Jim Turner

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, as a Texan, it is an honor for me to come pay tribute to my friend, Joe Kennedy. I must tell you, Joe, that when I first came to this House 2 years ago, just the thought of meeting you, and knowing the rich heritage that your family has and the contributions that your family has made over the years to our country, caught me somewhat in awe to meet you the first time. I never will forget when we were in freshman orientation up at the Kennedy School at Harvard University and you invited the freshmen to come out for a dinner with you and Beth at the Kennedy Library. We had a chance to visit and to know the warmth and the charm that you and Beth both exude. It made me realize the character and the depth that you have as a person. I will tell you that I have always been impressed as a freshman Member of this body that I have never walked past you without you saying, hello, hello, Jim. Someone who has been around here much longer than I have, who oftentimes, as a new Member with 434 other Members here in this body, oftentimes it takes a while to get acquainted with everyone. But I never will forget the warmth and friendship you have exhibited to me personally and to the other Members of the freshman class. The Kennedy name means much in Texas. Over the years, as I grew up, and on the occasions when Kennedys would visit, it was always a warm experience because I know that many in Texas understood the depth of commitment that the Kennedy family has always had to those who maybe did not have quite as much as everyone else; those who needed a helping hand; those who needed the government to be there as their safety net. And in this body, Joe, you have stood for those values. Even though you come from a family of great recognition, you have always worked hard to be sure that those who needed the helping hand of government, needed the safety net of government, would have that assistance. When we talk in this body among freshmen Members and we reflect upon those who have passed our way, I am sure that you and Beth will always have a very special place in all of our hearts. They always say that there is a special connection between Boston and Austin, between Massachusetts and Texas. We hope we can continue to keep that alive, and we appreciate, Joe, your service and your dedication to the people that you have exhibited these many years. It has been an honor for me to get a chance to know you, and I appreciate your friendship.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) for leading us in this Special Order this evening honoring our dear friend and colleague, Henry B. Gonzalez. I, much like the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), as I was a younger man and I heard the name, Henry B. Gonzalez, a name that always stood for a man who worked hard in the Congress for little people. I know that Henry comes from a background where he understood how important it is for someone to have affordable housing. He came from a background that understood that quality education was the key to moving up in life. It is an honor for me to stand here tonight as a freshman member of this body and honor a colleague and friend who has served over four decades in these halls. Henry B. had what many might consider a very daunting and difficult task in that he served as dean of the congressional delegation from Texas, oftentimes a rowdy group. But my colleague from Texas rose to that occasion and led because of his many years of experience in these halls. The congressional career of Henry B. Gonzalez is indeed a distinguished one, both in terms of his longevity and in terms of his accomplishments. He was first Mexican-American elected to serve the State of Texas in the United States House of Representatives, the son of Mexican immigrants. Henry B. Gonzalez served Texans in the Texas State Senate as well as in the U.S. House, and he went on to serve three terms as chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. His work to overhaul the deposit insurance system and to repair the savings and loan industry were instrumental to the banking industry and to the consumers of this country. He was a vocal advocate for affordable housing, and he worked for many, many years for lower income American families to ensure that they had access to safe quality housing. He knew how important it was for someone to have a place that they could call home, a place that they could live in with pride. He knew what it meant for American families to be able to enjoy the benefits of homeownership. Henry B. Gonzalez has always been a fighter. He never turned his back when he knew there was an issue of importance that he needed to stand up for. He had that kind of reputation in this Congress; he had that reputation in Texas; he had that reputation in his community. I salute a great American, a great Texan, Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez. I thank you, Henry, for your years of service, for your leadership, for your compassion on behalf of the issues that you knew were important to the little people in this country. For the people who did not have a voice, you spoke for them. For that, we are eternally grateful. We are sorry to see you leave our ranks. We will miss you as a friend, we will miss your leadership in this body, and I share with my colleagues our congratulations to you for your distinguished service, and we wish you well in your new ventures along the way.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California, and I thank her again for sharing her insight. I guess it is the gentlewoman's nursing background that causes her to be so very sensitive to what we all see when we go out in our districts and talk about this issue. It is the seniors who are having trouble just making ends meet, who are faced with these high costs of prescription medications that we are trying to help here today. I had a lady come up to me in Orange, Texas, as I was talking about this legislation at one of my local pharmacies, a lovely lady named Frances Staley. She happened to be blind. She was very a proud lady, and she was telling me about how important she thought this issue was and how much she supported what we are trying to do. I began to ask her about her situation. She told me that she has $650 a month in social security. That is her total check. She told me that she has $540 worth of prescription drug bills every month. She has nine different medications that she has to take. We were standing there, with her pharmacy over there, and she looked over and said, I am just glad that my pharmacist will give me credit. I still said to her, but if you have $540 in prescription drug bills every month and you only have $650 from social security, how do you live? And she leaned over to me in that proud sort of way, and said, well, sometimes I just take half my medication. Now, no senior citizen should have to make that choice. That is why we are here today.

Mr. TURNER. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island. Bad Conduct is not Grounds for Impeachment

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I again thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) for his leadership on this issue. He has been a tireless worker for many years on behalf of health care for children, for senior citizens, and for all Americans. I again want to thank the gentleman for directing the staff of our Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, as our ranking member, to prepare these studies to document this very serious problem that we are talking about here today. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) mentioned the difference in the price of one particular drug. On the chart to my right, we have depicted the results of the study that the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight staff did in my congressional district. What it did, Mr. Speaker, was to take the 10 most commonly prescribed drugs for senior citizens, and it took a look at the prices that those drug manufacturers are charging their most favored customers, those big HMOs, those big insurance companies, the big hospital chains, and even the Federal Government. Those prices are depicted here in this column. The one the gentleman from Texas mentioned right here was $58 that the favored customers paid. In the same study, pharmacies in my district on average were having to charge $107 to our senior citizens who walk in without insurance for that same quantity of prescription medication. This quantity here is about a month's supply of each of those prescription drugs. So you see in the last column the price differential. As the gentleman said, it was 90 percent for the drug that you take. The average of all of these 10 commonly prescribed prescription drugs in my district was 103 percent. We have heard others here today say it was 105 percent in their district, but, roughly, senior citizens are paying twice for prescription medication than what the drug manufacturers are charging their most favored customers. We talked about this in my district in a series of about 25 little meetings I had with pharmacists all across my 19 counties. I want to make it very clear today, and it is shown on this third chart that I have, that the problem is not a problem created by our local pharmacies. It is the drug manufacturers that are responsible for this disparity, not the retail pharmacist. In fact, in most of our districts, we see independent pharmacies going out of business every month because their margins are so small caused by this discriminatory pricing scheme that they are not able to make ends meet as pharmacies and are having to close down their businesses. What this chart shows you is that, of the total price differential shown in blue on the left-hand side, the average retail markup from average wholesale by pharmacies in my district was about 1 percent, a little over 1 percent. In fact, the highest markup for any prescription medication that we studied by retail pharmacists in my district was 19 percent. So it is not the local pharmacies that are making the money. We looked, not only at the 10 most commonly prescribed prescription drugs for seniors, but we looked at a few other drugs. Ticlid, for example, look at the price differential on Ticlid. It is absolutely unbelievable to think the line in blue shows what senior citizens are paying for Ticlid and the line in the pink shows what the most favored customers are paying. It is just almost hard to believe that Ticlid could be costing senior citizens $117 and the favored customers, the big insurance companies and the hospital chains, get it for $33. Another one, Synthroid, was even more dramatic. Synthroid costs our senior citizens shown here in blue $25.86 when they go into our local pharmacy. The most favored customers can buy the same quantity of Synthroid for $1.78. Micronase, another drug that is prescribed for diabetics, costs our senior citizens and local pharmacists $45.60. The most favored customers or the big drug manufacturers get that same quantity for $6.89. So we see the problem. What we are trying to do about it in this legislation is to allow our local pharmacists to buy prescription drugs for Medicare eligible seniors directly from the Federal Government who is one of these most favored customers. We believe that is the right thing to do. We think that it is the right thing for our senior citizens. I wanted to thank every Member of this Congress who has joined with us in cosponsoring this legislation. We hope we can pass it for our senior citizens so folks like Ms. Frances Staley, my constituent in Orange, Texas, can be able to afford her prescription medication.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her support on this important issue and for her leadership. Another Member of the House that has taken a very prominent role of leadership on this issue is the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen). The gentleman is a sponsor of legislation to deal with this issue, along with many others that have joined with him, and it is an honor to have the gentleman here to talk about this issue that he has worked so long and hard on. I yield to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his strong leadership on this very, very important issue. Another Member of this body who has worked hard on this particular issue is the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), from the Second District of Georgia. I would like to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. The gentleman has given outstanding leadership not only to this issue but to many others on behalf of the people of his district, and his support means a great deal to this issue. I thank the gentleman for his part in this Special Order. I would like to yield once again to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. TURNER. That is why we have introduced this bill. I appreciate so much the gentlewoman's leadership on this. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my dear friend and colleague, the gentleman from the 9th District of Texas (Mr. Nick Lampson), another leader in the fight to help our senior citizens.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson). I thank him for his leadership. It is hard to understand how that same bottle of medication can cost $58 when it is sold to the big HMOs and the big hospitals and the insurance companies, and yet our senior citizens, walking into their local pharmacies, are having to pay $107. It is just not right. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) personally for his leadership as the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight in initiating with our minority staff the studies that many of us have been able to do in our own districts, to point out the problem that we are talking about here today. I thank the gentleman from California for his leadership on this issue, for the many years he has been working on this cause. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield to the honorable gentleman from the 29th District of California (Mr. Henry Waxman), the ranking member of our Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, a leader on health care issues for many years, and another Member of this body who has for many, many years been a leader in the fight to try to lower the cost of prescription medication for senior citizens.

Mr. TURNER. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps). We appreciate her strong leadership on this very important issue. Another leader in the fight to lower the cost of prescription medications for our senior citizens is the gentlewoman from the 10th District of Indiana (Ms. Carson). The gentlewoman, I know from talking to her, knows firsthand the problems that seniors are facing, because I have talked to her many times about how she represents her district, and she works at the grassroots, so I know she has got some interesting insight on this issue.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address an issue that is important to every senior citizen in our country, the problem of the increasing cost of prescription medications. This is an issue that has been growing in intensity in recent years as the costs of drugs have gone up and up and up. A number of Members of this body have joined together to try to address this problem and to pass legislation that would lower the cost of prescription medication. There are currently over 75 Members of this House who have joined in sponsoring legislation to deal with the high cost of prescription drugs. It is my pleasure to yield to one of the leaders in this effort to combat the cost of prescription medication, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps). I want to mention in passing that Lois is a proud new grandmother of a five-week-old boy, Walter Holden Brostrom, named after his grandfather, Walter Holden Capps, a former member of this body. The gentlewoman has been a hard worker on behalf of those who are fighting the high cost of prescription medication. She has a background in nursing, and, as the representative of the 22nd district of California, it is my honor to yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) for her remarks regarding the legislation that she and 61 other Members of the House have joined in to try to address this very serious problem that faces many of our senior citizens: The high cost of prescription drugs. The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight did a study at my request, in my district, in response to the many senior citizens who have contacted me telling me that they have noticed that it is becoming an increasing problem for them to pay for the high cost of prescription medication. One of these ladies is a constituent of mine in Orange, Texas. Her name is Frances Daley. I had the opportunity to visit with her in my district, when I was going around talking about H.R. 4646, the Prescription Fairness Act, that 62 of us in the House have introduced. Ms. Daley is blind. She takes nine prescription medications. She spends an average of $450 a month on those nine medications. She lives on a meager Social Security check, $650 a month. With only $110 left after trying to pay for these prescription drugs, I asked Ms. Daley, ``How do you do it?'' And she leaned over to me, in a proud sort of way, and said, ``I just take half my medication.'' No senior citizen should be faced with the choice of taking only half of their medications. I even talked to senior citizens who quietly told me that they sometimes have to choose between buying food and buying medication. While we have been very proud of the fact that Medicare has provided some protection for our senior citizens' health care, all the while we have failed to note that slowly prescription drug prices have been rising and rising and rising, to the point where many of our seniors can no longer pay for their prescription medications. At my request and the request of several other members of our Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the staff put together a study. We went out and we surveyed pharmacies in our own districts, just to find out what the price differential was between what our senior citizens are paying for drugs and what the big drug manufacturers' most favored customers are paying for those same drugs. The results of that study are shown on this chart to my right. What we determined was that there are 10 drugs that are commonly prescribed for senior citizens. The 10 most commonly prescribed drugs are shown in the left-hand column. The name of the manufacturer is shown in the next column. The use of that drug is shown in the next column. And in this column we see the prices that are paid by the big drug manufacturers' most favored customers. By ``favored customers'' we are talking about the big HMOs, the big hospital chains, and even the Federal Government. Those are the favored customers of the big drug manufacturers. For Ticlid, the first example on the chart, which is used as a stroke medication, the most favored customers pay $33.57 to the big drug manufacturers for a typical prescription; about a month's supply of Ticlid. The retail price paid in the Second Congressional District of Texas, the average retail price, is $117.95. That is what the senior citizens pays when they walk into their local pharmacy. The price differential is shown in the last column. For Ticlid, senior citizens in the Second Congressional District, and in most districts in this country, are paying over twice, 251 percent more for Ticlid than the most favored customers of the big drug manufacturers. We took all 10, we averaged them, and as we can see in the bottom right-hand corner, there is over twice a difference between what senior citizens are paying in their local retail pharmacies and what the big drug companies are charging their most favored customers. This is not right. This kind of price discrimination is placing the burden of paying the highest prices for prescription drugs in this country on the segment of our population that is least able to pay: our senior citizens who walk into their local pharmacy without insurance. Our study showed many other examples of price discrimination. One drug, Synthorid, a hormone treatment, had a price difference of 1350 percent. The most favored customers were paying $1.78 for the prescription, while our senior citizens in their local pharmacies are paying $25.86. Some would say, well, maybe the local pharmacies are getting rich. The truth is the markup on drugs at a local pharmacy is very small. Our study indicated that it ranged anywhere from a 1 percent markup to a high of 19 percent. So it is not our local pharmacies that are responsible for this problem. It goes back to the big drug manufacturers and their discriminatory pricing practices. It is wrong, and we need to do something about it. H.R. 4646 addresses this problem by allowing our local pharmacies to buy directly from the Federal Government at these lower prices and then resale, resale to our senior citizens at much lower prices. We think this is a common sense solution, will cost the government nothing, but it should be done for folks like Ms. Daley in Orange, Texas. The big drug companies will not like it, but for Ms. Daley it is worth the fight.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 432 on September 15, 1998, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the T.L.L. Temple Foundation. Mrs. Georgia Temple Munz established this foundation in honor of her father, Mr. Thomas Lewis Latane Temple, in 1962. The T.L.L. Temple Foundation awards grants to a broad range of projects and causes in East Texas. The recipients include organizations in the areas of education, health care and medical research, community and social services, and cultural arts and the humanities. In organizing the foundation, Mrs. Munz fulfilled her dream of enhancing the quality of life for the citizens of the East Texas Timber Pine Belt through charitable donations. Since its establishment, the T.L.L. Temple Foundation has awarded more than $150 million to programs that support these causes. One recipient of these grant awards that I would like to mention is the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Council (ADAC) of Deep East Texas. The ADAC is a non-profit agency that offers prevention, intervention and treatment services to the twelve counties of the Deep East Texas region. I am pleased to announce that the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Council is celebrating its 20th Anniversary this year. In 1982, the T.L.L. Temple Foundation awarded its first grant to ADAC for support of its prevention education programs. To date, the Temple Foundation has provided over $930,000 in grants in support of ADAC's drug prevention education programs involving 33 school districts and 12 daycare centers in a twelve-county region of East Texas. Last year alone these programs reached 48,800 participating students and over 3,000 adults. Information was provided on how to maintain healthy lifestyles, how chemical abuse can ruin a life and how positive choices lead to positive results. The T.L.L. Temple Foundation is unlike most major U.S. foundations because the founding family still exercises an organizational presence. The members of the foundation's governing board include: Mr. Arthur Temple, Chairman; Mr. Arthur ``Buddy'' Temple, III; Mr. W. Temple Webber, Jr.; Mr. Phillip M. Leach; and Mr. Ward R. Burke. The T.L.L. Temple Foundation is located in Lufkin, Texas, and East Texas is fortunate to benefit from such generosity. I am pleased to have this opportunity to honor the T.L.L. Temple Foundation.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Council (ADAC) of Deep East Texas as it celebrates its 20th Anniversary. The ADAC has served the communities of my congressional district and surrounding areas for years, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to recognize such an outstanding organization. The ADAC is a non-profit agency committed to providing prevention, intervention and treatment services to children and adults in the Deep East Texas region. The Alcohol and Drug Abuse Council of Deep East Texas was formed in 1978 with one office, located in Center, Texas, and a staff of only two. The ADAC now has offices in seven counties and serves all twelve counties of Deep East Texas. When the ADAC opened its doors in 1978, it was the only facility of its kind in the area. No other treatment services were available in Deep East Texas. With the help of funding from the Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, T.L.L. Temple Foundation, Temple Inland Foundation, Angelina and Nacogdoches County United Ways, Henderson Foundation, Texas Criminal Justice Division, local Community Supervision Departments, Angelina, Nacogdoches, Jasper, Polk, Houston, Newton, San Jacinto Commissioners Courts and other sponsors, the ADAC has been growing and expanding their services to meet the needs of the Deep East Texas area. The Alcohol and Drug Abuse Council's mission is to promote the philosophy that alcohol and drug abuse often leads to chemical dependency. The ADAC believes that chemical dependency is treatable and offers its education and intervention services to the chemically- dependent and those people vulnerable to such a dependency. Countless individuals have benefited from these services. The ADAC has become a true advocate for young people over the years. Prevention education has been provided to approximately 200,000 school age children, intervention services are provided to 6th, 7th and 8th graders, an age at which children are under great pressure from peers, and counseling has been provided to more than 4,000 individuals. I am grateful to the ADAC for its dedication to treating chemical dependency, and I congratulate the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Council of Deep East Texas on the celebration of its 20th Anniversary.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Community Relations Service and the Jackson-Lee amendment. As many of my colleagues know, Jasper, Texas, located in my congressional district, experienced a terrible racially-motivated crime when James Byrd, Jr., was brutally dragged from the back of a pickup by three white men identified with white supremacy groups. For all of us who believe that racial prejudice and hatred have no place in American society, this tragic event serves as a reminder of how much is left to be done. Shortly after Mr. Byrd's death my fellow congressional colleagues and I passed a resolution asking that we join together to eliminate the vestiges of racial hatred remaining in our society. Now we have a chance to put our money where our mouth is. Mr. Chairman, the Community Relations Service has done an outstanding job in keeping the community together in Jasper after the tragic and brutal murder of James Byrd on June 7 of this year. Mr. Efrain Martinez from the Houston CRS office met with Mayor R.C. Horn and community leaders in Jasper immediately after the tragedy, and he and other CRS staff have been there practically every day since, meeting with all segments of the community of Jasper, providing needed support. CRS worked with the community as they made preparations for the recent rallies of the Ku Klux Klan and the new Black Panther party. Later this month CRS will be providing diversity and conflict management training to school district personnel, and later to students. CRS staff is currently working with Jasper in convening a permanent city-wide community task force to deal with racial concerns and other matters that have surfaced as a result of this senseless tragedy. The task force will be headed by Mayor R.C. Horn and will be called the Mayor's Community Task Force 2000. CRS is a unique arm of the Federal Government charged with helping communities address tensions which may arise due to differences in race, ethnicity or national origin. Without CRS assistance, unresolved community racial tensions and conflict can fester and become fuel for even more serious community-wide civil unrest. While cases like the incident in Jasper grab the media headlines and shock the Nation, CRS is responsible for dealing with similar incidents, large and small, all across this country. I am aware of the excellent work that CRS has done in my home State of Texas to resolve tensions between Vietnamese fishermen and the Ku Klux Klan. They have also worked to resolve issues between Vietnamese store operators and an African American community in Houston, and to deal with problems between the police and African Americans in Austin. Last year CRS also convened church arson prevention seminars in several Texas cities, including Houston and San Antonio. Earlier this year it conducted hate crimes training for police officers and police executives in the Houston and Corpus Christi areas. In recent years CRS has struggled to maintain adequate funding. In fiscal year 1998 this valuable organization suffered massive budget reductions which cut the agency in half. With a modest budget of $5.3 million, CRS now has the smallest staff in its history. The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) asks for another $2 million to bring CRS' budget to the $9 million recommended by the President. This represents a small investment given the valuable and critical work of CRS in communities all across our country. I know the citizens of Jasper, Texas who have pulled together in this time of tragedy, in these trying circumstances, appreciate the assistance that they received from CRS. Let us renew our commitment to root out racial prejudice in our society, to bring our Nation together. Let us remember James Byrd's death. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to give CRS the additional $2 million that it needs to carry out its valuable work.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, it is not every day that we see the Texas delegation on the floor of this House divided. Normally, we are a group who hangs together. It is true, however, that six of our members, out of 31, have opposed this compact, I think primarily because it is a local issue with them, and I understand that. I fought a low-level nuclear waste disposal facility in my legislative district when I was a member of that body in 1981, and I understand where they are coming from. But I think it is important for the other Members of this body to understand that, though six Texans out of 31 oppose this compact, that this compact really is not about the selection of the site. In fact, under this compact, the State of Texas and the Low-Level Nuclear Waste Disposal Authority could select any site. It just so happens that the Sierra Blanca site is the site now under consideration. But that is a matter that will remain under the control of the Low-Level Nuclear Waste Disposal Authority in Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to share a little bit of history. The State of Texas created a Low-Level Nuclear Waste Disposal Authority in our State in 1981 when I was a freshman member of the Texas House. We did it because we were having an increasing problem at our medical facilities and with our utilities and finding out where we could permanently dispose of low-level waste. What we decided to do was create a State commission to select a permanent site. It was the right thing to do. It was approved unanimously by the legislature. Later, the Congress came along and created a statute that said that States could form compacts, compacts for the purpose of uniting States together that would store their waste in one site facility, a means whereby a State like Texas can prevent out-of-State waste from coming into Texas. This Congress passed that bill, and 41 States have already taken advantage of it, and nine compacts have been ratified by this Congress. Texas, Vermont, and Maine come today asking that they be the tenth compact to be approved. The Texas legislature overwhelmingly approved this compact. Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members of this body to join with the majority of the members of the Texas delegation and allow Texas, Vermont, and Maine to be the tenth compact to be approved by this Congress. This is an issue that will not go away. The low-level nuclear waste that is building up in temporary stockpiles in Texas will not go away. We need this compact, and we urge our colleagues to support us in this effort.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, Friday, July 24, 1998, will be remembered as a tragic chapter in the history of our Capitol. A lone gunman, Russell Weston, rushed into an east entrance of this building we call the ``People's House'' and in a few brief moments of terrifying exchange of gunfire, took the lives of United States Capitol Police Officers John Gibson and Jacob Chestnut. These men had dedicated the last 18 years of their lives protecting the safety of the Members of Congress, our staffs, and our constituents who visit these halls by the hundreds of thousands each year. On that fateful Friday, Officers Gibson and Chestnut made the ultimate sacrifice of their lives that others might live. No words can adequately praise their heroism or their courage, nor can we fully express our sorrow and sympathy to their families whose loss is so personal and difficult to understand. This afternoon, as my wife Ginny and I joined with hundreds of Americans who have placed flowers on the east steps of the Capitol in expression of sympathy to the families of these two men, it seemed clear that all Americans are reaching out today to the families of these two brave Americans. Their commitment to duty and their unflinching willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice humbles each of us who were beneficiaries of their protections. Mr. Speaker, our thoughts and prayers will continue to be with the Chestnut and Gibson families. May their sorrow be tempered in time by an ever-deepening pride that they died in service to our country that others might live. The Scriptures say that there is no greater love than to lay down one's life for a friend. Our friends, John Gibson and J.J. Chestnut, loved their families, they loved their country, and they showed each of us what love really means. May God rest their souls and may we ever cherish their memory.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, Democrats initiated the effort in this Congress to protect patients and their doctors from interference by insurance company bureaucrats. The Dingell-Ganske bill provides these protections and eliminates the complete exemption from accountability that many HMOs enjoy today under the Federal ERISA law. The Republican bill, on the other hand, in an effort to preserve the insurance companies' shield of protection from accountability for their mistakes, creates a Federal bureaucracy in the Department of Labor and a complex appeals process diagramed here on this chart to my right. Look at this. An endless maze of bureaucratic nightmare created by the Republican bill. In September of 1991, Phyllis Cannon was diagnosed with leukemia. On August 10 of 1992, her doctor sought approval from her HMO for a bone marrow treatment. Forty-three days later, her doctor pleaded for authorization and it was repeatedly denied. By the time the HMO finally agreed, it was too late for the treatment and Phyllis Cannon died. Could she have gone through this maze under the Republican bill and done any better? I think not. And if she had made it through the maze under the Republican bill, after her death she would have been entitled to only $500 a day; under the Republican bill, a total recovery for her family of only $20,000. Is this what we call protecting patients? I think not. Vote against the Republican bill, vote for the Ganske-Dingell bill and prevent this kind of endless bureaucratic interference with medical decisions from happening to the patients of this country.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested that the Republican bill provides better protection for patients. I submit to my colleagues that the Republican bill provides fewer protections for patients than exist in current law in most of our States. I come from Texas. The Texas Legislature passed patient protection legislation in 1997, fully intending that all HMOs be covered by the protections of State law. The Republicans submit a bill today that would control patient protections at the Federal level. It would set forth a series of rules that are far inferior to those in the Democratic alternative. Under the Republic proposal, if the HMO denied coverage, the only remedy, if an individual was enrolled in a self-insured plan, would be to go to Federal Court. And once the individual gets there, he or she would have no genuine recourse. In 1991, Phyllis Cannon was diagnosed with leukemia. She appealed to her HMO for a bone narrow transplant. The HMO refused. For over 40 days the HMO refused coverage. Due to a denial of medical treatment, about a month after that Ms. Cannon died. The court ruled that under ERISA, she had no recovery. Under the Republican bill today, her estate would be entitled to $20,000--a small price for a life. Under the Republican bill, the penalty would be $500 per day. This represents a much cheaper alternative for an HMO than providing the treatment that should have been provided to Phyllis Cannon. I submit to my colleagues that all Members of this House needs to look at what their State has done to protect patients because a vote for the Republican bill amounts to rolling back the protections that most of our State have already provided for patients under the law. In every place in this country, protecting patients enrolled in HMOs has been a bipartisan effort. Only in Washington is patient protection partisan. Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Dingell

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested that the Republican bill is better, a better protection for patients. I submit to my colleagues that the Republican bill is worse protection for patients than exists in current law in most of our States. I come from Texas. The Texas legislature passed patient protection legislation in 1977, fully intending that all HMOs be covered by the protections of State law. The Republicans submit a bill today that would control patient protections at the Federal level. It would set out a set of rules that are far inferior to those in the Democratic alternative. On the Republican bill, if the HMO denied coverage, the only remedy would be to go, if an individual is in a self-insured plan, to Federal Court. And when that individual gets there, they will not have a remedy. In 1971, Phyllis Cannon was diagnosed with leukemia. She appealed to her HMO for a bone marrow transplant. The HMO refused. For over 40 days the HMO refused coverage. About a month after that, she died. The court ruled that, under ERISA, she had no recovery. Under the Republican bill today, she would be entitled, her estate, to $20,000, a small price for a life, the denial of treatment. Under the Republican bill, the penalty is $500 a day. A much cheaper alternative for an HMO than providing the treatment that should have been provided to Phyllis Cannon. I submit to my colleagues that every Member of this House needs to look at what their State has done to protect patients, because a vote for the Republican bill is rolling back the protections that most of our States have already provided for patients under the law. In every place in this country, protecting patients enrolled in HMOs has been a bipartisan effort. Only in Washington is patient protection partisan.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, Democrats initiated the effort in this Congress to protect patients and their doctors from interference by insurance company bureaucrats. The Dingell-Ganske bill provides these protections and eliminates the complete exemption from accountability that many HMOs enjoy today under the Federal ERISA law. The Republican bill, on the other hand, is an effort to preserve the insurance companies' shield of protection from accountability for their mistakes. It creates a Federal bureaucracy in the Department of Labor and a complex appeals process diagrammed here on this chart to my right. Look at this. And endless maze of bureaucratic nightmare is created by the Republican bill. Consider the example of Phyllis Cannon. In September of 1991, Ms. Cannon was diagnosed with leukemia. On August 10 of 1992, her doctor sought approval from her HMO for a bone marrow treatment. 43 days later, her doctor pleaded for authorization to treat her life- threatening condition and it was again denied. By the time the HMO finally agreed to authorize treatment, it was too late and Phyllis Cannon died. Could she have gone through this maze under the Republican bill and done any better? I think not. And if she had made it through the maze under the Republican bill, after her death she would have been entitled to only $500 per day. Under the Republican bill, the total recovery for her family would have amounted to only $20,000. Is this what we call protecting patients? Vote against this Republican bill. Vote for the Ganske-Dingell bill and prevent this kind of endless bureaucratic interference with medical decisions from happening to the patients of this country.