Jim Turner

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, all three of the Texans here tonight served in the legislature, and we all have fought for this issue in our State legislature, and that is one of the reasons we feel so strongly about the fact that the protections that we have provided in law for all Texans should be protections that every American enjoys. I am glad to see the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) here tonight who is a medical doctor who has fought hard on the Republican side to help pass the Norwood-Dingell bill, also referred to as the Bipartisan Consensus Managed Care Improvement Act, which I think aptly describes the bill that we are trying to pass because it has been crafted with bipartisan support. It has been worked on for many, many months. Those who have worked on it have been responsive to any concern that has been expressed about it. We are convinced that it is the right bill, and this is the right time to pass these protections for all Americans. As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) mentioned, I was in the Texas Senate in 1995 when the Texas legislature passed the first patient protection legislation in the country. That bill, unfortunately, was vetoed by Governor Bush. The legislature came back in Texas in 1997 and passed similar legislation once again, broke it down into four separate bills. Three of those bills were signed by the Governor. The fourth he allowed to become law without his signature. Unfortunately, when we passed the bill the first time in 1995, even though we passed it with overwhelming support, over 90 percent of the members of each house voting in favor, we passed it at the end of the session, and the Governor was able to veto it without an opportunity to overturn the veto. But we are here tonight to try to provide the same kind of protections for all Americans that we provided for Texans in 1997. When we passed that bill in 1995 and again in 1997, we had no idea that it would not apply to all Texans. But an insurance company went to court shortly after we passed our legislation and it had become law, and the courts ruled that a Federal law preempted our State law, and that all insurance plans covered by the ERISA law that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) referred to at Federal law meant that those protections that we had provided in our State legislature did not apply to all of those plans that were multi-State plans covered under the Federal ERISA law. So we have a very awkward situation all across the country today because State after State after State have passed patient protection legislation to protect their patients. Yet, we find there is a Federal law standing in the way that has basically meant that about 40 percent of all the folks that are insured in this country under managed care are not covered by the basic patient protections that their State legislatures have passed over the last 2 and 3 years. So the Norwood-Dingell bill is designed to change that, to be sure that all people enrolled in managed care plans have the same protections that we believe are just common sense. Things like ensuring that a patient can go to the nearest emergency room when he has an emergency. Rights like being able to go to the doctor in your own town rather than going to a doctor in an adjoining community. Rights like having access to go to a specialist when one needs one when one's doctor says he wants to refer one to a specialist. Basic rights like not being forced to change doctors and hospitals right in the middle of one's treatment just because one's employer happens to change their managed care company. Basic protections like making sure that medical decisions are made by doctors, not by insurance company clerks. These are the basic protections that we provided in Texas in 1997, and these are the basic protections that we want to provide for all patients across the United States in the Norwood-Dingell bill. One of the things that always amazes me, we faced it in 1995 in Texas, we faced it in 1997 in Texas, and now we are facing it here in Washington in 1999, with the managed care companies saying that the sky is going to fall if we pass this legislation. They are claiming that health care costs are going to go up. They had even gotten the folks who carry their insurance for the employers and the business community all worked up and speaking out against this bill because they think the cost of insuring their employees is going to go up. As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) pointed out, the Congressional Budget Office says the cost of this legislation would be less than $2 a month per patient. Very small cost in my judgment to protect patients. When it comes right down to it, business people in this country care very much about their employees and their employees health care. I think most businessmen and women understand that, when they sign up with an insurance company to provide health insurance for their employees, they want a plan that is going to take care of those employees. Right now, we have a situation where these basic protections are not guaranteed, and some managed care companies, I understand, today, are already providing these, but many are not. I really think it would be a lot easier for the average businessman or woman in selecting health insurance for their employees to know that every plan, no matter what proposal is laid on their desk, and no matter what price is offered to them for coverage of their employees, that they know these very basic common sense protections are in every plan. Right now, I think health care is in turmoil in this country. Doctors are not happy, having to make ten and twenty phone calls to a managed care company just to get something approved that they know their patient needs. I have talked to these doctors. They are really frustrated with the system as we know it today. I have talked to patients who wonder why they cannot get simple care from a specialist simply because their plan denies them access to a specialist. They do not understand that kind of treatment. They do not understand why they cannot go to an emergency room and have a doctor in the emergency room make a decision as to whether or not there is an emergency rather than having to get on the phone and call the insurance company clerk in some far-off city and find out whether or not they can receive emergency treatment. Those kind of basic protections patients deserve. Employers who want to take care of their employees want this kind of protection for their employees as well. The truth of the matter is, if we are going to have a health care system in this country that works for everybody, the employers, those who are insured, the doctors, and other health care providers, we need to pass this legislation, because the further we go down the road and find patients being abused and managed care companies doing a shoddy job of rendering care, the more we are going to undermine what has become known for many years as the finest system of health care in the entire world. So what we are really fighting for here tonight is, not only the protection of patients, individual patients and their families, but we are fighting to preserve the finest quality system of health care the world has ever known. We need the stability in health care that this legislation will provide. Now, the big debate is over this issue of accountability. Should a managed care company be accountable for their decisions? Well, frankly, I think that the answer is pretty obvious. Certainly they should be accountable. All of us are accountable for our decisions. All of us can end up in court if we are negligent or make a mistake. Frankly, the rule really is pretty simple, I think, that should be applied in this debate; and that is, when health insurance companies make medical decisions, they should be accountable in the same way that one's doctor is accountable when he makes a health care decision. We all know in this country that, if a doctor happens to make a mistake in the operating room, happens to do something that causes injury to one or one's children, that one can go to the courthouse and seek redress, seek recovery of injuries. A child who is paralyzed for life because of a mistake of a medical provider, that family can go to court, be compensated in damages. That is what our American system of legal justice guaranties all of us. If a managed care company makes a decision that denies one health care when it is covered under the plan, now if it is not covered, it is just not covered and it is not going to be paid for, but if it is covered and, in their review of medical necessity they say one does not need that care, one's doctor is standing there all the while saying, yes, my patient needs that care, and the managed care company says, no, and one goes under the Norwood-Dingell bill and appeals that internally, and one appeals that externally, and one has got a decision, and one finds out that still the decision of the managed care company was wrong, every American ought to have the right to go to the courthouse and seek their damages. That is what the American system of justice is all about. So if a doctor makes a mistake, he knows he has to go to the courthouse or could go to the courthouse. That is why he buys malpractice insurance. What is wrong with asking managed care companies to also carry malpractice insurance? Every profession in the United States, every individual who is a doctor, a lawyer, an engineer carries malpractice insurance. It is a wonderful thing, insurance. We spread the risk of loss among all of us to protect each of us individually. Why should we in this hallowed hall of the House of Representatives declare this week that the only group in America that can never be held accountable in a court of law is a managed care insurance company? That is wrong, and we cannot let that happen. I think we have a good bill. It ensures accountability, and it is drafted in a fair way. The only way one can go to court and sue a managed care company under this legislation is after one has gone through the internal and the external review procedure. In Texas, the sky has not fallen. In Texas, we have the right to go to the courthouse. As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) pointed out, there has only been a handful of lawsuits. In fact, there has only been five filed in Texas. The author of the legislation that did pass in 1997, Senator David Sibley, a Republican, good friend of mine, carried that bill. He says, and I quote, ``The sky did not fall. Those horror stories raised by the industry just did not transpire.'' Dave Sibley, the sponsor of the bill is a lawyer, former doctor, an ally of Governor Bush. Even Governor Bush acknowledged in the Washington Post September of this year that he believes the law in Texas has worked well. I believe every American deserves the protection that we fought to give Texans in 1997. This legislation is long overdue. I appreciate so very much the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) reserving this hour to give us the opportunity to talk about this important bill. I believe the American people want this legislation. I believe the employers of this country who believe in protecting their employees want this legislation. I believe we need to ensure the long-term stability of the best health care system the world has ever known, and this bill moves us along the road in ensuring that.

Mr. TURNER

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

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the leadership that the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) have given to this issue. It seems like this is an issue that continues to gain momentum. I know we have been talking about this issue for well over a year, when we first introduced the legislation in the 105th Congress and then we came back with the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), reintroduced it in the 106th, and it is good to know that we now have over 125 that have joined with us. I have full confidence that that number will continue to grow because this is not an issue that is hard to explain. The American people and our senior citizens understand full well that the price of prescription drugs are too high. I brought with me tonight a few letters that I have just received in just the last few weeks, a continuation of mail that all of us get about this subject, particularly from our senior citizens. It is an issue that hits real close to home. In fact, the first time that we introduced this legislation in the 105th Congress I went around to pharmacies all across my district and I went there because pharmacists have understood this problem for years. They have even fought the big drug manufacturers in court, with little success, I might add, trying to end the practice of price discrimination that was exhibited on the charts by my colleagues here tonight. I met with a lady in Orange, Texas, that I will never forget. She became the subject of a newspaper article in the Houston Chronicle. Her name is Frances Staley, a lovely lady, 84 years old and blind. She came to my little meeting there at the pharmacy because that is where she trades and she heard I was coming to town. She just came by to say how much she appreciated the efforts we were making in the Congress to try to hold down the cost of prescription drugs. She spends most of her Social Security check every month on her prescription medication. She takes 14 different medicines. She told me that she really hoped that we could pass this bill. It would mean a lot to her. This bill is not only for Mrs. Staley. It is for people like Joe and Billie O'Leary in Silsbee, who recently wrote me about the fact that they spend more than $400 a month on prescription medications. It is about folks like Archie and Lena Davidson of Vidor who came up to me in a town meeting that I had just in the month of August. I went around to 70 of my communities and at every stop I talked about this issue. These folks knew I was coming and they brought by a computer printout of their prescription drug bill that they had incurred at their local pharmacy since January. It is just shocking to look at the expenses that they have incurred; $3,526 for both Mr. and Mrs. Davidson since the first of the year. They said they really hoped that we could pass this bill. Another couple that wrote me recently, Charles and Louise Ashford, spend $370 every month for 7 prescription drugs. They wrote a very long letter that really said a whole lot about the importance of this issue to our senior citizens. They wrote, and I want to read a part of their letter, most of the elderly have several ailments that require several prescriptions per month. The best and latest treatments for some ailments and diseases are priced out of the range for many of us on Medicare. Some treatments are available only for those who can afford it. I have found the problem is not that the older people want free medicine. They want medicine priced reasonably so they can afford it. What good is research and finding cures for diseases if a larger part of our population cannot afford the medicine for the cure? I feel our government has failed the elderly and those in bad health in this country for not capping the price of medicine. Some of the most wealthy people in the world are those owning pharmaceutical companies. They are allowed in the U.S.A to charge whatever for their medicine. That should be medicine that should be available at a reasonable price. We all know that the same medicines are cheaper in Canada and Mexico. Many of our elderly are widows whose husbands worked when wages were much lower than now and do not get much of a retirement check or Social Security. They write, I think some of our legislators have lost touch with reality if they are not aware of the high cost of medicine. Mrs. O'Leary said in her letter that she and her husband are rather healthy. They do not take heart medicine, stroke medicine, cancer medicine but they still spend close to $100 every month for her medications and over $300 a month for her husband's. She wrote, the people who are having to pay the high costs are the ones least able to pay. Let us be fair to all. Please, she writes, try to cap the prices pharmaceutical companies are allowed to charge. Then we can all afford to pay for our own medicine. Listen to the closing paragraph, which I think kind of says it all from our senior citizens. She writes, our generation worked hard. We, through our taxes and our efforts, helped pay for schools, public buildings, highways, bridges and helped pave the way for those now young. In the prime of our lives we fought in the wars for this country and to keep our country free. We believe our country is big enough, with all of the resources, to provide reasonable health care and affordable medicine for all. That is the message that this Congress needs to hear, and I really do think that it is time for more of our colleagues to join with us to address this very, very serious problem.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I thought the gentlewoman brought up a very important point when the gentlewoman mentioned the patent law. I find it amusing to watch these ads featuring Flo that are paid for by the big pharmaceutical manufacturers, and Flo raises her finger and she says, I do not want government in my medicine chest. Well, the truth is, as the gentlewoman pointed out, government is in her medicine chest, because the laws of the United States protect those drug companies from competition because we, under law, grant them a 17-year- patent on their medicines that they are always up here fighting to get extended. That law guarantees them a monopoly over the drug that they have done the research to create and bring to the market. Frankly, I think that is a good law, because the purpose of the patent law is to encourage the development of new drugs, new cures, and we have seen many of them in recent years. In fact, back when the Medicare program was first put in place in the mid sixties, nobody thought about covering prescription drugs because it was a very small part of our total health care costs. But today prescription drugs are a major part of all of our health care costs, and that is why the problem we are talking about tonight is such a serious one for senior citizens, particularly those who are on fixed incomes. I think what I would like to do, if we had the millions of dollars that the big drug manufacturers have, I would like to put my constituent that I talked about earlier, Ms. Daley from Orange, Texas, on TV. She would tell a different story than Flo. Or the lady that I read the letter from just a few minutes ago, Ms. O'Leary, I believe she could handle herself in debating Flo. She is the one that said in her letter, ``What good is research and finding cures for diseases if a large part of our population cannot afford the medicine for the cure?'' I think the senior citizens of the country get it. I really never have paid a whole lot of attention to those expensive ads that featured Flo, because I think the people out there watching those ads are smarter than that.

Mr. TURNER. If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Speaker, the point the gentleman makes about the big drug manufacturers and the involvement they already have with government is an important one, because we are all very proud of the fact that the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, protects the prescription drugs that we purchase every day. I think most of us in the last analysis would support the policy of granting a patent to our big drug manufacturers to encourage them to make the necessary financial investment to come up with new drugs and cure serious diseases. But it just seems to me that in exchange for that protection under the patent law, that the big drug manufacturers owe us at least one thing back. That is, fairness in drug pricing. I am a firm believer in the free enterprise system. I believe that government ought to stay out of the business world as much as possible, because I believe in innovation and entrepreneurship. But the truth is the free market system that we all believe in is not working in the drug industry. The reason it is not working is apparent to anyone who looks even glancingly at the problem, because it is our patent law that the people of the United States have put on the books to encourage the drug companies to develop new, innovative drugs that gives them a monopoly. We all understand that the free market never works when there is a monopoly. So if we are going to protect the big drug companies and allow them to make the necessary investments to come up with new cures, what they owe us back is fairness in drug pricing. I want to make it very clear, and oftentimes our bill, people who look at it in the big drug industry, they say, oh, you are fixing prices. You are trying to control prices. There is nothing in this legislation that controls prices. It simply requires fairness in pricing. We simply say that senior citizens ought to be getting as good a deal as the best customers of the big drug companies. That is what we mean by fairness. We want an end to the discriminatory pricing practices of the big drug companies. So I do not know how long the big drug companies want to spend millions of dollars perpetuating a discriminatory pricing scheme that is working to the disadvantage of the most vulnerable segment of our population. But I will tell the Members this, if they persist, if they persist, there is going to be some people in this Congress who are going to look real hard at the patent protections that they are given under current laws. There are people who are going to start asking some serious questions about the big multimillion dollar expenditures of the big drug companies on lobbying this Congress. There are some people who are going to start asking some questions about the substantial political contributions that those pharmaceutical companies are making. I say that the best advice that I think we can give the big drug companies tonight is to listen to the senior citizens of this country. They are tired of being taken for a ride. They want fairness in drug pricing. The drug manufacturers themselves have it within their power, without any legislation, to correct the problem, and I hope they will start down that road. Because if they do not get there, this Congress is going to help them get there.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, our Prescription Drug Task Force that we all serve on, we had a meeting a few months ago where we had a presentation from a gentleman who had done extensive research at a respected university regarding the pricing practices in other countries, and it was interesting to note that we in the United States were the only country in the entire developed world that does not have some restraint on pricing practices of big pharmaceutical companies. Well, that being the case, I guess it should be no surprise to us that we in the United States are paying the highest prices of anyone in the world for prescription drugs. I think there is going to come a point in time, and I think it is coming sooner than later, that the American people are going to rise up and they are going to say, we are tired of it. We are tired of subsidizing the prescription drug purchases of everybody else in the world, and we want some prescription drug fairness. So when we are looking at the data that clearly shows us that there is price discrimination worldwide working to our disadvantage and price discrimination within our own country, that is resulting in everyone at the retail pharmacy level paying the highest prices of anyone, I think it is time to wake up and for us to do something about it.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I just want to follow up on the gentleman's comment about the big drug manufacturers' opposition to having any prescription drug coverage under the Medicare program. I think it is pretty apparent to those others who have studied this issue a little while why they have such strong opposition. They know that if we ever have a prescription drug coverage under Medicare, the Government is not going to pay those exorbitantly high prices that our senior citizens are having to pay today in their local pharmacies. So they are afraid of any suggestion that there be any coverage for prescription drugs under Medicare, and the truth of the matter is, the problem that we have addressed in this legislation could be solved by the big drug manufacturers themselves. In fact, we know that most of our senior citizens understand that even the Government gets cheaper prices than they do. The Government is a big purchaser. We buy prescription drugs for our veterans that are prescribed for them through the Veterans' Administration health care programs, and if we could just get those kind of prices for our senior citizens, we could see prices go down 30 and 40 percent. So the big drug companies know that their pricing practices over the last few years, which have gotten worse and worse and worse in terms of the discriminatory nature of them, has been the cause of the legislation we have brought forward. If they really did what is right, they could solve the problem themselves, because they are the ones that set these discriminatory prices, which has resulted in our seniors paying the highest prices of anyone.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I have always thought that that was one of the best things about this piece of legislation, because it simply asks for fairness in drug pricing. It has no cost to the Federal Government. Ms. O'Leary referred to the fact that she felt we ought to cap drug prices. Well, actually, we do not even cap drug prices in this legislation. We simply say to the big drug manufacturers, it is time to stop the kind of discriminatory pricing practices that we have exhibited through these studies. I have had many pharmacists tell me that they are really very proud of what we are trying to do because as most of us know, particularly those of us who live in rural areas, independent pharmacists are a dying breed. Many people wonder, why is the drugstore on the corner no longer there. Well, the reason is the subject we are talking about tonight, because the big drug manufacturers have put them in a very difficult financial position by charging the wholesalers they have to buy from higher prices than the big drug manufacturers charge the big HMOs and the big hospital chains; and that price discrimination has worked to the disadvantage of any individual who shops in a local pharmacy in their hometown. Mr. Speaker, 60 percent of all prescription drugs are purchased by senior citizens, so the bottom line is those least able to pay in our society are being asked by the big drug manufacturers to pay the highest prices of anyone. I had an e-mail from a pharmacist just a few days ago. He said, ``Dear Congressman Turner, I am pleased to see you are making efforts to address the high cost of prescription medications for our senior citizens. Being a registered pharmacist for 20 years, and having parents in the targeted age group, I am very aware of this problem.'' So our pharmacists know what has been going on, and our senior citizens are beginning to understand that it is the big drug manufacturers that are causing them to pay much higher prices than they should be paying for prescription drugs. I yield to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) and I appreciate the compliment about our age. I am not sure we deserve it. But it has been a pleasure to join the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) in this dialogue this evening.

Mr. TURNER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, one of the other things that comes to my mind as a member of the Committee on Armed Services is the fact that all this projection about a surplus does not take into account the very serious and legitimate needs that we have for funding national defense. I was a cosponsor of the legislation that we passed overwhelmingly in this House, and that has moved through the Senate and is now signed by the Senate, to create a national missile defense system for the United States to protect us against the growing threat of ballistic missile attack from nations like Iran, Iraq, North Korea. Yet, there is absolutely nothing in that estimate of a surplus that would allow any funds to be spent to develop a national missile defense system. I know the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) is very familiar with the problems being faced by agriculture, the problems of emergency expenditures. I know the gentleman certainly would be able to enlighten us some on the pressures on agriculture and the emergency spending that invariably we have to deal with that again is not accounted for in that estimate of surplus.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) have heard from our veterans. At many of our town meetings, I have heard veterans come and talk to me about the problems they have experienced in getting veterans care because of some of the reductions that have already been put in place.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I am very confident that, if we can bring both sides of this House together and get them down to the table, that we could come up with a plan that would look very much like the plan that the Blue Dog Democrats proposed months ago, which was, as the gentleman says, a balanced budget and one that took care of the legitimate needs that we face in this country. One of the interesting subjects that I have heard the gentleman address before that I want to ask him about is the impact of a $794 billion tax cut that the President is going to veto here in just a few days. What that would do, not just on the short term, but the next 10 years, which is what we have been talking about, but what would happen in the out years if we were to take such an action as reducing taxes by that much when we do not even have a surplus to do it from.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) and I have been in this Congress, in this House, a little over 2 years now, and the gentleman has been here over 20 years. I would be interested in the gentleman's observations about the impact of our budget situation on Medicare, Medicaid, particularly in light of the fact that so many of us have begun to hear from the health care providers, the hospitals in our district, that they are increasingly feeling the pinch of reductions in reimbursement rates under Medicare. In fact, in Texas they estimate that there may be as many as 50 hospitals closed if we in the Congress fail to provide some additional funds for Medicare. We all know in this projected budget surplus, the assumption is that there will not be any increase in Medicare. In fact, it goes down under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, and thereafter remains below the increase that would be necessary just to keep up with inflation. I think a lot of our health care providers understand that, and they are warning us that unless we are going to be willing to act responsibly with regard to funding Medicare and Medicaid, that we may lose some of our hospitals. For those of us in rural areas of the country, to lose a hospital would virtually close down our communities.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to compliment the gentleman on his strong leadership that he has given to us in this Congress on fiscal issues. He has always stood for fiscal conservatism, and I think the issues that we are talking about today we need to have a full debate and discussion on them. I had the opportunity over the last few weeks during our August recess to stop in 70 communities in my east Texas district, and I did a little coffee shop tour and I went around and visited with folks in those coffee shops where we all know they solve a lot of problems early in the morning. And I just talked to them about this tax reduction proposal that had just passed in the Congress, I talked to them a little bit about the national debt, and it was indeed refreshing to me to see how well the people of my district understand what is really going on here in Washington. A lot of folks up here have talked about a surplus, and we all know the truth of the matter is the surplus that is being talked about is merely a projection of what might happen over the next 10 years. In truth and fact, it is based on some assumptions that may not even turn out to be true. We really may never have a surplus. In fact, I will not forget what one gentleman told me down in Willis, Texas at the first stop that I made at the Willis City Hall, and he said to me, after I began to talk about the surplus and the national debt, he raised his hand and he said, Congressman, he says, you all do not have any surplus in Washington, you have a $5 trillion national debt. You cannot have a surplus if you owe $5 trillion. And that makes a lot of sense. It is hard to understand how, after the Federal Government spent more money every year for 30 years, ran up a $5.5 trillion national debt that we would come up here in this hallowed hall and declare we have a surplus, particularly when the surplus is only an estimate. It is not here yet; we have not seen it yet; it may never show up. And yet, the majority in this Congress saw fit to pass a $792 billion tax reduction over 10 years that absorbed all of the anticipated, hoped for, not here yet surplus in the general fund of the Federal budget. Now, that was just irresponsible. The people of this country understand that it was irresponsible, and they understand that if one is fiscally conservative, one pays their debts. And now that we have a hope of better economic times in the Federal budget, what we ought to be doing is paying down that $5.5 trillion national debt. The Blue Dog Democrats made a proposal on the floor of this House just before the recess when we were debating that $792 billion tax cut. We had an alternative that we voted for. In fact, most of the Democrats in this House voted for it. That was a very simple plan. It said, if we do have a surplus over the next 10 years, what we ought to do is dedicate half of it to paying down that national debt, and we ought to set aside 25 percent of it to be sure that we save Social Security and Medicare, both of which, by the way, are going into bankruptcy. After all, 30 years from now, they tell us there are going to be twice as many people over 65 in this country as we have today. And the projections have been before this Congress for months, for years, that Social Security and Medicare will be insolvent. Mr. Speaker, we have been real lucky with Social Security for a long time. We put more money in the trust fund every year in payroll taxes than we took out in benefits. But to tell us that in 15 years when most of us baby boomers begin to retire, that is going to change. We are going to be paying out more money in benefits every year than we take in. One of the reasons that we feel so strongly about paying down the national debt is that it will allow us to pay back that debt that we owe the Social Security Trust Fund, because somebody some years ago in this Congress decided it was a smart thing to do to use the surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund to run the rest of the government that was running in a deficit instead of borrowing it from the public. So it borrowed from Social Security. We are going to need that money in the Social Security Trust Fund real soon. It is time to start paying back that debt, and we can do that, by paying down the national debt, because $800 billion of that $5.5 trillion national debt is owed to the Social Security Trust Fund, and we need to pay it back. We also think that it is important to dedicate 25 percent of any future surplus to save Social Security, to save Medicare, and the final 25 percent should be dedicated to reducing the taxes of the American people. That is a balanced plan; that is a plan that preserves the economic security of this country; it preserves the retirement security of all of us; it preserves our health care security. It is the right thing to do for America. It is not an irresponsible plan that would give away in a tax reduction plan all of a surplus that is not even here yet. Now, there were some on the floor of this House that argued in favor of that tax cut and they said well, we cannot trust this Congress, because if they get a surplus, they are going to spend it. Well, that is pretty cynical, particularly when coming from folks that currently are in the majority. We have enough sense in this body, collectively, to save the surplus, to pay down the debt, to save Social Security, to save Medicare. We have that ability. We just need to sit down at the table together, work together in a bipartisan way and do the right thing. The President is right to veto this $792 billion tax cut. It is the wrong thing to do for America, and if we pay down the debt, we can actually do more for working families than anything in this $792 billion tax cut. In fact, if we look at the tax cut closely, what we will find is that there is really no tax cut next year. The tax cut follows the anticipated surplus which, as I said, may never show up. But next year, under that tax plan, only six-tenths of 1 percent of the total tax cut would be realized, and most families would not even get anything. In fact, an average family making $50,000 a year would not see any significant tax reduction until the tenth year when they would see $300 in tax reductions. Now, we can do more for working families in this country simply by paying down the national debt, because the economists tell us that paying down the national debt will reduce interest rates for all of us, and a mere 2 percent reduction in interest rates for a family that is paying off a $50,000 home mortgage would save that family over $800 in interest costs, almost three times what they would get out of this irresponsible tax cut in the tenth year of the plan. So, Mr. Speaker, let us do the right thing. Let us lay it on the table. Let us be honest with the American people. They already understand that there is no surplus in Washington, and they understand that we need to pay down the national debt. That is the right thing to do. I appreciate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), and the leadership he has given, and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), who has also worked very hard on this issue, and I think if we persist in our efforts, ultimately, both sides of the aisle will see the wisdom of doing the right thing.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this conference committee report. I want to recognize the outstanding leadership of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) who guided us to the point we are today. This bill addresses the concerns of the Joint Chiefs of staff who told us earlier this year that the risk to our ability to meet our national military commitments was moderate to high. Earlier this year, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) urged our committee that this year be remembered as the ``Year of the Troops,'' and I am very pleased that this historical conference committee report honors that pledge. This bill contains the best compensation package for the military since the early 1980s. This bill also strengthens our national security by adding $368 million to develop and field effective theatre and national missile defenses to counter rapidly evolving ballistic missile threats. The conference committee took action in response to the Cox Committee recommendation for reassessment of the adequacy of the current arrangements for controlling U.S. nuclear weapons securities. When the Secretary of Energy disagreed with portions of the proposed reorganization, the committee listened to his concerns and yielded to him on several points. On balance, I am confident the reorganization will result in improved accountability and improved security within our nuclear weapons programs and it deserves our support. I urge our colleagues to support the conference committee report.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, the time has come to take the for-sale sign off the door of the United States Congress. The public's trust and confidence in government has been seriously eroded by a system that allows big money to have too much influence on the political process. Mr. Chairman, we currently have a broken system of campaign finance. There are two ways to give, hard money which honors the intent of the law to limit contributions and disclose the source, and the other way, soft money, which skirts the law and allows unlimited amounts to be given from undisclosed sources. No wonder most Americans no longer believe government to be of, by, and for the people; and the problem is getting worse. In the 1992 cycle there was $86 million raised in soft money, in 1996 it climbed to $262 million, and in 2000 it is estimated to be $500 million or more; and no one benefits from the corrupting influence of soft money. The donors do not like the constant pressure or the shake- down to donate soft money, the political candidates do not like to be ambushed by soft money, and most importantly, the citizens of this Nation do not like the influence of soft money.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, the chart to my right compares the Republican tax cut plan with the tax cut plan of the Democrats. It is really very simple. We take the $1 trillion general operating budget surplus and we apply it to some very legitimate problems that we are facing in the Federal Government. We apply 25 percent to tax cuts, we apply 25 percent to save Social Security and Medicare, we apply 50 percent to debt reduction. Under the Republican plan, all of it is devoted to tax cuts. This is a very risky plan for us to follow. First of all, the Republican tax cuts are aimed at Wall Street, not at Main Street where our plan aims them. Secondly, we save Social Security and Medicare by applying 25 percent of the on-budget surplus to those purposes. The Republicans like to claim that they have saved Social Security in their plan. Well, frankly, we have already done what they say they are doing in their tax cut. We have lock-boxed Social Security, we all voted for it, Democrats and Republicans. We have taken care of that and it is important that we do that. Finally, we apply 50 percent of the on-budget surplus to debt reduction. After 29 years of running up $5.5 trillion in national debt, do you not think that we could at least wait 1 year until we have a true on-budget surplus? Apparently the Republicans do not think so. Democrats do. We think we ought to lock-box 25 percent for tax cuts, lock-box 25 percent to save Social Security and Medicare, and let us lock-box 50 percent of the on-budget surplus to reduce the national debt so we will not be passing that on to our children and grandchildren. That is what makes sense for American families. That is what makes sense for America.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot today about the new economy, but there are some of us still trying to get by on the old economy, and the old economy is not doing too well. In my district and across this Nation, tens of thousands of steel and oil and gas workers have lost their jobs, and many more fear that they may lose theirs. Since October of 1997, oil prices have dropped dramatically due to increases in imports. More than 50,000 workers have lost their jobs, hundreds of production and service companies have closed, and over 136,000 oil wells have shut down. That is 25 percent of all the wells in the United States. Providing Federal loan guarantees to significant strategic U.S. businesses at risk is not without precedent. The SBA guarantees loans every day in this country for small business. We do it for agriculture. Congress has done it for New York City, for Lockheed Aircraft, for Penn Central, for Conrail. It is a common practice. Mr. Speaker, these industries need our help. They are critical to the economic security and the national security of our country.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, the Republican tax message is one that we cannot trust Congress to act responsibly with the surplus. They say, get the money out of town before it even arrives here yet. Is it not a little bit ironic to think their theme is one cannot trust the Congress to manage money wisely, when they in fact are in the majority? Do my colleagues not think that we could be disciplined enough just to run one true budget surplus before we spend what we do not even have yet? If a business had borrowed money from a bank to operate for 25 years straight and for the first time in 25 years showed a small profit, would we not think we would try to pay down that huge debt? Two weeks ago this House had a historic opportunity that every businessman and woman understands. That is, when faced with a choice of paying down the debt or spending the surplus, we should pay down the debt. We had a motion on the floor that would dedicate 50 percent of the on-budget surplus to paying down the debt, 25 percent to tax cuts, 25 percent to priority spending needs such as Medicare and Social Security. Today we are trying again. Where have all the fiscal conservatives gone in the Republican Party? Fiscal conservatives do not spend money that we do not even have yet. Fiscal conservatives do not ignore the advice of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. Fiscal conservatives do not gamble with our economic security, our health security, our retirement security. Fiscal conservatives understand that paying down the debt means lower interest rates. Fiscal conservatives do not pass on debts to our children and our grandchildren. And fiscal conservatives do not backload tax cuts into an uncertain future. The President is right to veto this bill. We can take it up next year. What is the rush anyway? There is only $5 billion in tax cuts next year out of the $792 billion in the bill, and half of that is extenders. Only six-tenths of 1 percent of the tax relief will be effective next year, fiscal year 2000. The 10 percent across-the-board tax cut, the increase in standard deduction to reduce the marriage penalty, those could not even happen next year. There is little tax relief in the bill next year, so what is the rush? I say pay down the debt. Do what is right for our children, right for Social Security, right for Medicare, and right for America.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill was introduced by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) as a means of addressing some very serious concerns surrounding the bond requirements established in the Miller Act of 1935. I want to commend the gentlewoman from New York for her leadership in this legislation, specifically her work in bringing all the parties together that have an interest in this bill, working with them, ensuring that all of the concerns that were laid on the table by all of the parties were addressed. She did an outstanding job in working in a very bipartisan way on this bill. Specifically, subcontractors who perform construction projects for the Federal Government have raised questions about the adequacy of the payment bond requirement. The gentlewoman from New York as a member of the Committee on Government Reform, former ranking member of the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology, has been persistent in trying to correct the deficiencies of the current law. H.R. 1219 would remedy these problems and ensure that the payment bond is great enough to protect all of the subcontractors. At the same time the legislation will modernize and strengthen the Miller Act and will provide a means of improving a relationship of the subcontractors that has been long needed. This bill was reported by the Committee on Government Reform on May 19 by voice vote. The measure has also been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary which has discharged the bill. I would like to thank particularly the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) for their help in crafting this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for me to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). I too would like to thank the gentlewoman for the leadership she has provided on this bill. She has spent more time working on this than any other Member of this House. She is the sponsor of this bill.

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

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Property Act currently allows surplus Federal property to be transferred to state and local governments at a discount off the fair market value. Public benefit discounts are available under current law for public health or educational uses, public parks or recreational areas, historic monuments, correctional institutions, port facilities, public airports and wildlife conservation. In 1997, this Congress overwhelmingly passed a bill that made Federal surplus property available to State and local authorities for law enforcement and emergency response purposes for a 2-year trial period. With the sunset date fast approaching in December of this year, H.R. 1442, which was introduced through the good work of the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), we will extend that worthwhile provision and make it permanent. Mr. Speaker, this bill would allow the Department of Justice and FEMA to sponsor the use of excess Federal property for law enforcement and fire fighting and rescue training purposes. I expect this bill will move quickly through the legislative process and become law. Only last week the Senate successfully included a similar provision in the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000. There are currently at least 22 jurisdictions around the country who have submitted applications to acquire surplus Federal property for these purposes, and at least three of them have successfully acquired their property. We must not deny the remaining 19 the opportunity to complete their application process and to secure the property that they need to make their communities safer. Law enforcement and fire rescue services provide vital services for State and local governments, and it is critical that we allow them to acquire this Federal surplus property at a discount. This legislation benefits police officers, fire fighters, and other emergency response officials across the country, and I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) for his hard work on this particular provision. In addition, H.R. 1442, as amended, is designed to address problems with Federal debt collection and Federal credit management. In 1996 Congress passed the Debt Collection Improvement Act, which was designed to centralize management of Federal debt collection at the Department of Treasury and to enhance cooperation of Federal agencies in the collection of delinquent debt. Within the past 2 years, the Federal Government centralized debt collection activities at the Financial Management Service have begun to work more efficiently. In fact, collections have grown from $1.7 million in fiscal year 1997 to $2.5 billion in fiscal year 1999, after the Debt Collection Improvement Act enhanced the Treasury's offset authority. Clearly there has been improvement in the government collection efforts. There are, however, many challenges that remain. According to the Department of Treasury, the Federal Government is owed approximately $50 billion in delinquent, non-taxed debt. Of this amount, $47 billion has been delinquent for more than 180 days. In addition, the Federal Government writes off about $10 billion in delinquent debts every year. H.R. 1442 focuses management attention on high-risk programs and builds upon prior initiatives to improve Federal debt collection practices by providing Federal agencies with the additional tools they need to improve Federal debt collection. It is almost identical to H.R. 4857, a bill that passed the House of Representatives with overwhelming bipartisan support under suspension of the rules in the 105th Congress. We passed these provisions by a vote of 419 to 1 earlier this year. I would like to commend the gentleman from California (Chairman Horn), who has done an outstanding job in leading to improve the Federal debt collection practices through his diligent legislative oversight activities. The gentleman has worked to assure that the taxpayers get every dollar they are entitled to and no more. I also want to mention and commend the leadership of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), who has continued her partnership with the gentleman from California (Chairman Horn) since the time she served in the position of ranking member of this subcommittee. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, I want to join with the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) on this hour of debate, this time that is set aside at the end of the day, to talk about the issues facing us. I would like to spend just a moment addressing the tax cut proposal that was before the House in the last few days. The Republican tax message is one cannot trust the Congress to act responsibly with the surplus. They say get the money out of town before it even arrives here yet. It is a little bit ironic to think their theme is one cannot trust the Congress to manage the money wisely when, in fact, the last time I checked, they were in the majority in this House. Their bill spends a trillion dollars, giving a $794 billion tax cut that is based on a future guesstimate of a trillion dollar on-budget surplus that is so far in the future that, if one looks at the tax cut year by year over the next 10 years, the tax cut planned in that $794 billion for next year is only $5 billion, six-tenths of 1 percent of the total tax cut. The Federal Government, as my colleagues know, ran annual deficits for 29 years straight and ran up a $5.6 trillion national debt. The annual interest on that debt exceeds the annual spending, if one can believe this, on all of national security. The interest on the national debt takes 25 percent of all individual income taxes collected by the Federal Government every year. Do my colleagues not think that we could be disciplined enough just to run one true budget surplus before we spend what we do not even have yet? If a business had borrowed money from a bank to operate for 29 years straight and, for the first time in 29 years, it showed a small profit, would the business declare a dividend to the stockholders; or would it try to pay down that huge debt they had accumulated? I think the answer is obvious. Last week, the House had a historic opportunity to do what every businessman or woman, every family in America would do when faced with the choice of paying down debt or passing on that debt to our children, our grandchildren. By a margin of 9 votes, this House defeated a responsible Democratic alternative that was designed to ensure that we had a reasonable tax cut while preserving Social Security and Medicare. We even had on the floor of the House a motion to recommit that provided that 50 percent of the on-budget surplus would go to paying down the debt, 25 percent for tax cuts, and 25 percent for priority spending needs, such as Medicare and Social Security. Every Democrat on the floor of this House voted for that responsible alternative. Only one Republican joined us. All the remainder voted against that alternative. I ask, where have all the fiscal conservatives in the Republican Party gone? Fiscal conservatives do not spend money that we do not even have yet. Fiscal conservatives do not ignore the advice of the Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, who has said over and over again before committees in this House that the best use of the surplus is to pay down debt. Fiscal conservatives do not gamble with our economic security, our health security, or our retirement security. Fiscal conservatives understand that reducing the national debt lowers interest rates. For example, a 2 percentage point reduction in interest rates on the purchase of a $90,000 home means a savings of almost $1,500 a year in mortgage payments for American families. That is $1,200 more than a family with an income of $50,000 a year would get from the Republican tax cut plan. That family, under their plan, only gets $300 a year. Fiscal conservatives do not gamble with our economic security. They understand that our health security, our retirement security, our economic security is the important thing that must be preserved by the Congress. Finally, fiscal conservatives do not pass on debts to their children and their grandchildren. I believe we can have reasonable tax cuts over the next 10 years, given to people who really need the relief: working families and small business. These are the folks who have not yet fully participated in the booming new economy. These are the folks who live in rural America, the folks who live in the inner city. In today's economy, tax cuts should not be aimed at Wall Street, but they should be aimed at Main Street. But an equally important priority for this Congress is to pay down that $5.6 trillion national debt, to save Social Security, to save Medicare for our children. Let us adopt a fiscally responsible tax reduction plan that shares the on-budget surplus, 50 percent to debt reduction, 25 percent for tax relief, and 25 percent to save Social Security and Medicare.

Mr. TURNER. Well, it would seem to me very likely that that would be the result. And I, too, share the gentleman's concern with the double set of books that the Republican majority has begun to keep over the last couple of weeks just to try to show that they can stay within the budget caps of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. As we all know, if we declare something around here as an emergency, we do not have to count it against the caps. But one thing to keep in mind: every time somebody stands up and says, I want to declare this spending an emergency, they are taking it right out of the Social Security Trust Fund. And the truth of the matter is, if we have things like the census declared an emergency, I think we are committing fraud with regard to the way we keep the Federal books. I mean the census is required in the United States Constitution. We do it every 10 years. And to stand up and say, well, we have to appropriate the money to do the census and call it emergency spending so it will not be counted against the budget caps is disingenuous, in my opinion. As I mentioned, if we alter four factors in the Congressional Budget Office assumptions about the $2.9 trillion surplus, it disappears. I mentioned two of them a minute ago. If unemployment is simply 1 percent higher than they estimated over the next 10 years; if spending goes up with inflation rather than at the artificially low estimates that we have under the current estimate; if the gross domestic product, a fancy word that I am not sure I completely understand, simply grows at seven-tenths of 1 percent less than the Congressional Budget Office estimates; and, finally, if Medicare spending simply goes up at the same average annual rate that it has gone up since 1972; if all four of those things happen to turn out to be true, there is once again a deficit. There is no $2.9 billion surplus; there is a deficit over the next 10 years. I think it is often overlooked in this debate, as we argue about what to do with the surplus, that the threshold question should be will there really be a surplus. I hope there is, and I hope the economy stays strong; but to gamble our economic security, our health care security, the security of Social Security, all on an estimate that may turn out to be completely wrong is the height of fiscal irresponsibility.