Jim Turner

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for yielding. It is an important evening, though it be a late hour here in this hall. We will be, by all reports, considering managed care legislation on Friday. A very important day for the House, a very important day for the American people. A very important day for the future of health care in the United States. This is an issue that all of us, I think, take very personally. I, just a few weeks ago, took my father to the hospital because he was having some symptoms of dizziness and the doctor suspected it might be an early sign of stroke. We went immediately out to our hospital and he was given a CAT scan and, fortunately, it was determined that his dizziness was not a result of signs of early stroke. But I cannot help but think about what it would have been like if my father had been enrolled in a managed care plan, rather than being covered under Medicare. When we found out that he perhaps had an early sign of stroke, we would have been faced with calling our doctor and our doctor then having to call the HMO supervisor or clerk and determining first whether or not that procedure would have been authorized. It is in those kinds of delays that have been caused so many times in recent reports by many patients who have had unfortunate dealing with their HMO, it is those kinds of delays that make the difference in life or death. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that we have a bill as Democrats authored by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), a man who has served many years in this Congress, serving as chairman of the Committee on Commerce, and now as ranking member of the Committee on Commerce, a man who has been a leader in this Congress in providing a responsible managed care legislation. I had the opportunity, when I was in the State Senate in Texas in 1995, to pass one of the first managed care bills passed anywhere in these United States. Interestingly enough, when we passed it in Texas, it had bipartisan support. In fact, the bill passed both the House and the Senate with relatively little opposition. It was a good strong bill. In Texas today, we have protection in place and, interestingly enough, we have had no increase in health care premiums as a result of the patient protection legislation that we passed in 1997, which was the year after I initially passed the bill followed by a veto of our governor and then repassage of the bill in 1995. So we have a good law in Texas. Now, I was surprised to learn just a few years ago that the legislation that we were working on and passed in Texas in 1995, and finally passed in Texas in 1997, does not apply to about half of the people who are enrolled in managed care in the State of Texas. That is because the courts have ruled that the ERISA law, a Federal law, preempts the State legislation that was adopted overwhelmingly by our State legislature. The reason we are considering this legislation in Congress is because the ERISA law has been interpreted by the courts to exempt all those enrolled in self-insured health care plans that are covered by ERISA, to exempt them from all the patient protections that have been passed in most of our States across our country. So we here in Congress feel very strongly on the Democratic side that it is wrong to have two classes of patients out there in Texas and the many other States that have passed patient protections. One group of patients who have the protections that were provided by their State legislatures, and the other group of patients who do not have those protections because a Federal court has ruled that their self-insured plan covered by ERISA is not covered by the protections that their legislature has put into the law. That is why we are here. The Democrats have come up with a bill that provides an answer to that problem. Our bill makes it clear that not only do we provide a clear base of protection in the law for everyone enrolled in managed care, but we provide each State the right to control all of the legal liabilities that relate to providing health care under those managed care plans. Our bill is a plan that respects States' rights and it is a plan that protects patients uniformly, irrespective of what kind of health care plan that they are enrolled in. So I think that we have a good bill, one that will stand the test of time, and contrary to the Republican plan will leave two classes of patients out there in this country, one covered by one set of rules that the Republicans want to place on ERISA covered plans and the other patients covered by the variety of State laws that have been passed across this country, but we as Democrats have a bill that will provide every patient the same protection who are enrolled in managed care plans in this country.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Dr. John A. McCall, Jr., of Crockett, Texas. On June 26, 1998, Dr. McCall will have the high honor of being inaugurated as president of the American Optometric Association at the AOA's 101st Annual Congress in Orlando, Florida. Dr. McCall is a graduate of the University of Houston College of Optometry. He has served the AOA as a member of the board of trustees, as secretary-treasurer, as vice-president and as president-elect. He has also served on the board of directors of the Texas Optometric Association (TOA), and was president of the TOA in 1989. In 1982, he was named TOA's Young Optometrist of the Year, and in 1991 he was selected as the TOA's Optometrist of the Year. Dr. McCall's accomplishments are impressive and extend beyond his profession. He served as the mayor of Crockett from 1989-1991, and was a member of the city council for six years. He also served as president of the Crockett Rotary Club and Jaycees. He was honored for his service to those organizations with the Jaycee Distinguished Service Award and the Rotary Club Community Service Award. Dr. McCall is a member of the medical staff at the East Texas Medical Center of Crockett, where he has been providing emergency room coverage for ocular trauma since 1984. He currently serves as secretary of the medical staff and is a member of the ER review committee. Dr. McCall is in practice with his father, Dr. John A. McCall, Sr., O.D., but his ties to optometry run even deeper than that. The lineage of optometrists in his family extends to his wife, Anne, two of his uncles, his father-in-law and his brother-in-law. Not surprisingly, his daughter is currently in pre-optometric studies at Southern Methodist University. Dr. John McCall has distinguished himself as an outstanding leader in his profession and his community. I am pleased to join his many friends and colleagues in congratulating him on becoming the 77th president of the American Optometric Association.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, James Byrd, Junior, was a constituent of mine. His brutal death has shocked the conscience and saddened the hearts of all of us. The people of Jasper, Texas, black and white, have joined in denouncing this tragic hate crime. Local law enforcement officials have called upon the Justice Department to assist in fully prosecuting the perpetrators, and are committed to seeking the maximum punishment authorized by State and Federal law, including the death penalty. I have personally urged the United States attorney to prosecute with the full force of Federal civil rights laws. For all of us who believe that racial prejudice and hatred have no place in American society, this tragic event is a reminder that much is left to be done, that no American is safe until every American treats his neighbor with dignity, regardless of the color of his skin. Let us today renew our commitment to root out the vestiges of racial prejudice, that the tragic death of James Byrd be not in vain. I urge Members' support for this resolution for the Byrd family, for the people of Jasper, and for the American people.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, last Sunday morning James Byrd, a constituent of mine from Jasper, Texas, was brutally murdered when he was beaten, chained and dragged from the back of a truck. This senseless act of violence was committed against a black man by three white men with a criminal record. The people of Jasper, Texas, both black and white, have joined in denouncing this shocking act. The local officials have called upon the Justice Department to fully prosecute the perpetrators and to seek the death penalty. I have urged the U.S. Attorney to prosecute with the full force of Federal civil rights laws. For those of us who believe that racial prejudice and hatred have no place in American society, this tragic event is a reminder that much is left to be done, that no American is safe until every American treats his neighbor with dignity, regardless of the color of his skin. Let us renew our commitment to root out the vestiges of racial prejudice, that the tragic death of James Byrd be not in vain. Our hearts go out today to the Byrd family, their grief is shared by the people of Jasper, Texas, and by the American people.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Madam Chairman, I thank my fellow freshmen, Democrats and Republicans, who are fighting for campaign finance reform. I also thank my fellow blue dog Democrats who worked to bring this issue to the floor by pushing the discharge petition calling for a fair and open debate. Why are we fighting so hard? Because we believe that big money has a corrupting influence upon politics. We want votes, not dollars, to count in these halls. We want the strength of one's argument, not the size of one's pocketbook, to determine public policy. And we want to ensure that this government is not for sale to the highest bidder. The American people deserve to know that this Congress investigates every allegation of campaign finance abuse, not to secure partisan advantage but to restore public trust and confidence in government. While we investigate allegations surrounding Johnny Chung and possible corporate influence on decisions to grant licenses to sell technology to China, let us not forget that at the end of the day it is about big money in the political process.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, for over 15 months this Congress has spent thousand of hours and billions of dollars investigating campaign finance abuses, and this is what it has all come down to: a package of four partisan bills brought to this floor on a calendar that offers no opportunity for amendment and little debate. Those who work for genuine reform on both sides of the aisle are outraged by this thinly disguised charade. I call on every American to send a message to this Congress that they too are outraged, that they deserve and rightly expect a system of democracy where their voice and their vote determine the outcome of elections, not the hundreds of thousands of dollars poured into campaigns by special interests, dollars hidden in so-called soft money. Every American understands that true campaign reform must be accomplished in a bipartisan effort. No such bill was allowed on this floor tonight. Instead we were given the illusion of reform. I am confident that the American people know the difference and that they will demand government in the public interest, not the special interests.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, the effort in the House of Representatives to reform campaign finance laws in this country has died today without a single word of debate being spoken. It died by a procedural move on the part of the Republican leadership to place this very critical issue on a suspension calendar, a calendar normally reserved for bills that are not of great controversy, that require two-thirds vote for passage, bills that normally would be heard in an uncontested manner. Yet, the most important issue of campaign finance reform was placed on that calendar for this next Monday before the House of Representatives. It is a tragedy that with hundreds of thousands of hours of effort being put in in the last 15 months in this Congress to study the abuses of campaign finance, committee hearings that have taken place in the committee I serve on, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, hearings in the Committee on House Oversight, and the pledge by the Republican leadership to allow this House to have an open and bipartisan debate, that has been denied by a procedural move that will not allow this House to completely debate that bill.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Forest Recovery Protection Act, and I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith), chairman, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for their leadership on this issue. I represent a district in east Texas that has four national forests. In fact, all of the national forests that are in Texas are located in the 2nd Congressional District. I understand full well the threats that our forests, our national forests, face today from mismanagement and lack of proper management. I think this bill takes a major step forward in ensuring that we will apply sound management practices to our national forests. We have a battle ongoing in this country between the environmentalists and those who support the sound forestry management practices and preservation of the forest. That really is somewhat irrational because we all believe in the same thing. The main difference is those of us who support this legislation understand that trees are renewable resources and that we cannot have a sound forest management plan unless we have the tools necessary to manage those forests. This bill does not disturb any of the wilderness areas that are specified by existing law. In fact, it changes nothing about existing laws that protect our forests. It is a bill designed to ensure that those forests are there for the future. I appreciate the fact that this bill dedicates the small revenues that will come from the proceeds of any sales on the Forest Recovery Act management practices to the counties and the school districts who depend upon those funds for their school districts for their children and to be sure that the agreement that has been long-standing between the counties and the school districts that have national forests in the Federal Government are maintained. Because when national forces were created they took property off the tax rolls of those local counties, and it is appropriate that those counties receive some remuneration under the provisions of the bill which they do. I commend this bill to the House, and I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for their leadership.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, each us who began service in this Congress with Walter are left with fond memories of our friendship with him. It is a tribute tonight to hear the statements of our colleagues who each in their own unique way saw the true value of Walter's life. We all knew him as a true gentleman. We all saw him as a deeply spiritual, religious man. We saw him as a kind and thoughtful and principled man. We saw him as a man of quiet determination. We all remember as he walked in this Chamber and had a quick smile and a kind word for each of us. And many of us watched him as he walked across the Capitol to our office building, hand-in-hand many times, with Lois. He reflected the best of a good father, a loving husband, a man who understands and understood what was really important in this life. I know as we speak tonight, Lois and the children are perhaps listening with many friends and I must say that Walter and Lois were an example to all of us as husbands and fathers. Lois really in many ways was like a 436th Member of this body. She oftentimes attended committee meetings with Walter and often she ventured off to go to committees that he was not even on. She shared his intellect, his keen interest and in his campaign she was a true partner in being sure that they were victorious in their election. Walter Capps was a man who really stood apart. He came here as a college professor serving over three decades as a professor at the University of California in Santa Barbara, best known for his course on the Vietnam War. They say that there were over 800 students signing up for that class, filling the hall. In fact, they had to have the largest lecture hall at the university just for those who wanted to be under his tutelage. Yes, we learned that when Walter spoke, as those students learned, Walter had something to say. And we knew that it was worth listening to. Walter was a man who understood adversity. He lost his first election and had to run again to come here. He nearly lost his life in a head-on collision during his second campaign. He met head-on on a mountain road with a drunken driver. But Walter, as he reflected upon his injuries during rehabilitation, said something worth quoting. He said, ``I never want to forget what it's like to go through the world in a wheelchair. I would never wish for a car accident like this, but I've learned from it. Love and care for one another is what is at the core of what links us.'' Walter understood the important things of life. We all were enriched by having known him. He taught us by his example to remember why we are here. He gave politics a good name and in the rough and tumble world of politics, as we so often see it in this House Chamber, Walter in many ways would at first glance appear to not fit in, as if he did not really belong here. But on closer reflection, we all realized that, yes, he truly did belong here and he set the standard for us all. Mr. Speaker, Walter was a man who knew who he was. He knew what he believed in and he knew where he was going in this life and in the life hereafter. Around here we often note that we are addressed as ``The Honorable.'' Walter Capps truly deserved the title of ``Honorable.'' He was a great American, a great family man, and a friend to each of us. He will be truly missed. May God rest his soul and may God be with Lois and the family in this difficult time.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the freshman class of this Congress, it certainly saddens each of us to have lost one of our own, Walter Capps. Walter was a deeply spiritual man, a man who thought deep thoughts, a man who represented his district well and always had a quick smile for each of us as we passed his way. Lois, we join you this morning in your grieving, and Lisa and Todd and Laura. We saw you many times, Lois, walking hand in hand with Walter across the Capitol grounds, and you joined him on many occasions for events and committee meetings. We know that you will miss him deeply, as we will. He was a great American, a great husband, a great father, and a great friend to all of us who had the time and chance to know him for these brief few months we served together. We will miss Walter Capps. The people of this country will miss Walter. He represented the very best that we can offer.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on National Security, I would like to take a minute to pay tribute to both the chairman and the ranking member of the committee for the remarkable job that they did in bringing this conference agreement to the floor today. By any measure, this was a marathon run by two of our most skilled negotiators on national security, and I am deeply grateful to both the gentleman from South Carolina, Chairman Spence, and the ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] for retaining a House- passed provision which is of particular importance to this Member of the committee. Specifically, the conference agreement retains a House-passed provision to allow the Army's Construction, Engineering and Research Laboratory to collaborate with the Texas Regional Institute for Environmental Studies at Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, TX, on a critically important computer-based land management initiative. This project will enable the Army to address environmental problems on our military installations. This authorization of $4 million, coupled with an identical appropriation in Public Law 105-56, will allow CERL and TRIES to carry out this important Army national resources/conservation project beginning this year.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Texas for his leadership on this very important issue. It is very clear to me that the Senate has put our veterans at the end of the line in making their claims against the $1.3 billion fund frozen in the gulf war. Under the Senate amendment, those who served on the front lines will be at the back of the line when it comes to making their claims. Veterans who courageously served in the gulf war deserve better. Our Nation owes a debt to those veterans that we must try to repay, and we certainly are moving in the wrong direction if we put them at the back of the line in making their claims. It is amazing to me that we did not even at least see the Senate give veterans equal access to these funds but, rather, they put them at the back of the line. The American people have a long tradition of supporting our veterans who have served us so courageously. I urge the Members of this body to join in supporting this motion to instruct our conferees to give our veterans their fair share of these funds.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2183, the bipartisan freshman campaign finance reform bill. Abraham Lincoln once wrote that with public trust, everything is possible. And without it, nothing is impossible. He recognized that a democracy cannot work unless people have confidence and trust in their government. Over the last few decades, this essential trust has been undermined, not only by periodic scandals but by the everyday practice of raising huge sums of money from wealthy contributors and special interests. Year after year, both parties raise larger and larger amounts of what people in Washington call ``soft money,'' but my folks back home in Texas call ``hard cash.'' People cannot help but wonder whether their government is for sale to the highest bidder. The reforms that we propose are not intended to help or hurt either party. These reforms are designed to help restore the people's confidence in the independence of their Representatives and in the integrity of their government. The only way to regain people's confidence is to pass campaign finance reform.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support the budget and tax bills that we are passing this week, fulfilling our commitment to the American people to balance the budget while maintaining our investments in the future. I came to Congress in January with a strong commitment to restoring fiscal responsibility to Washington. Since then, I have seen Democrats and Republicans alike recognizing the need to balance the budget. They have seen that we cannot continue running up debts for our children and grandchildren to pay. They have acknowledged that both parties must work toward solving the problem. This plan is the result of those bipartisan efforts. At the same time, this bipartisan plan recognizes that the American people need tax relief. We are cutting taxes in ways that will give meaningful relief to working families, family farms, and small businesses. The $500 tax credit for children will give some help to families that are trying to make ends meet. The tuition tax credits will expand educational opportunities and allow young people to get the education and training they need to succeed in an increasingly competitive economy. The increased exemption from inheritance taxes will let families hand their farms, ranches, and businesses from one generation to the next without paying outrageous inheritance taxes. The reduction in capital gains taxes will encourage the kind of long-term investment that our country needs to expand economic opportunity and create jobs. And we will do this in the context of a balanced budget. This bipartisan plan gives us a chance to give American taxpayers a break, without breaking the bank. At the same time, we are making an important commitment to provide health insurance for children. In my home State of Texas, more than 1 million children--23 percent--lack health insurance. This lack of health coverage is risky for children, heartbreaking for parents, and devastating for our country in the long run. Children who do not receive immunizations and other basic preventive care will cost us millions more down the road. Children without adequate health insurance will not get off to the right start in life, and they will not live up to their potential as adults. The funding for children's health insurance is a sound investment in the future of our country. This bipartisan budget plan proves that we can accomplish a great deal when we work together. We're balancing the budget for the first time in a generation. We're investing in education. We're preserving Medicare. We're extending health insurance to more children. And we're giving real tax relief to American families. This is a great day for this Congress, and for the American people.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule because I am greatly disturbed that the most important element of the balanced budget, the budget enforcement provisions, have been compromised by failure of the Committee on Rules to allow full amendments that were brought before the committee. As my colleagues know, we passed a budget resolution here in this Congress a few weeks ago. The problem is a budget resolution is a whole lot like a New Years resolution. It is easy to make but hard to keep. This Congress has been in a long courtship with the balanced budget. We finally got to the point where we adopted a budget resolution, we have made great steps toward achieving the goal of a balanced budget, and yet we are not able to assure the American people that the courtship that we have had and the marriage that will take place when we pass the reconciliation bill is to carry out this budget agreement. We cannot assure the American people that this marriage will last. I think that we have made a terrible mistake not dealing with the budget enforcement provisions in a serious manner in the Committee on Rules, and for that reason I will oppose the rule.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak out tonight on behalf of the loggers and the small sawmill owners in my district in east Texas, who just about an hour ago made it back to the house and probably are on the front porch right now trying to work on their chain saws and get ready for tomorrow. Those folks would certainly disagree with the Washington Post if the Washington Post said that the road credit is a subsidy. The truth of the matter is that we, in order to protect the national forests, require higher quality of roads in areas of the forest or logs than are required in the private sector; and to offset that increased cost of building the kind of roads we want in our national forests to protect the public interests, we offer a road credit. That is to say the road that is built there by the loggers is going to be a road that lasts for many, many years. Mr. Chairman, I can assure any of my colleagues who have ever been on a track of land that was logged in the private sector that I know that the roads that are built in the private sector do not last 15 or 20 years. So it is a good program, it is environmentally sound, and it does not cost the taxpayer one cent because we, as taxpayers, are getting a quality road, and the taxpayers are getting every benefit that was intended for them to get in the road credit program. It is not a subsidy. It is good environmental policy, it protects the national forests, and it allows the Forest Service to control the type of road that is built. Secondly, this Kennedy amendment is environmentally unsound because it cuts $42 million out of road maintenance in the national forest. If my colleagues believe in the environment, they want those bar ditches and those culverts to be maintained, they want that erosion controlled. That is what the $42 million is all about; that is why it is there. The amendment of the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] returns this bill to the administration's proposal that cuts only $5.6 million. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Dicks amendment.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for the reason that the committee failed to acknowledge the importance of including enforcement language in this budget reconciliation bill. The truth of the matter is that the American people believe that when we, in great fanfare, just a few weeks ago announced a balanced budget agreement, they believe the balanced budget agreement is something that has meaning to it, not an empty promise. I think we in this Congress all need to tell the American people that a budget agreement resolution is no more than a New Year's resolution, and it is no more than a promise that can be broken without effective enforcement language put into the law. The bipartisan Barton-Minge budget enforcement amendment needs to be in the budget reconciliation bill that this Congress will adopt. A promise to consider it later is not enough. The American people expect and deserve that we in the Congress will keep our promises for a balanced budget by 2002.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, as we approach this Father's Day, many of us are fortunate to reflect upon the positive influence of our own fathers and to feel the sense of joy that comes from being a father. We understand that the experience of having a father is critical to shaping our lives, and we know that there are numerous studies that have been done that point out that loving, committed fathers help children get a better start in life. According to the Journal of Family Issues, interaction between children and their fathers improves the child's early mental development and physical well-being. We know that children who grow up with committed fathers are less likely to get involved with gangs and drugs and turn out to be better parents themselves. That is why the Book of Proverbs tells us to train the child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it. A group of Members in this House have joined together to form the Fatherhood Promotion Task Force for the purpose of examining Government policies to ensure that those policies promote, encourage, and support families. Every child deserves the love and care of a responsible adult, and the promotion of fatherhood is critical to our future.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to rise in support of the Drug- Free Communities Act. It is a very important piece of legislation. We all know the facts and we all know the figures about the problems of drug abuse in our Nation, and yet I think most of us today would put faces on those problems. I think about my friend Larry, in Crockett, whose son recently overdosed on drugs and I attended the funeral. I think about my friend Mitch, whom I graduated from high school with, whose children also went to school with mine, who died on prom night in a single car accident because he drove with too much alcohol. Those are the very real problems that all of us know all too personally, which cause us, I think, to unite in a bipartisan way to attack the problems of drugs in our country. This bill represents what I think is the very best of bipartisan cooperation, and I think it represents what government in the next century must look like. President Clinton said the era of big government is over, and this bill implements that concept. I commend the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin], and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel], all of whom worked very hard to bring this bill about. This bill represents a progressive and commonsense approach to attacking the menace of drug abuse. It is community based. It recognizes that communities can best solve their own problems, and it brings to the table and encourages the coalitions of religious groups, law enforcement, business community representatives, churches, who all across this country are working already on this problem. This bill acknowledges their efforts and provides matching grants to allow them to continue to build upon the good work that is already being done. This bill is prevention based. We all know we have built prisons all across our country, in every State in this Nation, until we have taxed the taxpayers way too much for the cost of drug abuse and lawbreakers. But the truth of the matter is this bill also says that prevention is the key to solving the problem of crime. This is a good bill. This is a bipartisan bill. This is a bill that we can all be proud of because it acknowledges that government does have a role but that communities can best solve their own problems. I hope every Member of Congress will unite behind this landmark piece of legislation.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge a no vote on the previous question because of my strong belief that it is time for this Congress to act and to act quickly on campaign finance reform. Recently the New York Times quoted a woman by the name of Pam Elliott in Tennessee who said, ``The special interest groups are spending millions to get their point across and people like me aren't heard at all. ``Money talks,'' says Ms. Elliott. Unfortunately, Ms. Elliott is right. Money does talk. In fact, it not only talks but it shouts. So loud that it is drowning out the voices of ordinary Americans who want to participate and be heard in the political process. As the tide of special interest money has increased, voter turnout and confidence in Government has fallen to a dangerously low level. Voters have concluded that their votes mean far less than a wealthy contributor's dollars, and they believe that our Government is for sale to the highest bidder. Experienced lawmakers from this Chamber have left this House, because they are weary of spending their time panhandling for dollars. And qualified citizens have declined all across this country to run for office because they are unable and are unwilling to stoop to the level necessary to raise the millions of dollars needed to run for office today. Less than half of the voters in this country even bother to participate in casting a vote for a candidate for President because they are turned off by the political process as we know it. What kind of company in this country today would pay for an advertising campaign that drove half the consumers to boycott the product? That is what we are doing with our current system of campaign finance. A democracy cannot survive, much less succeed, with such a widespread loss of faith in the democratic process.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I have been a strong supporter of a bipartisan budget agreement. I am among those on both sides of the aisle who believe that the Federal Government must start living within its means, just as every household in this country must do every month. Republicans and Democrats have joined together to make a commitment to balancing the budget, and we are determined to finish the job. We have come a long way in the last few weeks, and that is what makes it so important that we follow through and finish the job that we have started. Reaching an agreement is only the first step. Enforcing the agreement, making it stick, is the real challenge we face. I join tonight with Members on both sides of the aisle who believe that we must work to ensure that necessary enforcement provisions are enacted into law to ensure the promise of a balanced budget. If everything goes well, we will have a balanced budget by 2002, but Murphy's law says that, if something can go wrong, it will go wrong. And that is certainly true with the budget process. Reality has a way of confounding our expectations. And this Congress does not have the ability to repeal Murphy's law. And if the guesses that we have made and assumptions we have made in this budget agreement turn out to be incorrect, the consequences for the budget will be dramatic. Even small variations in economic growth projections could derail our efforts to balance the budget. As an example, consider the fact that we assume a 7-percent growth rate for Medicaid costs. Just a few years ago those costs were escalating at 14 percent, twice the rate that we have assumed. If the ratings go up again, we could end up with billions of dollars in additional expenditures. The budget agreement as it stands has no way of dealing with this kind of unexpected circumstance. We are relying on predictions about what the economy will do in the next 5 years. But we all know a lot can happen in 5 years. We will have a different President, a different Congress and we will be dealing with problems in a new century. History shows us that we need an insurance policy and we are proposing some commonsense steps that will give us that insurance policy so that if our assumptions and our projections are wrong, we can still arrive at a balanced budget in 2002. The American people are overwhelmingly in support of a bipartisan budget agreement, but they are skeptical about our ability to follow through. They have heard the promise of a balanced budget before, and with public trust and confidence in government at an all-time low, we cannot afford to fail. We must show the American people that we can come together and adopt a realistic, enforceable budget that will bring us to balance in 2002. We must not just promise; we must produce. America has much at stake in what we do here. Our ability to preserve the American dream for all our children depends on our ability to balance the budget in an enforceable way.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 647, the STEP 21 proposal, and I join my colleagues in thanking the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit] for the leadership that they have given on this very important issue. STEP 21 is an effort to bring equity and fairness to the financing of our highway systems in this country. Each of us have our individual list of highway needs. As I look at the Second District in Texas that I represent, I know we are working hard to try to bring about the Interstate 69 project, which is a vital corridor from mid-America into and through Texas to Mexico to access the markets opened by NAFTA. We have projects like Interstate 10 that are badly in need of repair, where a very dangerous curve has cost the lives of several individuals. We have projects like loop projects in the city of Cleveland, projects that cannot be funded unless we adequately and fairly fund our highway system. As a former member of the Texas Senate, I know how important Federal highway funds are to our States; and it is for that reason that I think it is even more important that that funding be fair and equitable. Since 1992, Texas has received back only 77 cents of every dollar that Texans contributed to the Federal highway fund. That is not fair, that is not equitable, and that is not consistent with the highway needs of Texas or any other State that is short-changed under the current formulas. This policy is not only bad for Texas, it is bad for the country, because it is true that contributions to the Federal highway trust fund, those gasoline taxes that we all pay, are reflective of highway usage in our States. STEP 21 would ensure that every State gets back at least 95 cents of every dollar that we pay in Federal gasoline taxes to the Federal highway trust fund. STEP 21 also ensures greater flexibility in the expenditure of funds by our States. Having come from the Texas legislature, I trust Texans to know what is best for Texas highways, and I think this proposal gives our States the kind of flexibility that they need and they deserve to meet their growing transportation needs. This is not just a question of regional equity. This is a question of national interest. All of us depend upon a good system of transportation. The traffic that flows from Texas to the East Coast or to the West Coast is equally important to all of us. We cannot build a transportation system that is sufficient to meet the needs of this country unless we are willing to do away with the outdated and inefficient formulas that are in the current law. Texas and other States who have been contributing more than they are getting back want some relief. And in these times of tight budgets, when we are working hard to balance the Federal budget, and when those Federal dollars are shrinking, it is even more important that the limited dollars that we have be passed out in a fair and equitable manner. I hope that this Congress will see fit to enact H.R. 647 because it will bring fairness to all of our States by improving the Federal transportation system that we all depend on.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I come forward today as a former member of the State senate in Texas where we passed one of the toughest juvenile justice laws in the country just last session, a bipartisan bill supported by a Republican Governor and our then-Democratic State legislature. I think it is hypocritical to suggest that this Congress, by mandating requirements on the States, is somehow going to provide leadership on juvenile justice. Our States are responding. And I think it is hypocritical for this Congress to pass a bill and suggest that we are going to mandate our States to be even tougher than they already are. This bill says Washington knows best, and that is why we support this substitute that we are offering today. I think it is time to get fiscally conservative in fighting juvenile crime. Our substitute devotes 60 percent of that $1.5 billion to prevention programs. I suggest to my colleagues this morning that any elementary school in the classroom today can identify the at-risk children who are going to be in the juvenile justice system 5 and 10 years from now. We need to follow that commonsense approach and invest 60 percent of the $1.5 billion in prevention activities. Our substitute is tough on crime. It is smart on crime. It is fiscally responsible. It is a balanced budget and provides the seed money that our communities need to mobilize hundreds of volunteers that must be a part of the solution to juvenile crime. Communities will solve the problem of juvenile crime, not this Congress by mandating that our States enact certain laws simply to make the Congress look like we are tough on crime when our States already are.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I came to Congress after having served in the Texas Senate where last session we passed what I believed to be one of the toughest juvenile justice reforms in the Nation. Now I come to Congress and find that this Congress, in H.R. 3, is going to tell the State of Texas that our tough juvenile justice bill is not good enough, not good enough to qualify for the Federal funds that we want to provide. The legislatures in the 50 States do not need the Congress telling them how to run the juvenile justice system. We have a letter that we received today from the National Conference of State Legislatures opposing the mandates of H.R. 3. In Texas we have gotten tough on crime and we have also recognized that we must invest in prevention of juvenile crime. We must begin the process of investing in early childhood intervention, in supporting our families and our communities, and being sure we attack the root causes of crime, and being sure that our Nation invests in our children. This is the role that the Federal Government can fulfill. We need to keep our kids off of drugs. We need to keep our streets safe. We need to give our children the kind of training that they need in early childhood. This is where $1.5 billion in Federal funds needs to be spent, not on telling our States that they are not tough enough on crime. In Texas our Republican governor and our Democratic legislature passed tough juvenile justice laws. We do not need the Congress to tell them it was not good enough.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra] for yielding. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand and speak in the memory of our dear friend Frank Tejeda. Frank Tejeda served not only in this body, ably and with distinction but he also served as a member of the Texas House of Representatives and the Texas Senate where I had the pleasure of serving by his side. I can say without question, Frank Tejeda was a man who stood firmly for principle, a man who voted his conscience irrespective of the pressure that may come to bear. He was a man who believed very firmly that truth was more important than any other virtue, and he was a man who believed very firmly that when something needed to be done, he was going to be there and be counted. Frank Tejeda grew up in south San Antonio. He did not graduate from high school but he went into the Marine Corps. It changed his life, and he from that point on achieved great heights academically. He served the people of south side San Antonio and the other counties in his congressional and Senate and House districts with great distinction. As I sat next to him on the floor of the Texas Senate on one occasion, I noted Frank was rather quiet and yet as I began to hear the particular debate, I began to realize that Frank was ready to speak. And when Frank rose to speak, everyone listened, because you knew when Frank Tejeda spoke, it was worth listening to. We will miss Frank Tejeda. He was a great Texan, a great American, and a great friend to all of us.