Jim Turner

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas. I share the gentleman's sentiments. I really do hope that we can get a plan that is meaningful passed in this session of the Congress. There is no reason we cannot. I think what we went through the week before last on this floor was disappointing to all of us, seeing that Republican plan pushed through without any option to even debate our plan of putting it as a benefit under Medicare. It was a disappointment I think to all of us. I know there is not much time left. And if this Congress wants to avoid the label of a ``do-nothing Congress,'' it needs to take some action on prescription drugs for our seniors. It is amazing. Before that bill passed on the floor of this House 2 weeks ago, the President said he was going to veto it. The time was to stop right there, get together, try to work together and work something out. People of this country are tired of this partisan approach to dealing with these issues. They want to see some real solutions and they expect us to get together and do that. So I thank the gentleman for sharing his thoughts with us tonight. The next speaker this evening is a gentleman who has probably been on this floor in the late evenings more than any other Member of this House, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone). He believes passionately in the problems faced by our seniors, and he has been on this floor tirelessly working on their behalf. It is a pleasure to yield to one of the leading spokesmen on behalf of our seniors on this issue, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) for his telling comments, particularly about his visit to Cuba. Even the Cubans understand that our senior citizens are getting ripped off and everybody in the world gets a better deal on prescription drugs than we do. That is really telling. I compliment the gentleman on his remarks. I also want to mention the gentleman from Arkansas has been a leader, not only in our Prescription Drug Task Force, but in his sponsorship of the legislation that would allow senior citizens of this country, and all of us, to be able to buy drugs in Mexico or Canada, and we can do that legally. Obviously that is where we would all buy them because they get them for less than half the price that we are having to pay for them. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). The gentleman from Texas and I served, not only here together, but in the State senate before. He is a leader on the Committee on Commerce on this issue, and he has worked long and hard to try to bring some fairness to prescription drug prices and to provide some benefit for our senior citizens of this area of great need.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor tonight during this special order hour with my colleagues, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and other leading Democrats to talk about an issue that we have worked on for at least 2 years now, and that is the problem of the high price of prescription drugs being paid by our senior citizens. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a little bit as we begin tonight about what I believe to be the coming crisis in health care for our senior citizens. Just last week, most of us were in our districts over the July 4th holiday, and we had the chance to talk to our constituents. I had numerous senior citizens coming up to me and talking about the letter they had received from their HMO, from their insurance company telling them that as of the 1st of January, their Medicare choice policy, their HMO Medicare plan was going to be discontinued by their insurance company. In fact, in East Texas, we have almost 5,000 seniors who are receiving these notices from their insurance companies, companies like Aetna, NYL Care, Humana are sending out notices to these seniors saying you are canceled, no longer can you have our Medicare choice HMO coverage. Most of these seniors signed up for this option under Medicare, because an HMO lured them to sign up with the promise of some prescription drug coverage under Medicare, and these seniors are going to be greatly disappointed and very upset come January 1 when they find out no longer do they have access to prescription drug coverage under their Medicare+Choice program. A good example of this came in a letter I received just yesterday. One constituent whose wife's name is Roxanne was dropped from NYL Care. Here is what this constituent's letter said to me, he wrote, our rights are being violated by the insurance companies and the politicians who are on the side of the insurance companies. My wife, Roxanne, he wrote, will end up in a wheelchair and possibly not able to walk again if she's denied the drug she needs. How many more Roxannes are out there, he writes, how many more Roxannes will suffer so the insurance companies and the politicians can get rich? Mr. Speaker, well, it is a hard lesson to learn. Unfortunately, our senior citizens are learning the lesson and that is you just cannot trust the insurance companies and the HMOs. Our senior citizens are out there struggling trying to pay the costs of prescription drugs. They know the insurance companies are not taking care of them, and they know that the insurance companies simply want to make money, and they are not interested in what happens to them. That is why over 5,000 seniors in my district are getting notices as we speak. When an insurance company decides to pull out of an area, a lot of people get hurt, a lot of people will be left without coverage all across this country come January 1. Some of us here in this House on the Democratic side of the aisle do care about our senior citizens, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) and others have been working for almost 2 years trying to do something about the high cost of prescription drugs. The sad fact is we know what works, and it is not the insurance companies' HMO plans. Just 2 weeks ago on the floor of this House, the Republican leadership passed a plan purportedly to help senior citizens with their prescription drug costs. It was a plan that said to the big insurance companies, you all offer insurance plans, prescription drug plans to our senior citizens and we will subsidize the costs for those who are at 125 percent of the poverty level and below. Mr. Speaker, well, for starters we all understand that the problem of high price of prescription drugs does not just fall on those who are below the poverty level, it really depends not only what your income is, it depends on how sick you are. I have an aunt who is a medical income person. She just got a new prescription from her doctor for a heart ailment that is going to cost her $400 a month. She is very upset. She let me know about it. She wants to know when this Congress is going to act. I told her I hope it was soon. The Republican plan that was passed by this House by the narrow margin of 3 votes was an empty promise to our senior citizens. The Republican leadership let the private insurance companies control the prescription drug programs when the private insurance companies themselves were before this Congress for weeks before that vote telling us that they will not offer any prescription-only drug plans. What really happened on the floor of this House is the big pharmaceutical manufacturers carried the day. After all, they had been running ads for weeks under a front group called Citizens for a Better Medicare, advertising full page ads in the newspapers and ads on the television screens that said the answer to the problem of prescription drug coverage for our seniors is private insurance, private insurance, private insurance, and sure enough that is what the Republican leadership did, pass a plan saying that private insurance was going to solve the problem. Mr. Speaker, well, we on the Democratic side of the aisle know that it is not going to solve the problem. In fact, even the insurance company knows that it is not going to solve the problem. Listen to what the President of Blue Cross-Blue Shield had to say about the idea of prescription drug-only insurance policies for seniors. He testified it, referring to the prescription drug plan that was proposed by the Republican leadership, it provides false hope to America's seniors because it is neither workable nor affordable. That is what the insurance industry said about the plan that they are supposed to offer under the Republican bill. The truth is, the Republican plan that was passed on this House floor by a margin of three votes is no plan at all. It might have made a nice press release over the July 4th holiday, but that is all it was, a press release. It is really interesting because my senior citizens in my district have already figured it out, and they were coming up to me over the July 4th holiday saying we know that bill that passed is never going to amount to anything for us. The New York Times had an article in this weekend's paper about insurance companies rejecting the same proposal that we just passed that was passed a few months ago by the legislature in Nevada. The New York Times wrote about the insurance company spurning Nevada's invitation to provide coverage of prescription drug-only policies for their seniors. When they advertised for bids by insurance companies under the legislation they passed, not one single insurance company was interested in the plan. The idea just does not work. It is just kind of like offering insurance for haircuts. It does not work because everybody needs one. Insurance companies understand that. It is not something that one insures. Most all of our senior citizens need coverage for prescription drugs. That is why the insurance companies cannot offer one that is affordable. Frankly, it is an idea that simply will not work. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in the House did not understand that. So what does work? What does work is what the Democrats in this House proposed and were not even given the opportunity to present it on the floor and debate it, and that is to provide a prescription drug benefit under the Medicare program, a program that seniors have trusted since 1965 to help them cover the cost of their health care. Our plan was affordable. It was voluntary. It was universal. It covered all people regardless of their income level. That is what our senior citizens deserve. I hope that when we celebrate the 35th anniversary of Medicare at the end of this month, we will be able to say that this Congress has acted responsibly and passed a real plan to help our senior citizens with their prescription drug costs. It is time that we take that long-needed action. If Medicare were created today, there is no question we would have a prescription drug coverage. Back in 1965, only about 10 percent of our health care cost was taken up by purchase of prescription drugs. Today they tell us it is about 30 percent. The truth is prescription drugs have done a lot of good things for us, but what good is the cure if one cannot afford the medicine? That is what my seniors are telling me, and they are right. Citizens For Better Medicare advocated the plan that was passed. The big pharmaceuticals carried today. But our senior citizens today were big losers. I think it is time for us to stand up for our seniors and let the folks in this Congress who were on the side of the big pharmaceutical manufacturers understand that our senior citizens want better treatment than that. After all, why should we give billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to insurance companies and big HMOs when they do not even want to offer those plans? Let us give the money back to our seniors in the form of lower drug prices, then we will have done something that helps those senior citizens. I am very pleased tonight to be joined by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry). He serves along with the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) and I on the Prescription Drug Task Force. We have worked for almost 2 years to try to bring some relief to senior citizens. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) and allow him to share his thoughts on this very important issue.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, last night on this floor, the big drug manufacturers won a big victory, and our senior citizens suffered a big loss. The big drug companies spent $100 million on a lobbying campaign that paid dividends, but only by a margin of three votes, and only after the rules were manipulated to deny the House Democrats the opportunity to vote on a real plan providing real relief for our seniors who are paying the high cost of prescription drugs. Looking out for the big drug manufacturers instead of our seniors led our Republican leadership to pass a plan that will funnel hundreds of millions of dollars into the hands of big insurance companies rather than help our seniors afford to pay their medicines. Even the big insurance companies say it will not work. In fact, the President of Blue Cross/Blue Shield said, and I quote, ``This idea of a private sector drug benefit provides false hope to America's seniors because it is neither workable nor affordable.'' We can do better. Let us work together to be sure we do better. Our seniors deserve no less.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, the House leadership has twisted the rules today so that we have only one choice: their bill or no bill. So let us talk about what their bill does. First of all, it gives millions of dollars to insurance companies instead of giving it back to seniors in the form of lower prescription drug prices. Secondly, the bill leaves out middle-income Americans. Middle-income Americans cannot get any help. All they are told is to go buy insurance. There are millions of middle-income Americans who are struggling to pay the costs of high prescription medications. Thirdly, this bill simply rewards the pharmaceutical industry who has spent almost $100 million trying to be sure that this bill that is on the floor today is the only bill we have a chance to debate. A group called Citizens for Better Medicare, formed by the pharmaceutical industry, has worked hard to be sure that this day arrives in the form that we have it. Finally, the Republican bill lets the greedy HMOs decide what medicines seniors get. We believe seniors and their doctors should decide what kind of medications they get.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois. I appreciate the leadership the gentlewoman has given to this issue. She is a most effective spokesperson on behalf of senior citizens. I am sure that seniors in the gentlewoman's district fully recognize the battle that the gentlewoman is waging on their behalf. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my dear friend, the gentleman from San Antonio, Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), who has been a warrior fighting on behalf of seniors on this issue.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) for joining in this effort tonight to talk about the problems of high prices of prescription drugs for our seniors. I hope the effort this evening has shed some light on why prices of prescription medicines are so very high for our seniors. After all, when the big drug manufacturers can afford to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in ad campaigns to try to preserve the status quo, which has resulted in our senior citizens, our most vulnerable portion of our population, paying the highest prices of anyone in our society and anyone in the world for prescription medications, I think and I know the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) thinks that we need to talk about it on the floor of this House. This ad campaign must be exposed, the hundreds of millions of dollars that the big drug companies are spending to try to be sure that they defeat our efforts to pass meaningful prescription drug coverage for our seniors as a part of the Medicare program. That effort that they are making is wrong, and I hope that our seniors will see through it when they get these telegrams, when they see these newspaper ads, when they watch the television screens with characters like Flo that the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) mentioned, they will understand that they are seeing an ad that is designed to perpetuate a system that makes senior citizens of this country pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs that they need. I thank all of my colleagues for joining with us tonight and being a part of this effort to talk about this important issue. I am looking forward to hearing from the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), our next speaker in the last portion of our Special Orders, who has been outspoken on this issue and has a unique insight as a medical doctor into the problem of prescription drugs for seniors.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership. Many of us may not recognize that the gentleman from Arkansas has a background and training as a pharmacist, and he understands full well the issue that we are discussing tonight, and his leadership has been invaluable in helping us try to address this issue. I now want to yield to another Member of this Congress who has worked tirelessly in her efforts to try to address the problems of senior citizens and paying for prescription drugs, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky). I am pleased to have her here tonight, and I thank the gentlewoman for the leadership she has provided for all of us on this issue.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, tonight we come to the floor to talk about an issue that many of my Democratic colleagues have been talking about for over 2 years, the problem of high prices of prescription drugs for our senior citizens. We are here on the floor tonight at a very critical time, because at this very moment, in this late hour, the Committee on Ways and Means is meeting and debating the issue of legislation to provide prescription drug coverage for our senior citizens. Tonight I want to spend a little time talking about that debate and the forces that are at work that will determine what kind of prescription drug coverage and what kind of plan this Congress will endorse. We are here tonight on behalf of our senior citizens, and over the last 2 years I have visited and heard from many of them. I remember very distinctly when we first introduced the Prescription Drug Fairness Act, almost 2 years ago, and I traveled around my district talking about the issue with senior citizens at our local pharmacies, and I met a lady who ended up as a surprise at one of my meetings in Orange, Texas, a lady who was 84 years old and blind, who said she just had heard I was coming to town to talk about my efforts to try to fight the high prices of prescription drugs, and she wanted to come down and thank me. She was a lovely lady. She spent over half of her $700 Social Security check on her 14 prescription medicines that she had to take every day. She said this, and it is recorded in an article in the Houston Chronicle, November 22, 1998. She said, ``By the time I get through paying for my medicines, I have very little to live off of.'' This lady should not have to face a choice of paying for prescription medications or buying food. She says, ``As long as I get my utilities and bills paid, I do the best I can. What is left, I try to spend on food.'' Well, Ms. Daley, we have been fighting for almost 2 years now to try to help you pay for your prescription drugs, and we are going to find out in just a few hours what the Committee on Ways and Means does to help you. I am hopeful that the outcome will be good, but, based on what I will share with you tonight, I have serious doubts as to whether we can report to Ms. Daley that we have a good bill and a good plan. One letter I got some months ago was from some constituents of mine by the name of Joe and Billie O'Leary. They live down in Silsbee, Texas. I know Joe. I have talked to him several times at town meetings. His wife Billie wrote me a letter. Joe and Billie spend more than $400 a month for their prescription medications. They wrote me a 3 page letter, and I want to share with you a little bit of what Ms. O'Leary said. It speaks, I think, volumes about the problems that our seniors face. She wrote, ``Most of the elderly have several ailments that require several prescriptions per month. The best and the latest treatments for some ailments and diseases are priced out of range for many on Medicare. Some treatments are available only for those who can afford it. I have found,'' she says, ``the problem is not that older people want free medicine. They want medicine that is reasonably priced so they can afford to buy it. What good,'' Ms. O'Leary says, ``what good is research and finding cures for diseases if a larger part of our population cannot afford the medicine for the cure?" She goes on to write, ``The people who are having to pay the high costs are the ones least able to pay. Let's be fair to all,'' she says. ``Please try to cap the price the pharmaceutical companies are allowed to charge. Then we all can afford to pay for our own medicine.'' This is the part that was most moving to me. Ms. O'Leary writes, ``Our generation worked hard. We, through our taxes and efforts, helped to 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 to keep our country free. We believe our country is big enough with our resources to provide reasonable health care and affordable medicine for all.'' Ms. O'Leary, I agree, and I hope that the majority of this Congress will also agree. The big drug companies have been engaged in a campaign to try to defeat our efforts to lower the price of prescription drugs and to provide some affordable prescription drug coverage. No one can dispute the fact that drugs are too expensive, and I think many of our senior citizens are asking the question, why are prescription drugs so high, and why does the price continue to go up? One-third of all of our seniors on Medicare cannot afford any prescription drug coverage at all, and another one third has only unreliable, incomplete or very costly coverage. That means there are 15 million of our mothers, fathers, grandparents, neighbors and friends who must go without the prescription drugs they so desperately need, and the costs are continuing to rise. In 1998 the prices of the 50 most popular prescription drugs among seniors rose by more than four times the rate of inflation. Every time I return to my district in Texas, I hear from seniors who must make the choice that Ms. Daley was talking about, the choice between food and filling their prescriptions. We all hear the stories from seniors who only take half of their daily dosage or seniors who take only every other dose in a sad attempt to try to manage those skyrocketing costs. The problem is particularly bad for seniors who live in rural areas. Rural seniors are 60 percent less likely to get the drugs they need, and, when they do, the drugs are 25 percent more expensive. Study after study shows that seniors are paying too much for their drugs. In my district and in the district of those who are gathered here tonight to talk about this issue, seniors are paying 80 percent higher than their counterparts in Canada and about 80 percent higher than their counterparts in Mexico pay for the very same prescription medicines. That means for some commonly used drugs, our senior citizens in our great country are paying as much as $1,000 a more year than their counterparts in Canada and Mexico. And you do not have to go across the border to find lower prices. The big drug companies cut a special deal for the big HMOs and the big hospital chains. In fact, those big HMOs, they are paying about half what our seniors have to pay when they walk in to their local pharmacies. We did a study in the Committee on government reform that verified these numbers, and we also found out, to our dismay, that even cats and dogs get drugs cheaper than our senior citizens. The same drugs that both humans and animals take cost 150 percent more for humans. That is outrageous. So why is this? Why are these drug prices out of control? Well, for one thing, the companies that manufacture these prescription medications are making exorbitant profits. The drug industry sets at the top of every single profit category in Fortune Magazine's list of industries for the year. As the chart shows, they earned over $26.2 billion in profits in the year 1998. Prescription drugs are the fastest growing component of our health care costs, and the CEOs of those big drug companies measure their annual salaries in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and their stock options they measure in the billions. The 12 biggest drug makers paid their top executives over $545 million in 1998, and $2.1 billion in stock options. The drug companies pull in tens of billions of dollars in profit, and they pay their CEOs hundreds of millions of dollars, and now they are complaining to this Congress that if we lower drug prices, it will cut into research and development. It is a lie. It is simple greed. The big drug makers are not about to let these profits slip away, and that is why they are spending billions of dollars on marketing and lobbying in this Congress. In fact, nine out of the ten top drug makers spend more money on marketing than they do on research and development, and four of the top five have a marketing budget over twice as big as their research and development budget. In 1998, the drug companies spent $1.3 billion in tax deductible product marketing to consumers. That is $1.3 billion in marketing, advertisement, to entice consumers to buy those prescription drugs at those high prices. They spent $7 billion more advertising directly to the health care professionals. In 1999, the trade association for the drug manufacturers, called PHrMA, increased its marketing budget 54 percent higher than the previous year. But despite the soaring profits of the drug makers, their research and development increased by less than half of that. Another very, very important issue for all of our seniors to understand when they ask the question why are drug prices so high is to understand that the drug manufacturers are spending just over $2 million a year lobbying this Congress. They spent $2 million in direct political contributions and almost $150 million in lobbying expenditures in the 105th Congress. That is a lot of money. They are one of the biggest spenders of any industry group on lobbying and in political contributions. Should we ask why is it difficult for this Congress to deal with this issue in the best interests of our senior citizens? It is not hard to answer the question, when we see the amount of millions that the drug manufacturers are spending, trying to preserve their preferred position with regard to pricing. Now, the drug companies we know in recent months have gone even further than the expenditures that we see here. They are using lies, deceptions and secret organizations to attack any plan that would dare to suggest we should lower drug prices. Just yesterday, a nonprofit group called Public Citizen released a new report that revealed a secret $65 million ad campaign funded by the drug makers under the deceptive name of Citizens for Better Medicare. I want to show you some of their materials. This group, Citizens for Better Medicare, is really a secret interest group that uses tax loopholes to cover up the sources of their funding and their real purpose. They clearly want to keep drug prices high. They want to pass legislation in this Congress that will let them share the millions of dollars of taxpayer dollars with the insurance companies and the greedy HMOs, rather than giving the money back to our seniors in the form of lower drug prices. Here is what the report revealed about the so-called Citizens for Better Medicare. Its director, it was revealed, a fellow named Tim Ryan, is the former marketing director for PHrMA, the industry trade group for the pharmaceutical manufacturers. The report also revealed that the Members of this Citizens for Better Medicare include other interest groups that have been denounced by Republicans and Democrats alike for their scare tactics to try to persuade seniors to oppose the efforts that are being made in this Congress to lower prescription drug prices. It is their goal to avoid any kind of Medicare drug coverage that has the effect of reining in the skyrocketing drug costs. This campaign has targeted many Members of Congress, particularly those on the Democratic side of the aisle. In fact, this interest group has sent telegrams into my own district and called on my constituents with information that is clearly deceptive and urged them to call me to tell me to oppose the very legislation that would genuinely help lower prescription drug costs. My colleagues can see here on the chart one of the telegrams that my constituents handed me when I was at Wal-Mart just a couple of weekends ago. He came up to me quite disturbed and he says, I want to give you this. They have written me this, sent me this telegram and they have urged me to call you, but now that I have seen you here at Wal-Mart, I will just give you the telegram. This telegram, and I quote from it, says, ``Government bureaucrats under the democratic plan could control which medicines you receive instead of you and your doctor.'' Clearly, an absolute lie. The plan that we propose is completely voluntary. Government bureaucrats would not control the prices, and specifically under our plan, it promises that any drug a doctor determined to be medically necessary will be covered under our plan. The telegram attempts to confuse seniors by referring to the Gephardt-Daschle bill and urges seniors to call our offices and tell us to be against that bill. Well, interestingly, there is no such bill. There is no Gephardt-Daschle bill. Another effort simply to deceive and confuse our senior citizens. Frankly, the truth is that the Republican leadership in this Congress is cooperating with this group, Citizens for Better Medicare. As we can see, this group has not only sent out telegrams, but they have run full-page ads in the major newspapers around the country suggesting that the way to lower prescription drug prices is to turn this effort over to private insurance companies because, as the ad depicts, they say, those who are enrolled in private insurance get lower prices. Well, why should not everybody get lower prices whether they have insurance or not? So Citizens for Better Medicare, a front group for the drug manufacturers, is willing to pay $65,000 for one ad in the Washington Post just to try to persuade this Congress to be against plans that would genuinely bring prices down for our senior citizens. So what can we do? First of all, we have to have our senior citizens clearly understand who is on their side. We have to have them understand that these letters, these television ads that have been running for months in many districts that try to suggest that they should call their Congressman and tell them to be against some plan is, most likely, paid for by the pharmaceutical industry that is trying to preserve their ability to charge the outrageous prices that our seniors are currently paying. Our democratic plan has been clear. It is part of Medicare, a plan that our seniors trust. It is a plan that is universal, completely voluntary, and most importantly, it is affordable. Our democratic plan would be available to every senior, and every senior today has a problem when they get sick paying these high prices. One does not have to just be at the poverty level to have a problem with the price of prescription drugs. My aunt came to see me the other day, she is not at the poverty level, but she had been put on a new medication and she said it was going to cost her $400, and she was outraged. All seniors want help with the price of prescription drugs. Our plan would do that. It does not give the money to private insurance companies as the Republican plan would, and it is very interesting, because the private insurance companies and the very hearings that are going on tonight have testified, some of their representatives, that the insurance companies really do not think they can offer this plan, because they cannot figure out how to make any money off of it. Even if we pour this money into them, they say, well, we would probably not be able to do it for the seniors. What we need is a Medicare benefit for all of our seniors that is affordable, that is voluntary, so if our seniors say, well, I already have some other insurance coverage and I like it, then they do not have to pay the premium that is offered under the Medicare plan. But all of our seniors need this relief. I am glad to have tonight with me 3 other Members of Congress who have fought very hard on the issue that I am talking about. One of them whom I want to recognize first is the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry). The gentleman cochairs the Prescription Drug Task Force with me, along with the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen). The gentleman has fought long and hard on this issue for our seniors and it is a pleasure to recognize him to speak on this issue.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Linder- Collins amendment. We are all supporters of clean air. This debate is not whether or not ozone is harmful. We all know it is. This debate is about fairness. It is a debate about whether or not we should all be able to play by the same rules. Over a year ago, the Federal Circuit court found that the EPA acted without authorization in drafting these new 8-hour ozone standards. We know that that matter is on appeal. But we also know that the EPA is continuing to use these standards to label our communities and to designate some of them as nonattainment areas. What does a nonattainment label mean? It means a suspense of Federal highway funds. It could mean the imposition of auto emissions testing programs. And it certainly means restrictions on all of our local industries. It is like a bright neon sign at the county line saying ``stay out'' to every business and industry that is looking for a new place to invest. We believe that everybody should be able to play by the same rules and that we should wait until the Supreme Court rules.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Wu-Smith amendment, and I want to share with my colleagues from a very personal perspective why I think this is a bad idea. I come from an area of Texas where we have four national forests. Now, when one looks at those national forests on a map, one thinks they are entirely Federal property. But when one looks at a more detailed map, what one sees is that those Federal properties are interspersed with private property tracks. As a consequence, everyone who is a private land owner who adjoins the national forest is at risk in terms of their property and the ability of them to be free from forest fires if we, as the Federal Government, fail to properly manage the Federal forests. If my colleagues or I were living in the midst of the national forest tonight, and we heard that Congress was going to reduce the funding for management of the forest, we would have every reason to be worried about the risk of forest fire and danger to our own properties. So even though we are debating tonight an issue that calls for the reduction of funding in the amount of $15 million, and some would argue who have offered this amendment that we ought to increase funding for the protection of wildlife, I say to them that it is equally, if not more important, to protect the lives and safety of those citizens who are all across this country in areas where we have national forests who own private property within and adjoining those national forests. It is also, I think, important to remember that those who have opposed traditionally logging in our national forests have gotten the better end of the deal in recent years. In fact, we are at an all-time low in terms of the volume of timber harvested from our national forest. We see today based on the statistics that are available to all of us that we are growing timber six times faster in the national forest than we harvest it. As a consequence, we have an abundant supply of available marketable timber in our national forest. If we are going to be good stewards of the land and if we are going to protect those who adjoin and live in the midst of our national forest from the threat of forest fires engulfing their own homes, we have got to be willing to spend the necessary funds to be sure that we properly manage the forest. Now, I have talked to the district forester that manages and overseas the four national forests in east Texas. I can tell my colleagues that, when we talk about reducing funding for forest management, it gets his attention, because he understands that it takes personnel and it takes equipment and it takes time to go out and properly manage a forest. There are some here tonight who criticize the cost of management of our national forests even to go so far as to suggest that it costs more to manage the forests than we get in harvestable commercial timber. Well, the truth of the matter is we may manage our forest well and it may cost a lot, but I will tell my colleagues, there is a whole lot of regulations that our national forests have to abide by in management of those forests. I, frankly, as a private forest land owner only wish that I could afford to manage my property the same way that the Federal Government manages our national forest, because the amount of control and regulation and attention to detail that takes place in the management of our national forest far exceeds anything that I see going on in the private sector. But the bottom line here for me is that this amendment and any future effort to cut funding for the management of our forest directly affects the school children in my congressional district, because as we all know, 25 percent of the proceeds of the sale of timber goes to the school districts in our respective congressional districts. I know personally firsthand the hardship that has been placed upon many of our school districts and the disadvantages that it has placed the school children in those districts from the reduction of harvesting from our national forest. There is a piece of legislation that passed this House that is now pending in the Senate that is designed to try to help that situation. I hope that when that bill comes back, we will all support it. But in the meantime, we do not need to be reducing funding for the management of our national forest.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I come from a district where the average household income is just over $21,000. We know that less than 2 percent of all American families ever owe an estate tax. I can say that in the second district of Texas, it is less than that. H.R. 8 targets the richest 2 percent of the families in the country and if it were to pass, it would amount to a $2 billion to $3 billion tax break just for the 400 richest Americans. It would cost over $50 million a year when fully phased in. Mr. Speaker, I say it is simply not right to give the very richest billionaires a $50 billion tax break while everyone else is left to figure out how to pay off the national debt and how to save Social Security. As the chart I have to my right indicates, the Democratic substitute gives even more relief to the smaller estates. In fact, the Democratic alternative gives the greatest tax relief to the smallest estates at a fraction of the cost to the Treasury. Look here, a $2 million estate of the husband who dies and the family worth $4 million, under House Bill 8, that family owes $229,800 in estate taxes; under the Democratic substitute, there is no estate tax due. That is if we have a family farm or small business. If we do not happen to be a family farmer or have a small business, we still get more relief under the first 5 years under the Democratic plan than under H.R. 8. Mr. Speaker, I say this is the best plan. It is fiscally responsible and gives the greatest tax relief to the smaller estates.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, if we deny PNTR to China, businesses, workers, farmers and ranchers in my district in East Texas and across the Nation will lose the benefits of a trade agreement that, on its face, is very favorable to the United States. Unlike the NAFTA agreement in which the United States had to eliminate its own trade barriers, China will reduce its tariffs on American goods, while we make no similar concessions. Rejecting PNTR means the benefits of trade and job growth will go to other nations who open the door to trade, while we slam it shut. As a Member of the Committee on Armed Services, I believe granting PNTR to China is in America's national security interests. While dealing with China as a rising economic and military power will not be easy, we should not make the road more difficult than it has to be. If we reject PNTR, we will be sending a powerful signal to China and the entire world that we are walking away from a constructive relationship with China. On the other hand, engagement will further our nuclear nonproliferation efforts, encourage the Chinese to embrace democracy and the rule of law, and further the expansion of human rights and freedom for the Chinese people. Progress in these areas will not be uninterrupted, but history and common sense and human relationships teach us that engagement is the best hope for world peace for our children and grandchildren.

Mr. TURNER

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

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the primary Democratic cosponsor of the resolution.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of the Federal Contractor Flexibility Act of 2000 which was introduced by our friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), and I want to commend the gentleman for his hard work on this bill. It is a very important piece of legislation, and he did a great job with it. I also want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), his neighbor, who also was the primary Democratic sponsor of this legislation. As has been pointed out, this bill would restrict Federal departments and agencies from using mandatory minimum personnel and experience requirements for contractor personnel in the procurement of information technology goods and services, unless there is some justification for such a restriction. Currently, Federal information technology procurement officers can require contractors to use employees who, at a minimum, have a college degree. As the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) pointed out, Bill Gates and Michael Dell would not qualify under the current restrictions. It is obvious I think to all of us that the Federal agencies oftentimes dictate more stringent educational requirements than are necessary to do the job. H.R. 3582 would require Federal agencies to justify those minimum requirements, but it would not preclude them from including such requirements if the contracting officer determined that the agency's needs could not be met without the requirements. The legislation also would not preclude agencies from evaluating an employee's experience or education, including their participation in in-house training or other certification programs. But most importantly, this legislation will increase the number of information technology workers eligible to assume government contractor information technology jobs, and it would alleviate the current shortage of labor in this field. Today, we take the first step by eliminating these arbitrary experience and educational requirements for the private IT sector contractors. But I look forward to working with my colleagues so that we can eliminate these same requirements for our Federal employees. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this bipartisan measure. Again, I commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis); the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran); the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), our subcommittee chairman; as well as the gentleman from Indiana (Chairman Burton); and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), our ranking member, for their work on this bill. I urge swift passage of H.R. 3582. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER

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

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 300. Most experts are in agreement that the Y2K problem presented the Federal Government with its greatest management challenge of the last 50 years. Our Nation has over one-fourth of the computer assets and is technologically dependent, as we all understand, and millions of Americans rely every day on uninterrupted computer service for essential services. Certainly the repercussions of failing to conquer the Y2K problem would have had devastating effects on our economy and our national welfare. Yet, despite the severity of the Y2K challenge, most observers believe we got off to a slow start in focusing on the problem. As we all know, unfortunately, it usually takes a crisis for the government to concentrate its considerable resources and to solve a problem. For more than 3\1/2\ years the Committee on Government Reform Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology, along with the Committee on Science Subcommittee on Technology, held hearings to focus exclusively upon every facet of the Y2K computer problem. Our subcommittee had over 24 hearings on the topic in the last year alone; and I want to commend our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn); the gentlewoman from Maryland (Chairwoman Morella); and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia) for the outstanding work they have done in leading our Nation through this time of computer crisis. I also want to thank the General Accounting Office that did outstanding work, particularly Mr. Joel Williamson, who worked very diligently to bring to our attention the progress being made, or not being made, by the various Federal agencies. I also think we owe special thanks to Mr. John Koskinen, who, as chairman of the President's Council on the Y2K Conversion, did yeoman's work to be sure that our Federal agencies, as well as the Nation as a whole, was ready for the clock to strike midnight on December 31, 1999. Our Federal workers, however, are the ones that are really due the real credit for the ability of our Federal Government to meet the Y2K crisis. The brunt of the work fell on their shoulders, and it is the Federal workers who deserve the real credit. They were the troops in the trenches, they were the ones who were on the front line, they were the ones who gave up their holidays and worked overtime to be sure that the Federal Government computers were working at midnight. As we approached January 1, 2000, we began to have a higher degree of confidence that we were going to be able to be Y2K compliant and have no significant disruptions. But the truth was, none of us really knew for sure what would happen. Fortunately, we made it through with virtually no problems. The Federal Government's computer systems were ready to successfully operate in the new millennium due to the efforts of these hundreds and even thousands of Federal workers who worked diligently to cure the problems that they found. We had a smooth transition; the Federal workers did their jobs, and if it is true that the Y2K challenge represented one of the greatest management tasks to face the Federal Government in the last 50 years and that we were slow to focus our attention upon it, then we can take even greater comfort in knowing that it was our Federal workers who handled such a mammoth undertaking with such professionalism and skill. Mr. Speaker, many of the success stories will never be told to the public and many of our Federal workers will have to take comfort in the fact that it was their efforts in those long weekends and on those holidays that prevented us from having disruptions in computer services. I am glad that this resolution recognizes our Federal workers in one of their finest hours. As a result of their skill, January 1 of 2000 proceeded like any normal day. Once again, we have shown that when faced with a challenge, whether in time of war or peace, the American people are up to the challenge and our Federal workers certainly proved their abilities and their dedication during this time. We owe them a great debt of gratitude. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, American families deserve an honest budget based on realistic and conservative estimates of the surplus, a budget that takes a responsible approach to protecting Social Security and to ensuring that our children will not inherent a big national debt. The Blue Dog Democrat budget protects 100 percent of the Social Security surplus for Social Security. It commits the projected surplus 50 percent to paying down the national debt, 25 percent to saving Social Security and Medicare, and 25 percent to tax relief. It is not fancy, it is not gimmicky, and it does not make promises that it cannot deliver. Most importantly, it is an honest budget that is good for our future. The Blue Dog budget contrasts sharply with the Republican budget. The Blue Dog budget adopts a more conservative estimate of the surplus. After all, this good economy may not go on forever. The Blue Dog budget makes a stronger commitment to paying off our $5 trillion national debt, rather than risking our historic opportunity to give our children a debt-free America. The Blue Dog budget is stronger on national defense and veterans' health care. The Blue Dog budget offers a realistic promise that not only will we keep our hands out of the Social Security Trust Fund, but that we will be prepared to put more in it when the baby boom generation retires and those deficits begin to mount in the trust fund. Finally, the Blue Dog budget guarantees that the tax relief we grant will be targeted to working, middle-income families who deserve to have their fair share of the prosperity of this new economy. Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, do the right thing and support the Blue Dog Democrat budget.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great American, a patriot and leader, a successful businessman, a fellow Texan and a good and loyal friend, E.R. (Bob) Gregg, who after many years of dedicated service to his community, to his county and to the State of Texas, passed away on November 19, 1999. Following in the footsteps of his grandfather, Capt. E. L. Gregg, and his parents, Eldredge and Helena Gregg, Bob Gregg worked diligently and tirelessly to help those in need, to strengthen East Texas' business community, and to improve our education system. Following graduation from Kemper Military Institute, the University of Texas at Austin and the Southern Methodist University School of Banking, the Rusk native served in the U.S. Army during the Korean War and held an officer's position with the Texas National Guard. Bob's work with various organizations in East Texas and his list of contributions are numerous. Bob Gregg was very active in the banking community for more than 30 years and served as vice president, president and board chairman of Allied Texas Bank of Jacksonville. He was a Mason, a Past Potentate of the Sharon Shrine Temple in Tyler, a lifetime member of the Jaycees, and a recipient of the Jaycee's ``One of the Five Outstanding Young Texans'' award. He was a past chairman of the Jacksonville Chamber of Commerce and was named Jacksonville's Citizen of the Year in 1992. Because of his dedication to the value of education, he served for five years on the Jacksonville Independent School District Board of Trustees and for 18 years on the State Board of Education. Bob Gregg was a dedicated member of the Jacksonville First United Methodist Church and a member and past president of the Jacksonville Lions Club. He was a charter member and three term past president of the Jacksonville Rodeo Association Board and treasurer of the Jacksonsville Unit of the Salvation Army for 45 years. He was a board member of the Rusk Industrial Foundation and a member of the Board of Trustees of Lon Morris College, which he attended earlier in his life. From his post as a member of the Commissioners Court for a decade, Bob was a compelling and effective leader for East Texans. He had been Cherokee County Commissioner for precinct 1 since 1989 and was a member of the East Texas Council of Governments Executive Committee. He was also a member of the Region 1 Water Group and a board member of both the East Texas Housing Development and Cherokee County Crimestoppers. Bob made a positive impact on the lives of many East Texans and personified the definition of a true and loyal American who set a high standard for us all to live by. He was an outstanding example to his family and friends, and has been as asset to the many communities that he touched over the years. Mr. Speaker, it is with sincere gratitude and the utmost respect that I rise today to ask that you join me and our colleagues in honoring the selfless service of Bob Gregg, who will be missed by so many people who were lucky enough to know him. I would also like to take this opportunity to extend my heart-felt condolences to his wife Mary, his two sons, and the entire Gregg family. Although Bob is no longer with us, his will and drive to make East Texas a better place will continue on forever.

Mr. TURNER

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

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my colleague from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). This amendment would require OMB to conduct a study on the adequacies of the notices on overpayments provided to the companies that are subject to recovery audits. Companies that are audited deserve to know detailed information about the nature of the overpayments that the recovery auditors identify. I appreciate the remarks made by the gentleman from Indiana. I think it is appropriate that we include this in this bill. I want to commend the gentlewoman from Texas for bringing this amendment forward. I would urge its adoption.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) stated, after this bill went to the Committee on Rules, it was discovered that there was a need for some technical corrections and clarifications. This amendment does that. It is bipartisan. It is noncontroversial. I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) of our subcommittee for the work they did in addressing these concerns. I urge adoption of the manager's amendment.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I understand we have a manager's amendment and an amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) which, of course, I support.