Jim Turner

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute and to express the thanks of Texans to our friend Wayne Scott on the occasion of his retirement as Executive Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. His leadership of the fastest growing agency in the State of Texas during years of difficult transitions have earned him the respect and admiration of all Texans. Wayne began his professional journey in 1972 as a correctional officer at the Huntsville unit of the Texas Department of Corrections. While working there, Wayne Scott received his Bachelor of Business Administration from Sam Houston State University in 1973. Making his way into the system, he became warden of the facility in 1984. In the following years, Wayne served as regional director, deputy director for operations, and institutional division director. In 1996, Wayne Scott was promoted to Executive Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, the largest agency in the state of Texas. It can be said that Wayne began at the bottom of the ladder and climbed to the top through a firm commitment to hard work, a willingness to make the tough decisions, and a constant pursuit of the highest ethical standards for both himself and the department. With the responsibility of more than 40,000 employees and more than 150,000 felony offenders, Wayne Scott has been recognized by his fellow criminal justice professionals in the American Correctional Association, the Southern States Correctional Association, and the Association of State Correctional Administrators as an outstanding correctional administrator. Under Wayne's leadership, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice confinement facilities were accredited by the American Correctional Association. The agency also received Awards of Excellence in community service for its partnership with Habitat for Humanity, and for the nation's largest correctional employee training facility, the Edmundo Mireles Criminal Justice Training Academy. While Executive Director, Wayne developed the Advisory Council on Ethics in order to aid the agency in the awareness of ethical issues and assure the execution of ethical behavior. Not only has Wayne Scott been a hard working administrator, but he has also been a leader in innovations for rehabilitation of prison inmates. In 1996, he started the Inner Change Freedom Initiative, which was the first faith-based pre-release program in a penal institution in the United States. Also, under Scott's leadership, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice has worked to modify the agency's mission statement to assure justice for victims. Wayne Scott has served the State of Texas for more than 28 years in the criminal justice field. His leadership in the fastest period of growth in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice have made him well- known in the field of criminal justice not just in Texas, but across the country. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice--and indeed, the entire state of Texas--has been the beneficiary of his service, dedication, and leadership over the last three decades.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I represent 19 counties in the Second Congressional District in Southeast Texas, all of those counties were declared a disaster area during the recent tragedy of the Tropical Storm Allison. I think we all come to the floor today with a deep sense of gratitude for the many who worked so tirelessly to help in that disaster. I want to mention three organizations that I know were among the private sector organizations that helped the victims of Tropical Storm Allison, that is the Salvation Army, the American Red Cross, and Texas Baptist Men. Those three private organizations, in addition to literally scores of others, helped so rapidly and so efficiently and effectively along with our many State and Federal agencies during that time of crisis. While the greatest damage was in Harris County, there was significant damage in all of the 19 counties that I represent. There has been over 63,000 contacts made to FEMA just in the last few weeks, so we all express our gratitude at this moment to the many who helped during that time of crisis.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in memory of Justice Martin Dies, Jr., who recently passed away on May 14, 2001 after a full life of eighty years. Justice Dies, the son of U.S. Congressman Martin Dies Sr., and Myrtle Dies grew up and was educated in Orange, Texas. He later attended the University of Virginia in Washington, D.C. and later, Stephen F. Austin University where he received his B.S. degree. When the United States entered World War II Justice Dies left college to volunteer with the Navy. While at officer's school in New York, Martin was chosen as Commander of the Third Battalion. He was later presented a Gold Sword at graduation as the outstanding member of the Battalion. In the war, Martin saw extensive naval combat in both the Philippines and in Okinawa, for which he received several medals and military citations. After Justice Dies' ship was ordered to repel the Japanese invasion at the Battle of Leyte, the entire crew received the prestigious Presidential Unit Citation for bravery. Near the end of the war Justice Dies saw duty as Captain of the U.S.S. Richard W Seusens. Following the war, Justice Dies completed his legal education at Southern Methodist University Law School. In 1947, he was named a member of the Barristers at SMU. While attending law school, he married Ruth Marie White of Lufkin in 1946. Upon graduation, he began practicing law with the firm Dies, Anderson and Dies. In 1959 Justice Dies was elected to the Texas Senate from the Third Senatorial District. During his tenure in the Senate, he was widely recognized as a moving force in the effort to modernize government services for the disabled, for which he received numerous awards. Additionally, Justice Dies took great interest in improving the Texas park system. In 1965 the 750 acre park at the Dam B. Reservoir was named in his honor. The Martin Dies, Jr. State Park has been widely praised as one of the most beautiful and visited public parks in Texas. In 1969, Justice Dies was sworn in as Secretary of State of Texas. Two years later, he was appointed Chief Justice of the 9th Court of Appeals where he served with distinction until his retirement in 1989. During that time he served on the Texas Judicial Council, serving four years as the President of the Council. He also received the Texas Handicapped Person of the Year Award, was a fellow of the Texas Bar Foundation, and served as a member of the Judicial Manpower Commission. Justice Dies will be remembered for his great courage, his high moral and ethical standards, and above all, his compassion for others. We share our grief with his family at his passing, as we were honored to share the joy of his life.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in memory of The Honorable Nat Patton, Jr., a man who embodied my hometown of Crockett, Texas in so many ways. Nat recently passed away on February 13, 2001 after the full life of eighty-eight years. Nat Patton, the son of former U.S. Congressman and Mrs. Patton, was educated in the public schools of my hometown of Crockett, TX. It was his love for the game of baseball that led him to attend Texas A&M University, where he played shortstop for the Aggie Varsity baseball team. During his days at Texas A&M, Mr. Patton was elected president of his sophomore class and yell leader--a high Aggie honor--for the student body. Nat Patton was destined for public service from his early years. Following in his father's footsteps, Nat had a special interest in politics and received his law degree from Cumberland University in Tennessee. After passing the State of Texas Bar Exam, Mr. Patton returned to Crockett to enter private practice. He set his law career aside to serve his country in World War II, where he fought under General George S. Patton's Third Army, 89th Division, European Theater. Following the war he returned to Crockett and resumed his law practice. From 1950 to 1980, Mr. Patton served Houston County as County Attorney. Upon retiring from public service after 30 years, Mr. Patton continued his private law practice. Mr. Patton and his wife, Eleanor were married for 60 years. Both were active members of their community, participating in the First United Methodist Church of Crockett. During his service to the church Mr. Patton had served as a Sunday School teacher and as a member of the administrative board. Mr. Patton was also a member of the Masonic Lodge, Knights of Pythias, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the American Legion. Nat's friendliness, his welcoming smile, and his warm spirit will be remembered by many of us in Crockett as the personification of the hometown that we love. We all share his family's profound grief in his passing, just as we have joined them in the celebration of his life. We'll miss you, Nat.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, this budget fails to account for the fact it will return us to deficit spending and it will spend money already committed to Social Security and Medicare. That is why the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition voted yesterday to oppose this budget. Democrats want the largest tax cut we can afford; but, frankly, this budget is unrealistic. It fails to provide for defense spending that we support and that the President will propose. It fails to protect Social Security and Medicare by putting us on a course to raid both programs. It turns our back on our commitment to lockbox Social Security and Medicare surpluses. It fails to fund education even at the lower level the President proposed much less the higher level the Senate agreed upon. This budget fails to account for the slowing economy and the resulting loss of revenue. It denies America's families and our children the best tax cut we could give them and that is paying off our national debt which would not only lower interest payments in the Federal budget, but would lower interest payments for every American family.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, I would like to talk about a subject this evening that has been ignored, I think, for the entire Congress that we have been in since the first of the year, an issue that many of us feel very strongly about, an issue that many of us campaigned on on both sides of the aisle, an issue that I think must be dealt with if we are going to have a budget that is honest and realistic, and that is dealing honestly with the problem of providing prescription drug coverage for our senior citizens. Tomorrow, this House will vote on a budget that emerges from a conference committee. The details of that budget at this hour, at this late hour, are still very murky, but one thing is clear: a promise that we all made to our senior citizens this past fall, a promise of affordable prescription drugs, is being shoe-horned into this budget as an afterthought. There are many of us who believe very strongly that prescription drug coverage under Medicare for our senior citizens should be our highest priority. I am pleased to be joined today in this special order hour by several members of the Blue Dog Democrat Coalition. The Blue Dog Democrats have worked hard to advocate the inclusion of a meaningful and an honest prescription drug benefit for our seniors under Medicare. We all understand the skyrocketing prices that we are paying at our pharmacies. We understand that as a very stark reality. And instead when this House passed its budget, it included prescription drugs as a mere contingency item in a contingency fund that is far overloaded with items that need to be funded. So we are here this evening to urge this Congress and this President to include a real prescription drug benefit under Medicare in the budget this Congress will pass tomorrow. When we have so many constituents out here who are having to choose every day between filling their prescription and paying their rent or buying their groceries, we cannot afford to ignore this problem. I have received many letters in the last few weeks from senior citizens who said, I heard a whole lot last Congress about solving this problem of prescription drugs. Some of them even write they saw television ads run by candidates for Congress, some of whom are reelected and are here in this Congress talking about taking care of our seniors. They ask, ``Why haven't y'all done anything about it?'' The answer is very simple. This Congress has not placed a proper priority on providing prescription drug coverage for our seniors under Medicare. The budget that we will vote on tomorrow is created entirely around a tax cut that leaves very little room for anything else. The Blue Dogs presented a budget to this House. We lost by a handful of votes. Our budget included a meaningful prescription drug benefit under Medicare. Now, we all favor significant tax relief. I do not find anybody in this Congress that does not understand that tax relief is an important priority for all the American people. But we have to balance that interest and that priority with the other priorities of government. One of those should be providing prescription drug coverage for our seniors. Everybody is quick to talk about this $5.6 trillion surplus, but when we break it all down, we understand that much of that surplus has already been committed. This Congress uniformly agrees that Medicare and Social Security trust funds should not be spent. That means almost half of that surplus cannot be spent by this Congress in either tax cuts, new spending programs, or anything else. The Blue Dogs have advocated giving a substantial portion of that surplus toward paying down our national debt, and we believe very strongly in that. But in addition to those priorities, we must have a prescription drug plan that will work that makes common sense for our senior citizens. Adding a prescription drug benefit under Medicare would require only about 6 percent of this $5.6 trillion 10-year surplus that everybody hopes will show up around here over the next decade. It is small enough to fit within a responsible budget. It deserves more than being listed as a possibility under the 10-year budget that the Congress will pass tomorrow. It just makes plain common sense. We must have a budget that balances our priorities, and our budget that we will vote on tomorrow does not do that. It neglects a promise that many of us made to our constituents, a promise that we would try to bring the high price of prescription drugs down and that we would provide a benefit for all seniors under Medicare. Medicare is the roof that protects our senior citizens. It is 30 years old but it has dangerous leaks. Thirty-five years ago when Medicare was created, it did not include any coverage for prescription drugs because prescription drugs were not a big part of our health care costs. Since that time, we have had amazing advances, amazing discoveries, new prescription drugs that cure our ills. We think it is very important to be sure that all of those remedies are available to all of the American people. The least we can do with this surplus that we are so proud of is to ensure that our senior citizens have a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. Many doctors and nurses from hospitals in my district have told me stories about the massive hospital bills that could have been prevented if the patient had merely taken the necessary prescription drugs. There is no question that providing prescription drug coverage is the right thing to do for our citizens. The only question is whether this Congress is going to stand up and face the problem or continue to put it aside and ignore it and try to deal with it at a later date. There are some in this Congress who have hidden behind the issue of Medicare reform. They have said we are going to provide a prescription drug benefit in a Medicare reform package. Nobody, to my knowledge, knows clearly how this Medicare reform package is going to be put together nor what it is going to look like. We cannot wait for Medicare reform to deal with the problem of prescription drug coverage for our seniors. All of us who believe in honoring our commitment to our senior citizens to providing the assistance that they need for a meaningful prescription drug plan want to do it now, not tomorrow. We have advocated a universal prescription drug benefit under Medicare that will allow any senior citizen to walk in their local pharmacy and get the prescriptions that their doctor prescribes for their ailments and to do it at a reasonable cost under a reasonable plan. Now, it is not a plan that is without some cost to the senior citizen. It has been estimated that it may cost $25 to $30 a month in a premium for a senior citizen to have this coverage because the government, frankly, cannot afford to pay for the entire plan. But we believe that a plan that would require $25 or $30 a month from our seniors, that would take care of the first $4 or $5,000 of their prescription coverage cost, at least pay half of that and then over the $4 or $5,000 pay all of it, is a plan that makes sense for our seniors. We can afford to do that if we are willing to commit $300 billion of this surplus over the next 10 years to doing that. They had a vote in the Senate just a few days ago when they were debating this budget. An amendment was offered that would provide $300 billion for a real prescription drug plan for seniors under Medicare. When the votes were counted, it was 50 for and 50 against with the Vice President casting the deciding no vote. Later an amendment was offered that said that we will have a prescription drug plan and set aside $300 billion of the contingency fund in this budget if we reform Medicare first, and that was adopted by one vote, the Vice President again casting the tie vote. Those of us who know the reality of this problem for our seniors say that is not good enough, that surely in a country as generous and as compassionate as we like to claim we are, surely we can provide a basic, meaningful prescription drug benefit for our seniors under Medicare. Now, we are not forcing this plan on anybody. It is an option under Medicare, just as your current part B Medicare is an option for your doctor coverage. So if you have got a plan that you like and you do not want to change, you do not need the coverage, do not sign up. But this plan should be available for the hundreds of thousands of seniors all across this country who are struggling today to pay for their prescription drugs. We are fortunate to have on the floor with us tonight a Member of Congress, a fellow Blue Dog, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross), who is a pharmacist, who understands this problem all too well. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to yield to the gentleman from Arkansas to share his perspective on this very, very important issue.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross), for his remarks; and I beg his forgiveness for mentioning that he was a pharmacist. I did recall that his wife is a pharmacist, but she makes the gentleman work in the pharmacy whenever he is at home. We are glad the gentleman has the perspective that he does to share with us because it is only by being there. I had the opportunity in my district to be in several pharmacies to talk about this issue, and just as I was there talking about the issue people would come in trying to fill their prescriptions. One lady came to the gathering that was just in a local grocery store, not too far from the pharmacy counter, and she said I am glad to hear what you are saying. I did not know you were going to be here, but I was just in here yesterday and left my prescription; and I was just back at the window to pick it up, and when the pharmacist told me how much it was, I told him he would have to just keep it. Those are the kinds of problems that seniors are having today. They are very real. They are very serious and ones we must tend to in this Congress. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield to a fellow colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin), another Blue Dog who has worked hard to try to provide a meaningful prescription drug benefit for our seniors.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas. I have no doubt that what this group that is on the floor tonight is seeking is a definite commitment in the budget to a prescription drug plan for seniors. Another fellow Member of the Blue Dog Democrat Coalition here on the floor with us tonight is our friend, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows.) He also shares our deep commitment to dealing with this very serious problem for our seniors. I am honored to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman joining with us this evening and advocating a meaningful, universal prescription drug benefit under Medicare. I know that the gentleman has studied this issue a long time and sees it firsthand in his Mississippi district. I do think it is hard for the American people to understand why they are paying so much higher prices for prescription medicines than any other people around the world. The answer to that is really quite simple, because every other country around the world has some kind of restriction on the price of prescription medicine. So, compared to what they pay, we are footing the entire bill. A lot of the drug manufacturers have weighed in on this issue of prescription drug coverage under Medicare because they fear that what may result is the American people might end up paying the same lower prices as the people all around the world are paying. Of course, that would significantly cut into their profits. But the American people deserve to know why it is that when you walk into your local pharmacy, you have to pay over twice as much for prescription drugs as you do any other place in the world. There was a group of seniors down in Texas several months ago, and a lot of folks in Texas, a lot of them go across the border into Mexico and fill their prescriptions. We are not talking about prescription drugs that are second class. They go down there and buy the same medicine by the same manufacturer and in the same bottle they can buy it in their local pharmacy. They just get it a whole lot cheaper. So all these seniors in Houston decided to lease a bus, and they all got in this Greyhound bus and went down to Mexico and they filled their prescriptions. When they came back, they got to calculating how much they had saved, and they figured that they could save $10,000 on a year's worth of prescriptions just by making that trip to Mexico to fill their prescriptions. I talked to a fellow not too many months back who had a friend, who had a little single-engine plane, and he had some expensive heart medication, and his friend flew him down into interior Mexico to fill his heart medication. He saved literally thousands of dollars by making this trip, and he said if you go into the interior of Mexico, you can get an even better deal than you can at some of these pharmacies along the border. So it is really time to do something about this problem and to be sure that our seniors get some prescription drug coverage under the Medicare program, and to be sure that all Americans are treated fairly on their prescription drug costs.

Mr. TURNER. I like what you said there about a prescription drug benefit for our seniors and fair pricing for all of us would be as good as a tax cut. It is not unusual for us to run into people who are paying $400 and $500 or more a month just to fill all their prescription drugs, and when you know that we are paying twice as much as anybody else in the world for our medicines, if you had fairness in pricing, they would save $200 or $250 a month. Goodness, I do not know any of these tax proposals that everybody is talking about that are going to give an average family $2,400 a year. So if we could provide fairness in drug pricing and a prescription drug benefit for our seniors, we would help many of them many times over what they can expect under any of our tax-cut proposals. I am pleased that we have tonight another member of the Blue Dog Coalition with us, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry). Mr. Berry is trained as a pharmacist. He understands this problem full well, and he cochairs the Blue Dog Democrat's Task Force on Health Care. I am very pleased to have him join us on the floor tonight and to yield to him.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas. I found it very interesting, his comments about the last election. That was so true. Every candidate that was running for office last November was talking about trying to provide a prescription drug benefit for our senior citizens. I am sure there are many seniors out there tonight that wonder what happened; how could all of these Members of Congress be campaigning for office, talking about how committed they were to helping our seniors afford prescription drugs, and now nothing has happened. Very seldom do we hear any discussion of the issue, and those of us who bring it to the floor, as we are tonight, are doing so in a special order hour, not with the opportunity to bring it before a committee that would have the opportunity to actually take some action, or bring it to this floor on a regular calendar, where we could actually vote on a program, but we are relegated to this special order evening hour, which is set aside for discussion of issues that we choose to talk about to begin to discuss once again the problem of prescription drug coverage for seniors. I do not know if the gentleman saw any of the ads that were run during the last campaign, but I watched them carefully. It was very interesting to me to see them. I think it is important perhaps for us to talk a little bit tonight about why it is so difficult to pass a meaningful prescription drug benefit plan in this Congress when all of the Members of the Congress profess to say they are for it. I think it is important for us to discuss a little bit what the roadblocks really are, because when it comes right down to it, there are powerful forces at work opposing our efforts to provide a prescription drug benefit under Medicare for our seniors. The foremost opposition that we have faced comes from the pharmaceutical industry itself. I think there are a lot of our seniors out there and across America who do not understand why it is we cannot do something about this problem, but the truth is, the pharmaceutical industry has consistently opposed a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. Some folks may say, why in the world would they do that? The gentleman knows and I know and many others in this House certainly know that the pharmaceutical industry is afraid that if we have a prescription drug benefit under Medicare, that the government will no longer pay them those exorbitantly high prices that they are currently able to charge our seniors for prescription drugs. Is that not really about what it comes down to?

Mr. TURNER. I certainly agree with the gentleman. I am sometimes discouraged when I try to talk to seniors in my district about this issue, because they know they are paying more for medicine than their counterparts in Mexico or Canada or anywhere else in the world, and they do not know why it is that we cannot do something about it here in the Congress, why we cannot provide a benefit under Medicare. What I try to point out to them is what I mentioned a moment ago, and that is that the pharmaceutical manufacturers have opposed our efforts, and try to explain to them how many dollars are actually at stake for these big pharmaceutical manufacturers. I suspect that what the gentleman just said is the truth, that if we could have prescription drugs at affordable prices, they would sell more of them and they will still make profits. But to date, they do not seem to be convinced. In fact, in the last campaign cycle, they spent over $2 million in direct campaign contributions to try to influence this Congress not to have a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. In fact, they spent $75 million over the last session of the Congress just lobbying the Congress, trying to be sure that no bill moved through the House or Senate to provide a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. That tells us, Mr. Speaker, that those pharmaceutical manufacturers really feel threatened by this proposal to provide a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. I guess they are kind of the last segment of health care that is not covered under the Medicare program. I think that there is a way for reasonable people to sit down and to work out a piece of legislation that will give our seniors access to prescription drugs under Medicare, and do it in a way that our pharmaceutical manufacturers will understand that in the long term, they are going to be better off working with us than working against us. Last year in this country nine out of the top ten drug manufacturers spent more money marketing than they spent on research and development. A lot of times these big pharmaceutical manufacturers say, ``Oh, if you make us have our drugs purchased by the government or available to our seniors under a Medicare program, we are not going to make as much money. We will not be able to do all this research and development that allows us to come up with all these miracle cures.'' Well, that gets your attention because the pharmaceutical manufacturers have done an excellent job coming up with new medicines for our ailments, and we want to be sure they continue to do that. But the truth is, when they spend more money on marketing than they do for research and development, that argument sort of rings hollow with me. After all, we are all familiar with the TV ads that are running all the time now telling us to go down and ask our doctor for some prescription medicine. And I am sure there are a lot of people that see those ads that go down and get the medicines. That is why they are running the ads. And that is great they now know about them, and they will go take the medicines. But the truth is, they are spending millions of dollars peddling their products to the American people at exorbitantly high prices when compared to the rest of the world. So I think it is time to get a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. It is a voluntary plan. Everybody that wants to sign up for it can sign up for it. If they do not want to sign up for it, they do not have to sign up for it. It is going to cost not only the seniors in a monthly premium, but there is a cost that we are going to have to pay here at the Federal Government so that we can keep the premium within reach of the average senior, and that cost has been estimated to be something in the neighborhood of $300 billion. That is a lot of money. But that is only about 5 or 6 percent of this budget surplus that we are so proud of. My colleagues would think that if we have a $5.6 trillion surplus that is going to show up here in Washington over the next 10 years, we could not only cut our taxes but we could take care of the most vulnerable segment of our society, our senior citizens, that consume the majority of the prescription drugs in this country. It seems that surely we could be compassionate enough to take care of those who are most vulnerable. I know, as the gentleman from Arkansas knows, that the fight is not an easy one, and our fight has been long. Our fight has been hard. We have both talked about this subject since we first came to Congress over 4 years ago, and I suppose we are going to have to keep talking about it before we will ever see it happen. I know and the gentleman knows that we can do something about it and we can put a prescription drug benefit under Medicare. I think it is really a disgrace to have a budget coming before this Congress tomorrow, the conference committee report, without having in it a clear set-aside of the money necessary to provide a meaningful prescription drug benefit for our seniors. It is going to be an empty promise in that budget; there is no doubt in my mind about that. The Senate debated it. They had a vote on putting $300 billion or more in the budget. That vote was 50 for and 50 against, with the Vice President voting no and defeating the amendment. But we are coming close. We are getting closer, and we are going to get there; and I am just very hopeful that at some point in this session of the Congress the President and the leadership of this Congress will step forward and do the right thing, provide a meaningful press drug benefit under Medicare. There are some here who advocate it, but they say we are going to do it after we reform Medicare. Now, I am a little unclear about reforming Medicare. I think Medicare has worked very well for our seniors. Most of the seniors that I talk to got upset when we started seeing this Congress a few years ago, before the gentleman and I arrived, change Medicare so that seniors could go through an HMO and get their Medicare coverage. They were enticing seniors to sign up with all kind of add- ons, like a little prescription drug benefit; and the first thing you know, all those HMOs decided to cancel their coverage and left literally thousands of seniors all across this country without any prescription drug coverage, which was the very reason they had signed up with an HMO in the first place. So I do not know what Medicare reform is. Does the gentleman have a feel for what that means? I do not know. And I know the gentleman has worked on this issue, as I have. Everybody says, well, we will provide prescription drug coverage when we reform Medicare. Has anybody told the gentleman what reforming Medicare really is going to be?

Mr. TURNER. That is what I was afraid of. Our time has expired; but, Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for joining me.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, history almost forgot forty-three American soldiers who were involved in one of the hottest firefights of the Cold War. The morning after Thanksgiving in 1984, the soldiers monitoring the demilitarized zone on the North Korean border saw their North Korean counterparts race across the border towards them, in hot pursuit after a fleeing Soviet defector. What followed for almost an hour was a gunfight between the forty three American soldiers, their South Korean allies, and dozens of attacking North Koreans. In the exchange of fire, an American soldier was injured, one South Korean was killed, and at least two North Koreans were killed and another two wounded. The forty-three American soldiers faced the danger of combat, protecting our liberty and our commitment to democracy. But for years, they were never recognized with the Combat Infantryman's Badge--a mark of honor and distinction reserved for those American soldiers who faced enemy fire and survived. Finally, after seventeen years, these brave men will receive the recognition they deserve. The reasons for the delay--bureaucratic politics and inconsistent regulations--might just as well be forgotten by history. But we must never let these men, their courage, their sacrifice, and their honor, be relegated to the status of a footnote in the history books. Our nation has always had its heros. From the great revolutionaries like Patrick Henry and George Washington to the pioneers like Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett, we have always looked to those who risked themselves for a greater purpose. Some of our heros left their mark with a flourish, and some carried out their role with only silent dignity, yet we have always respected them with out gratitude and our honor. The Combat Infantryman's Badge is a simple piece of cloth; a musket bordered by a wreath on a pale blue background. But the risk, sacrifice, and indeed, heroism that it represents is real. To these forty-three brave American soldiers, we owe a great debt. Decades may have passed since that November morning they stood tall and protected us, but the memory shall not fade. History will never forget their courage.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, many Members on both sides of the aisle know that we can do better than the version of H.R. 8 that is before us today. The average number of estates each year subject to taxation in a congressional district in this country is 115. Just 115. Now some of my colleagues come from more affluent areas, and that number is higher. Some of us come from areas that are of less affluence, and it is far lower. But whether my colleagues have 50 or 350 estates a year that are subject to the estate tax, these families would like to see significant estate tax relief now, not 10 years from now. Mr. Speaker, this motion states that the exemption shall be no less than provided in H.R. 8 as originally introduced, which was $1.3 million, rather than the $700,000 under the current Thomas bill. This motion provides that it should be our goal to provide immediate repeal of the estate and gift tax for two-thirds of those currently covered by the tax, including 99 percent of all family farms. As the gentleman from North Dakota noted, the bill should guarantee that no family should pay more tax because of what is done here today. Under H.R. 8, a $2 million estate would pay approximately $450,000 in 2002. With an affordable tax cut we can do better. We can make that family's estate tax zero in 2002. It all comes down to one's sense of fairness. Shall we start by giving the largest tax cuts to the wealthiest families in America, and no significant relief for the next 10 years to the smaller estates; or should we repeal the tax at the lower end immediately while granting gradual rate reductions for the upper end? Mr. Speaker, I hope a majority of the House will support the latter approach and support this motion. This motion says we should start by repealing the tax for two-thirds of the taxable estates at the lower end rather than continuing to subject these families to 10 years of taxation. I talked to a prominent senior citizen in my district who has a sizable estate to pass on the other day about these alternatives. He told me, whatever you do, do it now. I do not have 10 years. Mr. Speaker, to pass a shell of a bill with a 10-year fuse is not tax relief. It is an empty promise to all who will lose loved ones over the next decade, and who may be forced to sell their family farm or family business to pay the estate tax. We will not be able to tell these families that we cannot afford to help them, because we can afford it, and we should do it now. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to recommit.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in memory of Justice Earl Stover, a pillar in the community of Silsbee, Texas, whose passing last month shook so many of us who have been touched by his passion for life and his compassion for his fellow Texans. As a college football player, Earl Stover became known as ``Smokey'' Stover--and the name stuck. Smokey's life touched every corner of his community in Silsbee. If you ask former Silsbee School District Superintendent Herbert Muckleroy what he thought of Smokey, he'll tell you about Justice Stover's respect for education: ``He believed in education. His boys got a good education and he wanted everybody else to get the same. And he supported whatever it took to do that.'' Eddie Doggett, who worked for Smokey almost half a century ago in 1957, will tell you about Justice Stover's work ethic: ``He believed in loyalty. He set goals and accomplished them.'' And Chief Justice Ronald Walker, who served with Smokey Stover on the Ninth Court of Appeals, will tell you tales about Smokey's sharp legal mind: ``Many of his opinions are now recorded for the posterity and benefit of this state's jurisprudence.'' Justice Stover served his community as president of the Silsbee Chamber of Commerce, president of the Silsbee Kiwanis Club, as a trustee of the Silsbee School District, as a strong supporter of the Silsbee Doctors Hospital, and as an active member of his church. His contributions to the Texas legal community were equally memorable. Justice Stover served as the Hardin County Attorney, as presiding judge of the 88th Judicial District Court for nine years, and a Justice on the Ninth Court of Appeals for seven years. Along with his other friends, my life was enriched by knowing Smokey. He always brought a smile to your face and he always offered an encouraging word. He understood the important role government could play in the lives of ordinary people. Justice Stover was firmly committed to the proposition that in the courtroom before the bar of justice, the powerful and the powerless stood as equals. He knew that in the halls of Congress and the Legislature, the workings of the democratic process can guarantee every citizen an equal opportunity to share in the American dream. Smokey always reminded me to ``watch out for his Social Security.'' I knew he didn't just mean for him, but for every American who deserves to live their latter years with independence and dignity. On December 9, 2000, Smokey Stover's battle with cancer took his life, leaving a void in our community that cannot be replaced. The words of his Silsbee neighbor Mitch Hickman best expressed the admiration we all held for Justice Stover. ``You could go home and dust off your Bible, read it cover to cover, and not find enough good words to say about Smokey Stover.''

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, the Blue Dog Democrats want the biggest tax cut we can afford, and we want it as soon as we can get it. American families need immediate tax cuts to put money into their pockets. They deserve tax cuts that fit within a responsible budget and that are paired with aggressive repayment of the national debt. When shaping our tax cuts, we should be generous with the real surpluses that we have today, just as we should be cautious with the uncertain surplus projections that we only hope will occur 5 and 10 years from now. The Blue Dog budget offers immediate tax relief. For every dollar in tax cuts in the Republican plan, the Blue Dog budget gives us $4. That is four times the tax relief in our plan than in the Republican plan. The Blue Dog budget fits significant tax relief into a budget that will not send us back into deficit spending or raid Social Security or Medicare. Our budget pays down the $5.7 trillion national debt faster than any budget on the floor today. We do more to be sure our children will not be left with a massive Federal debt. We do more to ensure that we do not continue to waste $1 billion a day in just interest payments on our debt. We do more to prepare for the looming crisis in Social Security and Medicare that arises with the retirement of the baby-boom generation when the short- term surpluses in Social Security and Medicare of today turn into the long-term deficits of tomorrow. We urge Members to seriously consider the Blue Dog plan. It will return us to a course of fiscal responsibility, restore credibility in our financial markets, and do the right thing for the American people and for our children.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in memory of Judge J.W. Summers, a leader in the Texas judicial system and a fine man who dedicated his life to public service. Judge Summers had something that many in this chamber undoubtably envy--an unblemished political career, in which he never suffered a defeat in his various races for public office. But it wasn't his winning streak that made him stand out, but rather it was his reputation for integrity and impartiality in the administration of justice that earned him the respect and admiration of all of us who knew him. Judge Summers was destined for leadership from his early years, when he graduated from Rusk High School as an Eagle Scout and valedictorian of his class. Judge Summers served bravely in the Navy during World War II, and graduated with honors from a great institution of higher learning--the University of Texas in Austin. But Judge Summers didn't stay in Austin--he came back to his roots in Rusk. After several years of private practice, he served as city attorney, county attorney, and county judge of Cherokee County for eight years. Judge Summers will be remembered for his many successes as County Judge of Cherokee County. Every year of his administration, Judge Summers won a top financial rating for the county. He payed off remaining debt on the county courthouse, oversaw the construction of the Cherokee County Agricultural Annex Building, and secured the development of many State Farm-to-Market roads, as well as the US Highway 69 stretch from Rusk to Jacksonville. From 1957 to 1978 he served as District Judge for the Second Judicial District. After 21 years in the job, he continued his service as Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the 12th Supreme Judicial District of Texas, a position he held until 1989. Judge Summers and his wife Inez were active members of their community, participating in the First United Methodist Church in Rusk, where each served as chairman of the Administrative Council. Judge Summers was also president of the Kiwanis Club and a member of Euclid Lodge Number 45. Judge Summers passed away on November 26, 2000. Our prayers are with Mrs. Summers, the couples' children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, and their friends and family members who will share their grief--and their memories--in this time of sadness.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, during this next hour of Special Order time, a group of House Democrats known as the Blue Dog Coalition would like to talk about the subject of the budget and taxes. The Blue Dog Democrats led the effort during this past week to try to urge this Congress to adopt a budget first before we take the important votes on tax cuts for the American people. The Blue Dogs and the 33 Members that are members of that coalition believe very strongly that our future prosperity depends upon our ability as a Congress to stay on the course of fiscal responsibility. In order to provide tax cuts to the American people, in order to ensure our future prosperity, we believe that we must look at the whole budget picture of the United States before we can determine what size tax cuts we can afford. The Blue Dogs as fiscal conservatives want the largest tax cut that we can afford. We believe very strongly that we need tax relief, and we want to vote for tax relief for the American people; but we also understand very clearly that it is important to give equal priority to paying down our $5.5 trillion national debt. A lot of folks do not understand all of this talk about the national debt. Why does it matter? The truth of the matter is, you might conclude that the Congress and the Presidents for the last 30 years did not understand it either, because the Congress and the Presidents who have served over the last 30 years are the ones that created the $5.5 trillion national debt by running deficit spending in every year in those last 30 years. Only last year did the Congress and the President see a balanced Federal budget. For the first time, we have been able to return this country to a course of fiscal responsibility and the Blue Dog Democrats believe very strongly that we should not return to those days of deficit spending. There are basically two ways we can return to deficit spending in this country. We can start spending too much money, and if we do not hold down spending, we are going to see deficits return. Another way we can return to deficit spending is to cut taxes larger in a larger amount than we can actually afford, because both spending and tax cuts, if pursued in excess, will result in deficit spending on an annual basis by the Federal Government and return us to those days from which we just departed only last year. Some people say, how big is the national debt? Frankly, the number is $5.6 trillion, but I have no way of fairly reflecting to you how much $5.6 trillion is, except to tell you that it is a whole lot of money. And it is going to take us a long time of fiscal discipline to pay it down. Now, when I was a boy growing up, my dad always told me that the first order of business in terms of managing my finances is to pay my debts. I think the Federal Government should operate by the same maxim, pay our debts. After all, the debts that we are unwilling and unable to pay today will be paid some day by the younger generation who will follow us. Our Federal Government, we are told, has a surplus. But do you realize that the surplus that we are talking about is only an estimate of what may occur over the next 10 years? The surplus is only an estimate. There is no place in Washington where you can go to a lock box or to a safe and find the surplus. It is an estimate of what may happen. The surplus from last year was the first we have had in 30 years. It is very small. The surplus we are going to have this year is a little bit larger, but when you hear these optimistic discussions about tax cuts coming your way based on the surplus, keep in mind it is only an estimate of the surplus. The surplus estimates we are talking about over the next 10 years largely comes in the second 5 years of this decade. Very little of the surplus comes in the short term. When I was in a town meeting in my district in east Texas a few months ago, I was trying to explain all of these numbers, and a gentleman in the back row in overalls stood up and he said, Congressman, how can you folks in Washington talk about a surplus when you owe over $5 trillion? Frankly, he stumped me for a few minutes. It is hard to imagine how we can talk about a surplus when we owe over $5.5 trillion. But that is what we are doing. In fact, if all the numbers on the projected surplus turned out to be true and we enacted the President's tax cut, it would be the last tax cut we could vote on in this Congress for the next 10 years, because it would virtually spend the entire surplus that is estimated to show up in Washington. I have a chart here to my right that depicts a little bit about the uncertainty of that surplus. The surplus that I want to talk to you today about is the non-Social Security surplus, because we have surpluses projected over the next 10 years in the Social Security trust fund. We have surpluses projected in the Medicare trust fund; but Congress, at least half a dozen times in the last year, has voted that we should never, ever again spend the Social Security or the Medicare trust fund surplus. And we should not. When the baby boomers begin to retire, and I am one of them, we are going to see a real financial crisis in Washington, because the Social Security trust fund and the Medicare trust fund, whose funds have been used during all these 30 years of deficit spending to finance things other than Social Security and Medicare, those funds are going to be needed. Mr. Speaker, in fact, in about 14 years, for the first time in our history, the payroll tax that is collected to pay your Social Security and mine will be less than the amount of money we spend every year for Social Security benefits. You may say we have been real lucky for a long time. We took more in payroll taxes every year than we paid out in benefits, but that is going to change in the year 2014. Some people wonder what is the deal on this trust fund if you all have been taking all of this money in. Where is the money? Frankly, there is no money in the Social Security trust fund. It has been used for other things. The Social Security fund, if you went and looked at it today, it simply is an IOU backed by the taxpayers of the United States saying all that money that we borrowed we are going to promise that we will put it back some day, and it is backed by the taxing power of the Federal Government. It does not sound too promising for those of you who are here who are under 30, because you are the ones that have to figure out how to pay it back if your Social Security is going to be there for you. The Blue Dog Democrats believe we need to start now to pay back that money that we borrowed from Social Security and borrowed from Medicare and get ready for the retirement of the baby boomers when the Social Security trust fund is going to be the biggest financial problem faced by the Federal Government. The Social Security Administration estimates that by 30 years from now, that if we kept everything the same, the same Social Security benefits for everybody, we would have to have a payroll tax that equalled 50 percent of your payroll check. Now, you know we are not going to have a 50 percent tax on your paycheck to support Social Security, but it simply indicates the degree of the crisis that we are going to face as more and more people retire and become eligible for Social Security. In fact, in about 50 years, there will be two people collecting Social Security for every 1 person that is working in the workforce. That is the real problem that Washington needs to be talking about. I think you can see from the discussion thus far that to say we have a short-term, 10-year estimated surplus that may not show up yet is telling only half the story. Because if you look out about 30 years, there is no surplus. Let us talk about 10 years. This chart shows the 10-year non-Social Security surplus projections. The Congressional Budget Office has given us the estimate that there will be $3.22 trillion in surplus over the next 10 years. That is their estimate. They also warn us that they could be wrong. They say they could be wrong because it could be more than that. Their most optimistic projection is that there will be a $6 trillion surplus outside Social Security and Medicare over the next 10 years. Their most pessimistic scenario is that we will be back into deficit spending by half a trillion dollars. That is without any tax cuts, by the way. This is just going forward like we are going now. You can see the unreliability of the estimate of the surplus that everybody in Washington seems so anxious, as we say, to give back to the American people. To be honest about the rhetoric, you cannot give back something that you do not even have yet. We do not have that surplus yet. It is a projection, and an iffy projection at best. Here is the chart that shows you a little bit about the projected surplus, even assuming that the surplus turns out to be just as projected. Forget about the uncertainty, 84 percent of the projected non-Social Security surplus comes after the next Presidential election. I have heard some people tell me that folks in Washington might be a little bit bold to suggest that we are going to project the surplus for the next 10 years and we are going to give 80 percent or 90 percent of that in the tax cut which, as I said, would be the last tax cut we could vote on for 10 years if the projections even turned out to be true, because the truth of the matter is, 84 percent of the surplus occurs after President Bush's first term. Mr. Speaker, now, a lot of us may not be here to see these numbers in future years, the average tenure for a Member of Congress is about 6 years, and there may be some folks who are serving here in later years who might also like the opportunity to vote for a tax cut. But if we go down the course that the President is proposing, and even if the numbers turn out to be true, we are going to spend all of this surplus estimated for 10 years in one tax cut. Some people say that is just not fair. Others behind us may have an interest in voting on tax cuts, too. Some have suggested that perhaps a tax cut to spend the surplus that is going to accrue over the next 2 years, 3 years, or 4 years might be an appropriate thing for us to do. But to think about granting tax cuts based on a surplus that is not here yet, that will not arrive for 10 years, may be a little bit more than this Congress should be doing. The next chart looks ahead 5 years and then looks back and shows us how far off the projections have been in the past. Now I should have mentioned when I started showing my colleagues these charts where they came from. They are not charts that I put together or anybody in the Blue Dog Coalition. All of these charts were provided to us by a nonpartisan group called the Concord Coalition. The Concord Coalition is made up of a respected group of business executives who try to provide the Congress the truth with regard to these numbers. The Concord Coalition has brought these charts to the floor to allow us to show you what they project with regard to the surplus and the tax and the budget issue. So here are the projections, and it shows us how far off they have been in the last 20 years. Fortunately, in the most recent time frame, the estimates by the Congressional Budget Office have been conservative, and we have had larger surpluses than were projected. But in all of the years prior to 1995, the surpluses or the estimates of the Federal financial condition was off, and it was off in the wrong direction; and we found out that there were deficits there that the Congressional Budget Office had not projected. In order to have surpluses into the future, the economy has to stay strong, because the budget projection is based on an assumption about economic growth. The Congressional Budget Office, when they told the Congress a month or so ago that we are going to have a surplus, were estimating that the economy was going to continue to grow at close to the rate that it was growing about a year ago. I know all of my colleagues have seen what is happening to the economy, and right now they say that growth is zero. If growth is zero and stays there very long, all of these estimates of the surplus are going to be flown out of the window because they will not be worth the paper they are written on. This chart shows us based on the past track record of the Congressional Budget Office for 5-year projections what the variation could be in the estimated surplus just for the next 5 years, not the next 10, just the next 5. Here we are at the year 2001. We have been given this optimistic projection of a surplus right here on this middle line. But the CBO says, well, it could be up here; and it could be down here. Should we bet the future on a surplus estimate that is as uncertain as this is, even in the hands of the Congressional Budget Office that prepared it? I think not. Here is what some of the experts have to say about the estimate of the surplus. The Congressional Budget Office that prepared it says looking forward 5 or 10 years allows the Congress to consider the longer-term implications of policy changes. But it also increases the likelihood that the budgetary decisions will be made on the basis of projections that later turn out to have been far wrong. That is the folks that prepared the estimate. How about the Controller General of the United States, David Walker. He recently warned members of the Senate Committee on the Budget, and I quote, ``No one should design tax or spending policies pegged to the precise numbers in any 10-year forecast, no matter who prepares it.'' Let us read what Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, told the Congress, specifically the Senate Committee on the Budget on January 25 of this year. Mr. Greenspan said, ``Until we receive full detail on the distribution by income of individual tax liabilities for 1999, 2000, and perhaps 2001, we are making little more than informed guesses.'' Informed guesses. That is what your Congress is using to determine the financial future of your Federal Government. We have several other Blue Dogs here who are well versed on some of these issues, and I want to recognize the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff). He has worked long and hard on trying to balance the budget; and I know he is as familiar as I am, if not more so, with some of these statistics. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) to talk to my colleagues a little bit more about this very critical issue.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) has shared, I think, the thoughts that all Blue Dogs share, and that is the importance of fiscal responsibility and the importance of paying down debt as well as providing tax relief to the American people. One of the members of the Blue Dog Coalition who has been the most eloquent and outspoken on the issue of public debt and the importance of trying to deal with the public debt while we have the opportunity is the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor). Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) to discuss this issue.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi. I always am amazed at the common sense and clarity with which the gentleman speaks about the very complicated subject of the debt of the United States. I think most people fail to recognize how much we owe to the Social Security trust fund, the Medicare trust funds, the government employees' trust fund, and the military retirees' trust fund. Those are debts that are going to come due some day and those dollars are going to be needed, and a part of that projected future surplus certainly needs to be put back in to those trust funds to be prepared for those retirements that will inevitably occur. I am also pleased to have on the floor today a gentleman who is a very active member of the Blue Dog coalition, a prominent member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), who will address these issues.

Mr. TURNER. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee, and I appreciate his commitment to trying to restore fiscal responsibility to our Federal Government. It would seem to me that after 30 years of deficit spending when we only last year saw the first surplus in 30 years, that we could somehow, some way figure out how to stay on the course of fiscal responsibility and continue to not only run surpluses but to be sure that we are paying down that $5.7 trillion national debt that the gentleman from Mississippi talked about a few minutes ago, to allow us to be prepared for the real financial crisis that is coming in the next few years when the baby boomers begin to retire and the Social Security system and the Medicare system experience the great strains that will come with the large number of people who will be over 65 and eligible for their Social Security and their Medicare. We talk a lot about projections. The projection of the estimated surplus is no more than a projection, as the gentleman from Tennessee pointed out. It is not here yet. It may never be here yet. But what we do know for certain, and it is indisputable, that there will be many, many people retiring in just a few years that will cause the Social Security system to very quickly become insolvent unless we decide now, in advance, how to fix it. Blue Dog Democrats have worked hard to try to urge this House to debate and adopt a budget first before we have votes on major tax cuts, because no businessman and no head of household of any family in this country could ever determine how much is available to spend until first they sit down and draw up a budget and stick to it. This House needs to do that. The Senate, on the other hand, has already agreed that they will adopt the budget resolution before they vote on tax cuts. In the House, it seems that it is more important to create the appearance of having tax cuts pass than it is to deal with it in a realistic way to ensure that the fiscal soundness of the Federal Government is preserved for the future. We are in very difficult economic times. The stock market seems to go up one day and down the next. Many people have said we need tax cuts. Frankly, we all want to see taxes reduced. But the bulk of the surplus that we are talking about in Washington for tax cuts is not here now, and it will not be here for several years. Eighty-four percent of the projected surplus over the next 10 years arrives after President Bush's 4-year term in office. So we do not have a lot of surplus to be spending, or to be giving back in tax cuts. The surplus estimate may never arrive. In my view, the best thing we can do for economic stability in this country is for Washington to show that we know how to balance our books, we know how to get ready for the looming crisis in Social Security and Medicare, we know how to prevent this country from going back into deficit spending, we know how to pay down the national debt so we can quit paying a billion dollars a day in interest payments and so that we can see the lower interest rates that every economist agrees will occur if we will pay down the national debt. I read the other day that interest rates could go down 2 percent over the next 10 years if we could pay down the publicly held portion of the national debt. That would be a wonderful thing. If you are trying to buy a new home and you have borrowed $100,000 to do it, 2 percent lower interest rates means $2,000 a year to you. If you are trying to expand your business and you find out that you need to borrow $100,000 to do it, 2 percent lower interest rates means $2,000 in savings to your business. For the average family under anybody's tax cut proposal, they are not going to see $2,000 a year from tax cuts. You have got to be up in the upper-income limits to get $2,000 a year. The Blue Dog Democrats say a combination of responsible tax cuts and paying down debt will put more money in the back pocket of most American families than tax cuts alone, because we will get lower interest rates from paying down debt and more importantly perhaps is we will prepare for the retirement of the baby boom generation to ensure that there is no looming financial crisis facing this country. That is the Blue Dog message. That is what we are going to fight for. That is why we believe we need to have a budget debate and a responsible budget with spending caps before we decide how big the tax cut can be. Democrats in this House want the biggest tax cut we can afford. But we have not decided yet how much we really can afford. We have never had a budget debate. We have never passed a budget. It does not matter whether the President sends over a budget and says we are going to hold spending to 4 percent a year, or it does not matter whether I send one down here on the floor of the House. The way this place works is we debate it out, we have different points of view, and at the end of the day we take votes. It is that process that determines what the Federal Government's budget will be. Until you do that, until you go through that battle and you decide how much you are going to set aside for Medicare, Social Security, prescription drug coverage, national defense, education, paying down debt and tax cuts, there is no way you can determine how big a tax cut you can afford. That is what the Blue Dogs are fighting for in this House. That is the message of fiscal responsibility that we intend to carry throughout this debate. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield the final portion of our time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), who has another subject that he would like to address to this House. Condemning Destruction of Pre-Islamic Statues in Afghanistan

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 90) and I ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, the House will take up and consider a major tax cut today without ever having first adopted a budget to see if the tax cut will fit within that budget. No American family, no business would engage in major spending without first adopting a budget. The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires the Congress to adopt a budget resolution before votes on tax cuts. The 33 members of the Blue Dog coalition in the House will lead the fight today for a budget first, asking this House to commit to the letter and the spirit of the Budget Act. Democrats want the largest tax cut we can afford, but we do not know how much we can afford until we first have a budget debate and determine what the budget resolution of this Congress provides for. Then we will know how big a tax cut we can afford.