply in need of repair and diminishing standards have made it difficult to keep the building operational. As I said, it is estimated by the GSA that the building would require between $4 million and $5 million in renovation. The citizens of Terre Haute under the leadership of the gentleman from Indiana have joined together to keep the Postal Service building as a viable part of the downtown area. In my opinion, the Federal Government has a clear duty to act as a responsible property owner and should be a partner in finding a solution to the future of this building. The building's historical significance and its importance to preserving the economic viability of the downtown area must be acknowledged by the Federal Government. However, I am deeply concerned about one provision of the bill, that provision which allows the Postal Service to occupy 8,000 square feet of space for 20 years at no cost. I recognize that the purpose of the free rent provision under the bill is to compensate the Postal Service for the value of the building. Yet without the whole building generating revenue, I anticipate that the expense of providing the Postal Service with free rent will greatly reduce the fair market value of the building. The free rent provision will amount to an encumbrance which will diminish the building's economic value for the next 20 years. As we all know, a lot can change in 20 years. All future prospective owners of the building may be discouraged from acquiring the building because of the heavy burden of free rent for the Postal Service. And the Postal Service has acknowledged that it intends to stay in the downtown area. They even acknowledged to us in a conference call that were they not in this building, they would move to another building a few blocks away where they would be required to pay rent. Why then should the Postal Service not continue to pay rent in the Postal Service building? That is a question that I do not know that we have a clear answer to. The Postal Service simply says that if they are going to transfer a building to the General Services Administration, they are due some consideration, that it has some value. This argument certainly is a sound one, if the building does in fact have economic value. But the estimates provided by the GSA indicate that the building in its current condition has little if any economic value and will require an expenditure of over $4 million to bring it up to a standard to attract tenants at market rates. And then, of course, the payout over the years of $4.2 million perhaps would make the building less attractive not only to the government but to any private investor considering such an investment. So having expressed my concern about the particular provision of the bill, I want to say again that I commend the gentleman from Indiana for his diligence in trying to deal with a problem common to all of us. I think that the proper thing for us to do is to support this bill, to move it forward, and in fact when we had a hearing on this bill, the gentleman from Indiana delayed moving the bill forward for 30 days to allow the GSA to come up with any viable option that they may have. Their efforts thus far have been unsuccessful, but he kept his commitment to do so and our commitment on this side of the aisle was to allow this bill to move forward and perhaps to move it to a point where some of the suggestions that I have made could be incorporated in the bill. We are supportive of the effort that the gentleman from Indiana has made. I commend him for what he is attempting to do for his community. I would urge adoption of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3137 and urge its passage today. I want to commend the gentleman from California (Chairman Horn) and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), for their efforts and their focus on this particular issue. The time between election day of a new President and the inauguration of that President is a very short period of time, and the transition from campaigning for the office and preparing then to govern in office is oftentimes a difficult one, and it certainly is a short one. This bill is designed to strengthen the Presidential Transition Act to amend that law which was originally passed in 1963 by authorizing the use of transition funds for the purpose of providing orientations for individuals that the President-elect plans to nominate to top White House positions, including Cabinet posts. The bill would likely affect the top 20, 30, or 40 appointments by the White House; and the bill would give greater assurance that the orientation process, which would take place before or shortly after the incoming administration assumes office, actually does occur. This orientation process provides an opportunity for a smoother transition for the new administration and would eliminate many of the mistakes that we often observe that occur because of the transition that many people who serve in an administration have to make into public life. Crafting an explicit provision on the propriety of spending funds for an appointee orientation is important for two reasons. First, the proposed language will reassure the transition team members that such spending is legal; second, the inclusion of such language into law will encourage transition teams to explore further orientation for political appointees. I believe it is important to provide these new appointees with a sense of the new job they will be undertaking. Other branches of our government currently undergo a similar process. I remember as an incoming freshman Member of this House in 1997, along with other Members of that freshman class, attending an orientation program for new Members of Congress at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. I personally found the program very helpful as I transitioned in to serving as a Member of this body. Even though I had been a Member of the Texas legislature for 10 years, I recognized very quickly that Congress is a different place, has a unique set of characteristics, and a range of issues that almost all new Members will be experiencing for the first time. Members of Congress are not alone. In the judicial branch, Federal judges attend an orientation program put on by the Federal Judicial Conference. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) mentioned, at our hearing on October 13, our subcommittee heard from a long list of distinguished witnesses who spoke in favor of this legislation. This bill passed out of our committee on October 28 with bipartisan support. It is noncontroversial; and I have full confidence that if we can pass this bill, it will help the new incoming administration be better prepared to govern. I urge the House to pass this law, and I commend again the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) for their leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill and urge its adoption. I want to recognize the hard work and vision and leadership provided by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). These two Members, working together, were the driving force behind the adoption of this bipartisan piece of legislation. It is no secret that State, Federal, local, and tribal governments, as well as nonprofit organizations, are very frustrated with the miles of red tape and regulations that they encounter when they have to apply for a Federal grant. The current system clearly is not user-friendly. In fact, the Federal government has spawned a cottage industry of people known as Federal grantsmen or Federal grants specialists who hire out to our local governments and our State governments just to fill out the paperwork to apply for a Federal grant. This legislation, which is similar to House Resolution 409, which was unanimously approval by this House on February 24, is designed to streamline and consolidate the grant application process. There are more than 600 Federal programs that provide financial assistance to State, local, and tribal governments and nonprofits. These funds and the organizations that use them provide vital services to the American public. Countless Americans rely on the Federal assistance that comes from Federal loans for education, job training funds, childhood programs, welfare benefits, medical care, and I could go on. As we all know, 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 repetitive. As a result, federally-funded programs are often forced to use time, effort, and money on paperwork, rather than applying those funds to providing the vital services that the public needs. As a former mayor of my hometown and as a former member of my State legislature, and as a former executive assistant to a former Governor of Texas, I sympathize with the frustration that people at the local and State level are experiencing when they are forced to handle burdensome Federal regulations for Federal loan applications and Federal grant applications. This bill would help solve that problem. It would streamline the application process, streamline the reporting process, promote the establishment of consistent procedures for financial assistance programs, and encourage the use of electronic application and reporting processes. It also will assure that the Federal government will receive timely and accurate reporting from the grantee. With the increasing use of block grants to the States, we should require greater accountability from grant recipients. It is my understanding that the Senate has agreed to the changes that we have made in this bill, and will quickly move to pass the legislation. I think we can all agree that this is a significant piece of legislation, and again, I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for their efforts on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who, as I mentioned a moment ago, is cosponsor of this bill and has worked tirelessly with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) to ensure its passage.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I too would urge adoption of this very good bipartisan piece of legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation and I urge its adoption. First I want to commend the gentleman from California (Chairman Horn) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member, whose joint work has allowed us to bring this bill to the floor. We all understand that our Government collects all kind of information. Some would say our government collects too much information. But the truth is much of this information that is collected is used to make very important policy decisions both in the agencies and on the floor of this House. It is important that this information be accurate and that it be readily available. Yet, today we have no uniform system for the collection of Federal statistics. Eleven major agencies and between 50 and 60 minor agencies spend over $2 billion every year collecting data with no uniform standards to assure either the accuracy or to protect the privacy and confidentiality of that information. Some agencies, like the Bureau of the Census, collect information and they hold that information in confidence and that is mandated by current legislative authority. But other agencies, like the Bureau of Labor Statistics, have a strong tradition of protecting the confidentiality of data but they have no legislative authority to support that practice. The ``Statistical Efficiency Act of 1999'' accomplishes two objectives. First of all, it establishes a uniform legislative authority for the protection of information collected for statistical purposes. Second, the legislation establishes a procedure to allow agencies to share information one with the other. This legislation will improve the efficiency of data collection and it will reduce the burden on individuals and businesses of responding to the mandates of various agencies for essentially the same information. The first step this bill takes in facilitating data sharing among agencies is to assure the privacy and confidentiality of the information collected. This is accomplished by establishing the basic principle that all data collected for statistical purposes cannot be used for any other purpose. For example, information collected for statistical purposes cannot be used for the enforcement of regulations or laws. This firewall between statistical purposes and regulatory enforcement is essential in obtaining the cooperation of businesses in reporting financial information. The second step in the process laid out in this bill is to designate eight agencies involved in the collection of statistics as statistical data centers to facilitate data sharing. Under the terms of the bills, these agencies can establish written agreements for passing individually identifiable information between one another to improve the efficiency of the statistical activities. In addition, these eight agencies can facilitate data sharing among other agencies, again through written agreement. I would like to note at this point that it is the intent of Congress in defining the term ``agent'' in this bill to give agencies the authority to swear in individuals who are not employees of the Federal Government as agents to facilitate data sharing. This will allow agencies like the Bureau of Labor Statistics to continue their long- standing relationship with State government for the collection of labor market statistics. In addition, it will allow agencies to draw on expertise in the private sector for specific projects. These agents will, of course, be subject to the same requirements to protect the confidentiality of data as Federal employees of the agencies involved. This bill also requires statistical data centers to identify ways to reduce costs and improve efficiency and quality in the Federal statistical system. The bill charges the Director of the Office of Management and Budget with the responsibility for overseeing the confidentiality and data sharing policies of the act. Finally, the bill establishes penalties for improper disclosure of information collected for statistical purposes. H.R. 2885 is strongly supported, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) stated, by the administration, and this legislation represents an important step forward in improving the efficiency and quality of data collection. I urge its adoption by this House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce that this month, Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, a major U.S. building products company, put into motion a program designed to identify and proactively manage ecologically significant habitat located on the company's lands. More than 4,300 acres encompassing 12 sites in Texas and Louisiana will be reviewed for their ecological value and conservation potential as part of Louisiana-Pacific's Living Legacy Lands program. Joining in this effort is the Nature Conservancy of Texas which will assist in the identification and management of designated sites. Louisiana-Pacific and The Nature Conservancy of Texas signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on October 5, 1999, to establish a framework for conservation and management actions of Louisiana-Pacific lands within the Piney Woods Ecological Region of East Texas and West Louisiana. The first conservation site designated under the MOU is located in Tyler County, Texas which is located in the 2nd Congressional District of Texas. This 1,300 acre site includes an area of woodpecker nests within one of the largest great stands of traditional longleaf pine forest in the Southern United States. Additional conservation acres will be identified and designated through the mutual agreement of Louisiana-Pacific and The Nature Conservancy. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask that you and the Congress join me in congratulating Louisiana-Pacific and The Nature Conservancy of Texas for their partnership and desire to conserve lands for generations of Americans.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, the Norwood-Dingell bill protects States' rights to regulate medical malpractice, a right that has existed for over 200 years. In Texas, we passed patient protection legislation. It is working. There is no reason to conclude that we will run to the courthouse or that there has been a rush of litigation. This House rejected the Boehner substitute because it allows insurance companies to avoid accountability. But equally damaging is to allow insurance companies to avoid medical malpractice laws of our 50 States by creating an exclusive preemptive Federal cause of action that is nothing more than the insurance company protection act of 1999. The Coburn substitute blatantly tips the scales of justice in favor of the insurance companies. It privatizes justice by giving a private panel the authority to make judicial findings that are binding on the Federal court. Giving private entities the power to make findings that bind the Federal court is unprecedented in American law, and this provision should be rejected. This substitute gives legal protection from liability to insurance companies enjoyed by no other group except foreign diplomats. We must protect patients. We must preserve accountability. We must preserve States' rights and reject the Coburn substitute.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, as a former member of a State legislature, both the House and Senate, I implore my colleagues today to support the Dingell-Norwood bill because it reserves in the States what for 2 centuries has been a clear right of every State in this Nation, and that is to control the medical malpractice laws of our country. Why should we be able to sue a doctor for malpractice in State court but have to go to Federal Court to sue a managed care company? That is what the Coburn substitute does. That proposal is wrong; it does injustice to our State legislatures who work hard to be sure that we have malpractice protections for our citizens. It creates a new Federal cause of action that means individuals will have to go into Federal court. If we read the Coburn substitute carefully, we will find out that it denies due process even after someone gets to Federal court, because the Coburn substitute says that when an individual gets to Federal court, it is the decision of the external review panel that governs and that individual has no right to challenge that once they get to Federal court. I think it is a travesty of justice to support the Coburn substitute, and I urge the passage of the Norwood-Dingell bill.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I was proud to join in signing that discharge petition because the truth is, we would not be here today had some of us not been willing to sign that discharge petition to allow this very critical issue to be brought to the floor of this House. The truth of the matter is, even after it has become apparent to everyone in this body that a majority of the Members of this House, if given the opportunity on a straight up or down vote, will vote for the Norwood-Dingell bill, the Committee on Rules has crafted a very complicated rule that most American people will never understand, whose sole purpose is to try to once again defeat the opportunity to pass strong patient protection legislation. The trick they have used is to attach another bill that has a nice ring to it, a bill to provide access to health care, that just happens to have a $40 billion to $50 billion price tag on it, a bill that never had any hearings in the Committee on Ways and Means, attached to the Norwood-Dingell bill in the complicated rule that is before this House, simply to weigh it down and try to get some of the folks that are supporting the bill to vote no. It is not going to work. At the end of the day, we will prevail because the American people want to see strong patient protection legislation.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, the managed care insurance industry has used the threat of lawsuits as a red herring in this debate. The insurance industry has chosen to use the oldest trick in the book to oppose the Norwood-Dingell bill, that is to say the problem is the lawyers. After all, no one likes lawyers, until they need one. The insurance industry knows that the law in Texas, that the Norwood- Dingell bill is modeled after, has not resulted in litigation. In fact, I was a part of helping that legislation become law in Texas when it was first introduced in 1995. Since its enactment in 1997, we have had only five lawsuits filed. In our Nation, there are two solemn principles guaranteed every person, rich or poor, wealthy or powerful, and even to the weak, and that is equal justice under the law and due process of law. Access to the courts ensures that every citizen, every business, every organization is accountable for their negligent actions. Only one group in our system of law is immune from litigation, and that is foreign diplomats. The insurance industry in this debate tonight wants to add one other group. That is the insurance companies themselves want to be immune from liability. Now, no one wants to go to court, and the Norwood-Dingell bill has embraced a full internal and external review process to avoid having to go to court. But in the last analysis, the protections the American people deserve under our constitution is the right to have access to the courts. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost of legal accountability would be 12 cents per month per patient. And the CBO says that half of that cost would be because the insurance companies would implement review standards to be sure that no patient is denied quality care. Sounds like a pretty good investment to me. Every individual, every business understands that they are accountable for their negligent acts in our society; that they can land in court. Managed care insurance companies should be accountable too. Support the Norwood-Dingell bill. It has worked in Texas, and it will work for all Americans.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 75th anniversary of Toastmasters International, which since its conception on October 22, 1924, has grown to over 8,000 clubs and 200,000 members in 60 countries worldwide. During the past 75 years, Toastmasters International has performed a valuable service for its members and those who hear its message of opportunity, initiative and good fellowship by assisting in the development of essential communications skills. One of the Toastmasters' most remarkable, yet challenging, efforts has been the formation of clubs within prisons to teach inmates how to effectively communicate to others and accept criticism. I am especially proud of the Sabine River Toastmasters in Orange, Texas. One year ago, the Sabine River Toastmsters formed a club in the LeBlanc Prison, which is located in Jefferson County in East Texas. This club has been responsible for numerous success stories during the past year, and I am confident that the inmates of East Texas will continue to benefit from this encouragement and assistance in the development of improved communication skills for many more years to come. The ability to speak in a clear and effective manner is a powerful and important skill that can help all Americans overcome barriers to effective performance in virtually every endeavor and line of work. With the guidance of Toastmaster members, inmates are becoming better communicators with a greater sense of confidence, self-esteem and self- respect, and they are therefore better prepared and qualified for employment after being released from prison. Not only are the inmates encouraging and inspiring each other to become better citizens, but they are also taking active roles in the lives of our Nation's youth by discouraging them from repeating the same mistakes they made by joining gangs or using drugs and alcohol. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 35 to 40 percent of all released prisoners are re-arrested within the first 12 months of release. Of the LeBlanc Toastmasters' 55 released alumni, 2 have been re-arrested, which is one tenth of what the statistics would have predicted. I would like to applaud the Sabine River Toastmasters for helping these 53 men who have built new lives for themselves after being released from prison. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask that you join me and our colleagues in celebrating the week of October 17, 1999, as Toastmasters Week and recognizing the many opportunities in communication and public speaking that Toastmasters International, and specifically the Sabine River Toastmasters, have promoted and realized for East Texans and Americans all across the nation.