Jim Turner

Mr. TURNER

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

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, time after time, the Members of this House have pledged by votes cast on this floor to protect Social Security. We know that until just a few months ago we were projecting surpluses as far the eye could see. And we pledged, when we passed the June tax cut, to protect Social Security. Then came the recession, then came the war, and the projected surpluses have turned into projected deficits for years into the future. Times have changed, but our principles should not change. Is it right to pledge the lockbox for Social Security one day and to abandon it the next? What does the abandonment of that pledge say to our senior citizens and to our children who will be left with a bankrupt Social Security trust fund? Both sides of this aisle agree we need to have a stimulus package to help the jobless workers with unemployment and health insurance. Both sides agree that we must stimulate business investments. But it is only the Democratic proposal that protects Social Security, only the Democratic proposal refuses to increase the national debt. In contrast, the Republican proposal increases the national debt by $250 billion. The Democratic proposal is paid for, not by increasing taxes on any individual or business, but by adjusting the effective tax rates for future yet to be realized and implemented tax cuts. Under the Democratic proposal, the total tax cuts passed by this Congress last June will remain exactly the same. If the gentleman from New York calls the Democratic bill a tax cut, the gentleman has a different calculator than I do. Fiscal responsibility demands that not only must we protect and preserve the current economic situation and protect against the slowdown, but we must protect the economy of the future. Recommit this bill, and let us pay for it.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit reports the bill back to the committee with the suggestion that it be amended to reduce the tax cut provisions in an amendment necessary to fund the war on terrorism and to protect the public safety. It provides that the legislation that comes back should be temporary and fully offset in the Internal Revenue Code over the next 10 years, and it provides for assistance to workers who lost their jobs and health insurance coverage, and to businesses affected by the economic circumstances following the occurrence of September 11. As has been nobly demonstrated throughout the history of this country, Americans are willing to pay for the cost of preserving our freedom during time of war. The investment that will be required to win this war and protect the safety of American citizens who this very day have reason to fear the very opening of their mail is going to cost billions of dollars. Are we as a Congress going to ask the next generation to pay for a war that we must now wage? Will we ask young men and women in uniform to risk their lives to fight against terrorism without providing them the very best in equipment and training this Nation can provide? Will we risk the safety of every American citizen by failing to aggressively address the safety and security needs of this country? The answer is clearly no. None of us would be for those things. That is why funding this war and funding public safety must take priority over tax cuts. The investment we must make will represent the very best stimulus package we could devise. The investments in war-fighting, the investments in security measures, the investments in public health will all find their way into the American economy, creating jobs and economic activities, and they will do so immediately. We must not forget that what we are spending, whether for tax cuts or defense or security, is Social Security payroll taxes. We should not ask future generations to pay for anything other than true emergencies. This emergency we face justifies spending Social Security payroll tax dollars to win the war on terrorism and to protect the security of all Americans, but there is no justification for spending payroll taxes on unnecessary, untimely tax cuts and spending initiatives. The founders in this country pledged their lives and sacred honor in the defense of liberty. Today, we can do no less. It is not recession that Americans fear today, it is the safety and protection of their lives, their homes, their businesses, and their public places of gathering. No stimulus package will help this economy unless and until this fear is removed. Our mutual commitment to winning the war on terrorism and protecting public safety is the first step in economic recovery. On September 11, our world changed. The old debates that once dominated this floor are outdated and inconsistent with today's realities. The reality of today is that our Nation faces the greatest challenge it has faced since the Second World War. We can win the war on terrorism without losing the war to save our economy; but first, we must determine the investments required to win this war and protect the safety of the American people, and they should be paid for within a responsible budget that neither mortgages our future nor adversely impacts long-term interest rates. I talked to a friend of mine who lives in Houston the other day on the phone. I asked him what he was hearing about the interest in tax cuts. My friend said, I will tell you what my coffee drinking buddies and I are saying about tax cuts. We want to know where to send our contribution to win this war. From Wall Street to Main Street, from the investment bankers to the firefighters and law enforcement personnel who are working overtime today to protect our safety, they know what every American knows: Unless we win this war and restore our homeland security, nothing else matters. President John Kennedy once said, ``Americans will bear any burden and pay any price in the defense of liberty.'' Now is the time; now is the hour. Vote for the motion to recommit.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. TURNER. I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, September 21, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote 344. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to address these remarks to the families of the victims, those who were injured on September 11. One of the best provisions of this bill is that this Congress has provided a method whereby all those injured, the victims of those who have died, will have full recovery for their economic and noneconomic damages by the establishment of a special master. The Treasury of the United States has been opened by the Members of this Congress to ensure that every family will receive just recovery. It is one of the best provisions of the bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of the 2002 National Defense Authorization Act. I want to say I am pleased to follow the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the chairman of our terrorism panel, who has done such an outstanding job working on that very critical issue. I am pleased to serve with him on that panel. I also want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), the chairman of the committee, for his outstanding leadership, and to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), our ranking Democrat on the committee. These two gentlemen have worked tirelessly and have worked together, along with our committee staff, to produce this piece of legislation. In my view, there are many reasons to support the bill that is before us. It includes pay for military personnel, a pay raise; it includes funding for additional acquisition; it addresses several quality-of- life issues. However, I am particularly pleased with the fact that this bill makes significant improvements to address the new and ever- changing realities of the environment we live in today, brought home so tragically to us on September 11. As many of our colleagues have pointed out, America faces its greatest challenge since the Second World War. Last week's terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon has shown all Americans that the threat of terrorism is ever present on our shores and abroad. It exhibits vast destruction capabilities and sophistication. It is like a threat we have never faced before. With it, there is a bonus. We must be diligent in our efforts to embrace new response methods and techniques. This legislation makes great strides in our efforts toward that end. The research and development provisions add a significant amount of funding for a variety of transformational and leap-ahead technologies. This legislation provides for even more investments to combat terrorism, and also to handle consequent management and force protection. Madam Chairman, we recognize the continuing possibility of future terrorist attacks. I urge all Members to join with us in support of this legislation.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution authorizing the President to use all necessary and appropriate force to seek and destroy those who are responsible for the deadly acts of terrorism committed against the American people. Tonight, every Member of this House and every American stand united. We want to thank the President for his leadership in this time of national tragedy and national testing of our will. We stand with him against the forces of darkness that have broken our hearts but emboldened our spirits. We know this war will require our patience, our perseverance, our unwavering courage and commitment. Our only timetable is to stay the course until the job is finished. The future of liberty, freedom. And human dignity hang in the balance and our Nation will not be found wanting. May God's wisdom and judgment guide our steps and may God bless America.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday our Nation was a target of the most despicable and cowardly acts of terrorism in our history. We come here today, our hearts heavy, with prayers for healing and comfort for the many victims and their families. The forces of darkness have broken our hearts, but they have not broken our spirit. To the contrary, those who sought to advance their cause by shedding American blood have instead sown the seeds of their own destruction. The citizens of our Nation are a proud and resilient people. For over 200 years, Americans have fought and died to protect freedom and liberty. We now face a new challenge from a faceless enemy who has absolutely no regard for the sanctity of human life. We cannot and we will not tolerate terrorism. We will find those who are responsible, and we must use the full strength of our military power against those forces of evil and those who give them aid and sanction. The spirit of America was best exemplified today by a brave New York firefighter searching through the rubble of the World Trade Center for one more survivor. He uncovered a tattered American flag, and he climbed to the top of the remains of a leaning north spire, raising the flag to express the spirit of patriotism shared by all Americans in this time of national travail. A new chapter in our history was opened yesterday. Its opening pages will forever be emblazoned in our memory, but the strength and character of our people will fill its pages with the same resolve we have shown in the defense of freedom throughout our history. Today we urge all freedom-loving people to join us in our shared commitment to peace and security around the world. May God's grace be with all of those who suffer today, and may God forever bless our great Nation.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1628, the Camino Real de los Tejas National Historic Trail Act. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) for his leadership on this legislation, as well as the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Land, and its ranking member, the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen). This trail runs through my hometown of Crockett, as well as several other communities in my district, such as Nacogdoches and Augustine. It is a very historic part of our State in East Texas. I am proud to represent the congressional district once represented by Sam Houston. This historic highway system, which has served Texas for over 150 years, was, beginning in 1689, one of the primary exploration, commerce, and immigration routes through our great State of Texas. The highway, as has been mentioned, extends from Mexico across the Rio Grande all the way up through East Texas into Louisiana. The trail covers over 2,600 miles in all. I have received resolutions in favor of this legislation from numerous communities along the trail urging that this highway be designated as a National Historic Trail, so I am proud to join with my colleagues here on the floor today advocating that the House adopt H.R. 1628 to designate the El Camino Real as a National Historic Trail.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2133, the legislation to establish the Brown v. Board of Education 50th Anniversary Commission. I want to commend my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Chicago, Illinois (Mr. Davis) for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor as the ranking member and co-sponsor of this bill. This commission, in conjunction with the Department of Education and the Department of Justice, is charged with planning and coordinating public educational activities, initiatives, writing contests, and public awareness campaigns regarding this anniversary of Brown v. the Board of Education. Under the bill, the commission will in cooperation with the Brown Foundation for Educational Equity, Excellence and Research, submit recommendations to the Congress to encourage, plan and develop the observances of the anniversary of Brown decision. The 50th anniversary of the Brown decision will take place on May 17, 2004. Brown v. the Board of Education is to be commemorated for what it did to address the disparities in the American educational system 47 years ago and to help remind us that there is much yet to be done to address the disparities that we struggle with even today. Education has always been the way up and the way out for America's youth. Equal educational opportunity is America's best hope for racial, social, and economic justice. It was because of this fact that in 1951 Oliver Brown and the parents of 12 other black children filed a lawsuit against the Topeka Board of Education protesting the City's segregation of black and white students. This is why also today parents all across America, particularly parents of children of color, are demanding that elected officials improve the quality and equality of America's schools. In 1997, we know that 93 percent of whites age 25 to 29 had attained a high school diploma or equivalency degree. In that same year, only 87 percent of African-Americans had attained their high school diploma and just 63 percent of Hispanics. Among those who achieved a high school diploma, 37 percent of whites had completed a bachelor's degree at a college or university compared with only 16 percent of African- Americans and 18 percent of Hispanics. Clearly the statistics revealed to us that we have not yet achieved the goals of Brown v. Board of Education. Given the increasing importance of skills in our labor market, these gaps in educational attainment translate into significant differences by race and ethnicity in eventual labor market outcomes, such as wages and employment. It is important to remember that the historic Brown v. Board of Education decision, which was announced in May of 1954 by Chief Justice Earl Warren, represented a significant change in our policy in our public schools that has meant much progress for those who were for many years segregated into substandard and unequal classrooms. Justice Warren, in that opinion, stated that public education was a right which must be made available to all on equal terms. I trust that this commission will remember those words when planning for the observances of the 50th anniversary of the Brown decision. I hope those words will remind all of us that we have yet to achieve the goals that were set forth in that historic opinion. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join with me in supporting this very important piece of legislation.

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

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, as has been pointed out, directs the administrator of the General Services Administration to convey an excess Army Reserve Center to the City of Kewaunee, Wisconsin. It consists of about four-and-a-half acres of lands. It is a piece of property that the City plans to use only for governmental purposes. It is going to be a very important building to this small community of less than 3,000 people by providing a place for a city hall, a city council meeting place. It may also house police, emergency rescue personnel, and other municipal functions. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) for his efforts in putting this bill together as it pertains to his district. I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for accommodating concerns raised about the bill. Mr. Speaker, the bill on the floor is a better bill than we started out with and protects the interests of the Federal Government by specifying that the property must be used exclusively for a government purpose for not less than 20 years or title would revert to the United States Government. At the same time the legislation will provide the City of Kewaunee with a suitable municipal building which it otherwise would be unable to afford. It is important to note that not only does this legislation bypass normal committee procedures, it is considered ``special legislation'' because it is not being considered under the normal Federal property disposal procedures. Under normal Federal property disposal procedures, a transfer of this kind would not be currently permitted. We are pleased to join today in accommodating the interest which has been shared with our committee by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) to enable the City of Kewaunee to have this building which is no longer needed by the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, I hope that even though this building does not fit within any of the traditional exceptions for transfer, that the circumstances of this case will speak for themselves and that Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle will join with us in supporting the passage of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Government Reform, I am pleased to join with my friend and colleague (Chairman Davis) in supporting H.R. 1766, legislation sponsored by our friend and colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). This legislation honors a distinguished former member of this House, Stan Parris, by naming the post office in Annandale, Virginia, after him. Mr. Parris is a gentleman that I did not have the pleasure of knowing. He left the Congress in 1991, long before I arrived; but I understand from reading his background that he was an outstanding Member of this body, a distinguished American; and certainly I commend my friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), for seeking to honor such a distinguished man and former Member of this Congress. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for patients and their doctors. A good bipartisan bill, the Patients' Bill of Rights, went down to the White House yesterday and came back as the insurance companies' bill of rights. It went down to the White House as the patient protection act and came back the insurance company protection act. The President took a bill that has passed the Senate, the same bill that received almost two-thirds of the votes of this Chamber last year, and he negotiated away the rights of patients to secure the health care their doctors prescribe. The Patients' Bill of Rights was negotiated away by the President to giving a special deal to the insurance company, a deal that has never been granted to any individual or any business in the history of this country. If we vote for this bill, we will be rolling back the rights of patients for every State in the union. In Texas, we have had a Patients' Bill of Rights since 1997. It is working. It has not resulted in a flood of litigation. It has not resulted in higher health insurance premiums. We have had only 17 lawsuits. The President's proposal will repeal this good law that is working. I urge my colleagues to stand up for States' rights, stand up for patients and their doctors and pass the real patients' bill of rights.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot today from the other side about the need for balance between giving patients protections and holding down the cost of health insurance premiums. In Texas, we have had 4 years of experience under our patient protection laws. Health insurance premiums in Texas have gone up at less than half the national average, 1,400 patients have exercised their right to appeal, and only 17 lawsuits have occurred. The original Ganske-Dingell-Norwood bill is modeled after the Texas law. I submit to Members, in Texas, it is working. The Norwood amendment that is offered here today destroys that balance and tips the scales of justice in favor of the insurance companies. Let us look at what the Norwood amendment does to the Ganske-Dingell- Norwood bill. First, it establishes procedural rules that favor the insurance company. For example, if the external review panel makes a ruling and you decide as a patient to appeal it, you go into court with the legal presumption that the medical review panel is correct. And to overcome that, patients have to do it by clear and convincing evidence, not the usual preponderance of the evidence in most civil cases. Secondly, the Norwood amendment imposes this cap on noneconomic damages. The gentleman from Florida mentioned that the President would not sign a bill without a noneconomic damages cap. That is unusual because when the President pushed tort reform in Texas in 1995, there was no cap on noneconomic damages. In Texas today, there are no caps on noneconomic damages in lawsuits brought against HMOs. Thirdly, the Norwood amendment grants the HMO industry special protection from accountability that no other business or industry in this Nation has to date. Fourth, the Norwood amendment requires patients to prove that the wrongful and negligent acts of the HMO are the proximate cause of their injury rather than a proximate cause of the injury, as in the underlying bill. Some Members might ask, What is the big deal, ``A'' or ``the''? Very simple. In a case involving an automobile accident, somebody runs a red light, causes an accident, it is pretty easy to say that the running of the red light is the proximate cause of the injury. But in malpractice cases, there is seldom a single cause of an injury. Consider a woman with breast cancer. Her HMO denies her a mammogram which would have detected the nodule, she gets cancer and dies. The family brings a lawsuit against the HMO. The truth of the matter is, if we go with the Norwood amendment requiring the proximate cause, she would not recover. Her family would not recover because the proximate cause of her death was the cancer. So ``a proximate cause'' is what the law should say. We need to make sure that the Norwood amendment is defeated. Yet under the Norwood amendment, state laws like the Texas Patient Protection Law are preempted and patients end up in federal court with less protection. It leaves the doctor at a disadvantage when the doctor is subject to a malpractice lawsuit along with an HMO. The claim against the doctor would be in state court under state law. The suit against the HMO would be under federal law and in every event would be subject to more favorable procedural protections. When HMOs make medical decisions they should have no less accountability than doctors must face in this country today. The Norwood amendment is worse than current law in a lot of ways. It rolls back the protections that have been given to patients and their doctors in both statutory and common law. Why should we turn our backs on the original Ganske-Dingell-Norwood-Berry bill that has already passed in a bipartisan fashion in the Senate, a bill that passed this House in October of 1999 by an overwhelming majority of the House.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the opportunity to share this hour with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and with my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson). We do have a unique perspective on this issue, being from Texas, because Texas was one of the first States in the Nation to pass patient protection legislation. I am sure that there are people tonight listening to us talk about this issue who really wonder what is the big deal about this patients' bill of rights debate in Washington. We are gathered here tonight on the eve of the consideration of this very important legislation on the floor of this House. We have been at least led to believe that it will be considered either Thursday or Friday. Now, this is not the first time this bill has been on the floor. We considered it over a year ago. We passed it in the House. At that time, the bill died in the Senate. This year, we have a situation where the bill has passed in the Senate; and it is now up to the House to move on the same legislation. The bill in the Senate, sponsored by Senator McCain, Senator Kennedy, Senator Edwards is almost identical to the bill that we support here in the House, the Norwood-Dingell-Ganske-Berry bill. That is the patients' bill of rights that we believe the American people deserve. All of this really comes down to one central thought, and that is that when an individual is lying flat on their back in the hospital, fighting for their life, they should not have to be fighting their insurance company. It is important, we believe, to guaranty that patients and their doctors will make the decision about their health care rather than some insurance company clerk in some far away city. Because managed care companies, HMOs, assume the role of determining whether certain treatment prescribed by an individual's doctor is medically necessary, their opinions often conflict with what a doctor recommends as treatment. Countless doctors have reported to us that they spend hours, literally hours on the telephone arguing with some insurance clerk representing a managed care company trying to get treatment approved, when in many cases we know that mere minutes can mean the difference in life and death. So the Norwood-Dingell-Ganske bill is a strong piece of legislation designed to ensure certain basic rights and protections for patients: to be sure patients are treated fairly, to be sure they have the opportunity to have the best medical treatment available, to be sure that doctors and not insurance companies practice medicine. We are very hopeful that this good strong bill will pass this House intact. Now, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) mentioned, there has been another version of the patients' bill of rights sponsored by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher). It is a much weaker bill, in my opinion; and it creates many unusual rights for insurance companies, basically designed, in my opinion, to protect them from accountability. We all believe in this society in personal responsibility, personal accountability. In Texas, we have some good strong patient protection laws. They are working well. What we found in Texas is that when we proposed the legislation in 1995, and I carried that bill as a member of the State Senate, the opponents of the bill said, well, it is going to cause health insurance premium costs to rise and it is going to result in a lot of litigation. We passed that bill in the State Senate 27 to 3. The House of Representatives in Texas passed it by voice vote. Then Governor Bush vetoed the bill after the legislative session was over. We had no chance to override the veto. The next session of the legislature, in 1997, the identical bill was broken down into four parts. Three of those bills passed and received the Governor's signature. The fourth, passed by an overwhelming majority, related to insurance company accountability and insurance company liability. Then Governor Bush let that one become law without his signature. Again, the opponents of the bill said it is going to result in higher insurance premiums and it will result in a flood of litigation. We have had that bill in place as law in Texas for 4 years. The record is clear: health insurance rates in Texas have risen at approximately half of the national average. And as we look at the litigation, we see that there has really been very little litigation. What has happened under the bill is that 1,400 patients and their doctors disagreed with the decision of the insurance company about their treatment, and they utilized the protections of Texas law to appeal that insurance company's denial of care. Fourteen hundred patients in Texas in 4 years have exercised their right to appeal an insurance company decision. In 52 percent of those cases, the patient prevailed. In 48 percent of the cases, the insurance company prevailed. In the cases where the patient was denied the care that the patient and their doctor sought, only 17 lawsuits have resulted. I hardly call that a flood of litigation, as the opponents asserted when the bill was passed in 1997. The Norwood-Dingell-Ganske-Berry bill is modeled after the Texas law, and it is very similar to laws in many of our States designed to protect patients. So the States are way ahead of the Federal Government in this area. Today, the Texas law stands as a model for the Nation. Unfortunately, only about half of those enrolled in managed care in Texas are covered by the Texas law. When we passed the legislation in 1997, we really thought all patients in managed care were covered. But it turned out that a Federal Court ruled in a lawsuit involving Aetna Insurance Company, that basically did not like the Texas law, that an arcane Federal law, called the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, passed in 1972, which was a bill that was thought by most people to cover retirement plans, that that also covered managed care insurance plans that operate in more than one State. Thus, the Federal Court ruled that those enrolled in managed care plans that operate in more than one State are not covered by these State patient protection laws. That is about half the people in Texas and in most other States. So that is why we are having this debate in Washington. That is the genesis. Because we have the unusual situation in law today that because of this 1972 ERISA law, insurance companies who have managed care health plans stand as the only business in America that have no liability for their wrongful and negligent acts. So the Norwood-Dingell-Ganske bill is designed to fix that. It is designed to say that every managed care insurance company in this country will be personally responsible and personally accountable, and they will be accountable under the Norwood-Dingell-Ganske bill in the same way that every business and individual in this country is accountable under the laws of our land. So we believe that this bill is essential to eliminate a loophole that exists in the law that allows managed care health insurance companies to be the only business in America without responsibility. The Norwood-Dingell bill has many protections for patients. It sets up a review procedure allowing a patient to make an appeal of a managed care health care decision internally within the plan. If they are dissatisfied, they can appeal to an external independent review panel. And if they are dissatisfied with that decision, they have the right every other business and individual in America has, and that is to go to a court of law and have that matter heard by a jury of one's peers. That is what our legislation is all about. The Fletcher bill denies that. And I am sure that when the Norwood-Dingell-Ganske bill comes to the floor of this House, there will be many who will do the bidding of the managed care industry and try to carve out a special status under law for the managed care industry. In Texas, in 1995, we had a major piece of legislation commonly referred to as tort reform. It was one of four planks of Governor Bush's platform when he ran and was elected as governor. He pushed that in the legislature and the legislature agreed that we needed managed care reform in Texas. It resulted in some limits on the amount of damages that can be awarded in lawsuits. It limited what we call punitive damages. That is those damages that can be awarded against a defendant when it turns out that that defendant has acted willfully and wrongfully and with malice and has committed such a grievous tortuous act that they should be punished. That is punitive damages. And in Texas, in the tort reform effort, the governor and the legislature limited the amount of punitive damages that can be awarded in litigation, and it did so by a formula. That formula says that punitive damages shall be kept at whatever a judge or jury finds to be the economic damages, that is the loss in earnings and wages, multiplied by two, plus up to $750,000 of noneconomic damages, pain and suffering and those things that cannot be equated easily to dollars. But that was a cap that the legislature and the Governor signed on punitive damages. Frankly, what we see in the Fletcher bill is a limit on damages that far exceeds any limit we put in the law in Texas. And when we saw the Governor and the legislature pushing tort reform and limits on punitive damages, nobody suggested that there should be a special carve-out, a special exception, a special rule for the HMOs in the managed care industry. Because common sense would tell us that managed care insurance companies should have the same limits of liability, the same degree of accountability, the same degree of responsibility as any other business or individual when faced with an action in the courts of our land. The Fletcher bill, and some of the amendments I suspect that will be proposed to the Norwood-Dingell-Ganske bill will attempt to carve out a special status for the managed care health insurance industry. And that is wrong. And I think the American people understand that, and that is why I would call upon this Congress and our President to do what we did in Texas when we pursued tort reform and make sure that everybody is treated the same, everybody is equally accountable, everybody is equally responsible for their negligent acts. That is why we have insurance, because we all know we can make mistakes in business. We can make mistakes in driving an automobile. That is why we have insurance coverage. And there is absolutely no reason to think that a managed care insurance company should have a special set of rules that applies to them. Furthermore, there is no reason to think that the Federal Government ought to get in the business of creating Federal causes of action when it involves tortuous acts. In law, we talk a lot about torts. That is intentional injuries. Negligent acts resulting in injury. We talk about contracts. The Norwood-Dingell-Ganske bill makes the logical distinction between those two things. It says matters of contract, matters of health care plan administration shall be subject to the Federal courts if it is a multistate health insurance plan, but it preserves the historic right of the States to pass the laws that govern in the area of personal injury. That is the way it should be. When we look at the Fletcher bill and some of these amendments that will probably be offered to the Norwood-Dingell-Ganske bill, what we see is an effort to federalize these kinds of issues that traditionally have been the rights of our States. I know that the members of the Texas legislature are proud of the patient protection legislation that they passed. I know that they believe in States' rights, and I think it would be wrong in an effort by those who would seek to carve out a special exception for the managed care industry to try to federalize a cause of action to create a Federal cause of action that would be able to be tried separate and apart from the protections of law in every State in this country. That is what this debate is all about: are we going to hold insurance companies who have managed care health insurance plans accountable on the same basis as every other business and individual in our respective States are held accountable and responsible. I hope that when it comes to the debate this Thursday or Friday, that the point of view that I am expressing will prevail because it is consistent with States rights, with the best protections for our patients; and it will get us back to the point where patients and their doctors practice medicine and not insurance companies.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) for her leadership on this issue. I think it is very important that we level the playing field between the way Federal Government employees are treated and employees in the private sector are treated with regard to frequent flyer miles and other such benefits. As we all know, we are having a more difficult time than ever attracting quality individuals into the Federal workforce, and we know that there are many very hard working Federal employees who deserve to be treated in the public sector the same as they would be treated if they were in the private sector. So this bill today is, I think, a significant step toward improving the morale of our government employees and allowing them to know that the Federal Government, as an employer, will treat them in a similar manner to those employees in the private sector. I know that the gentlewoman from Maryland has taken a very strong interest in this bill. She has many Federal employees within her district, and I know that she has studied this issue very carefully. It is very true, I think, that the use of these frequent flyer miles by our Federal agencies is sporadic at best. Many times they go unused. It seems to be certainly an appropriate benefit of employment to allow our Federal employees, many of whom get up early in the morning to make a flight to take care of Federal business, sometimes getting home late at night after a workday in some far off place. Those who make those sacrifices, who are away from their families, it seems to me it is entirely appropriate they receive some benefit for those extra hours that many of them spend on an airplane beyond the usual 8 hours and 40 hours that they work in a day or a week. So I again commend the gentlewoman from Maryland for her leadership on this issue and certainly urge all the Members of the House to join in supporting H.R. 2456. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 190, which expresses the support of the goals and ideas of National Alcohol and Drug Recovery Month. This resolution is one that is very close to the heart of its sponsor, Mr. Ramstad, who I have heard speak on this floor before regarding his personal experiences and his deep conviction that drug treatment is critical to our society. September is, of course, National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month. It is an opportunity for us to share the powerful message that substance abuse treatment is effective and it reclaims lives. Providing effective treatment to those who need it is critical to breaking the cycle of drug addiction, violence, and despair and to helping addicted individuals to become productive members of our society. September is the opportunity for all of us to recognize the tremendous strides taken by individuals who have undergone successful treatment and to salute those in the field who have dedicated their lives to helping people in need. Substance abuse problems costs American businesses and industries millions of dollars every year. They have profound negative effects in the workplace. A study by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration found that nearly 73 percent of all illegal drug users in the United States are employed, 6.7 million full time workers, 1.6 million part time workers. Lost productivity, high employee turnover, low employee morale, mistakes and accidents, and increased workers' compensation insurance and health insurance premiums are all the results of untreated substance abuse problems in the workplace. Recovery Month also highlights the benefits to be gained from corporate and small business workplace substance abuse referral programs. H. Con. Res. 190 makes us aware that recovery from substance abuse is possible and that supporting treatment for addicted individuals increases productivity, improves morale, business success, and the quality of life for the addicted individual and their families. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Minnesota for sponsoring this resolution; and in particular, I know I am joined by every Member of this House in thanking him for standing on the floor and sharing with us his own personal experiences with this issue. I know it will be an inspiration to many who are struggling with this problem, and I join with my colleagues in thanking the gentleman to share his story and sponsor this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for yielding. It is a pleasure to join him in this special order hour to talk about this very important issue for the people of America, the patients' bill of rights. We have been working on this bill for the last 4 years. Ever since I have been in this Congress, we have been working trying to pass a patients' bill of rights; and I think now is the time to pass a good, strong bill for the American people. When I was a member of the Texas Senate, I was the Senate sponsor of the first patient protection bill offered anywhere in the country. It passed our legislature overwhelmingly, with very little dissent. Unfortunately in that session of the legislature, the Governor, then Governor Bush, vetoed that bill. The legislature in the following regular session broke the bill down into four parts, passed it again, overwhelmingly, the Governor signed three of the bills and let the fourth, relating to accountability and liability of HMOs, become law without his signature. The Governor cited his concern that the legislation would run up health care costs and create unnecessary litigation. I am pleased to report that in the years since 1997 in Texas, there have only been 17 lawsuits filed under our patient protection legislation. There have been 1,400 patients who had the right under the Texas bill to object to the findings of the review panel and go to the external appeal process, which is an independent appeal process, to have their grievance heard. In those 1,400 appeals to the external panel, 54 percent of the time the patients have prevailed, 46 percent of the time the HMOs have prevailed. As I said, the next step, going to court to exercise your legal rights, that has occurred in only 17 cases since 1997. So in Texas, the law is working. The Norwood-Dingell-Ganske bill is modeled after the law in Texas. It creates this independent review panel. It allows a person, if they are not satisfied with the decision of the external review panel, to exercise their right to go to court to receive the treatment they are entitled to. I think the experience across this country will be much the same as it has been in Texas, with very minimal litigation. So I am very hopeful that this Congress and this President will see fit to sign the Dingell-Norwood bill which I am confident will pass. After all, it has already passed in the last session, the 106th Congress, by a solid margin in this House. As the gentleman will recall, it went to the Senate after it passed in the House and died in the Senate. This year, we have an opposite scenario. The bill has already passed in the Senate and is now back in the House to be voted on again. I am confident that this bill will be passed, and I hope that the President will sign it when it reaches his desk. I would like to share my thoughts on the differences in the Dingell- Norwood bill and the other version of the patient protection law that will be offered by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), a Republican. This legislation offered by the gentleman from Kentucky does not provide the same protections for patients as the Dingell- Norwood bill does. It is deficient in several respects. First of all, the bill does not provide a meaningful appeals process for a patient. In fact, the bill provides very specifically that if the external review panel makes a decision and the HMO follows that recommendation and that decision, then no one has the opportunity to appeal anywhere. That to me seems to be very unfair. Under the Norwood- Dingell bill by contrast, once the external review panel makes a decision, if either party is dissatisfied, they have their constitutional right to go to the courthouse and to get a judgment that they think is correct. It seems to be fundamental in this country that if you set up an administrative review procedure and you do not like the outcome that you should and do have the right under our Constitution to an open court to be able to go in to file your grievance and get a decision by a jury of your peers. Some have even suggested that the Fletcher bill may, in fact, be unconstitutional, because it prevents a patient from going to court if they are unhappy with the decision. We are talking here about life and death decisions. We are talking about making HMOs accountable just as every other business organization in our society is now accountable. There is not one entity, not one person, not one business in this country that is not liable in the courts of our land for their negligent acts. I have always believed if our court system says that if a doctor makes a mistake in giving you medical treatment, if they are guilty of malpractice and the law provides that a patient has a remedy if malpractice is committed, then they also should have a remedy if an HMO commits malpractice. Because under the system of managed care that is becoming so popular in this country, HMOs are, in fact, making medical decisions. I have talked to many doctors who are totally frustrated with the current system, when they have to argue for hours on the telephone with an insurance clerk trying to get the treatment for their patients approved that they think is medically necessary and the HMO and their representative are saying no, in our judgment, it is not medically necessary. Patients are entitled to quality health care in this country. We have one of the finest health care systems in the world. And we have got to be sure we protect it. I tell my friends in the HMO industry and the insurance industry that they have an important obligation, too, and, that is, to help us create a system where all of the parties will be satisfied with the outcome, because I am a firm believer that we must protect what we know is the best health care system in the world. And with more and more health care being delivered by managed care, we have got to make it work for everybody, not just the insurance companies, but for the patients, for the health care providers, for the doctors that are making the decisions about your health care and mine. And if we fail to make this system work for everybody, then I hasten to think that we might come to the point where somebody will say, we have got to have a new system of health care, we have got to have a system like they have in Canada, we have got to have a system like they have in Europe; and I do not think we should go in that direction. So we all have a stake in making this system of managed care work, and work for all of the parties in the system, not just the insurance companies. When we look at the Fletcher bill, we also see numerous other deficiencies. We see a provision in that bill that would require one when they do have the opportunity, which is rare, to appeal to the courthouse, that they have to go to Federal Court. Now, most of us understand that most litigation regarding tort liability is handled in the State court system. Most of us are familiar, when we have an automobile accident, somebody has to go to court to recover damages, they go in the courthouse in their local county, where they usually have a State District Court. They do not travel hundreds of miles away to have to go to the nearest Federal court, they go the State court. Traditionally, these kinds of matters are reserved for State courts. The bill we passed in Texas in 1997 sets up a fair procedure for allowing the patient, if they are dissatisfied with the review process, to go into State court. The Fletcher bill will preempt that legislation. It will put these kinds of cases in Federal court. It will federalize these causes of action, take them out of the State courts where they have traditionally been. I believe this is an important State right that must be preserved. We do not need to get into a system where these kinds of cases have to be dealt with in Federal court. Most of the lawyers in your hometown and mine are accustomed to going to State court, not to Federal court. So we remove by one step further the ability to get redress of grievance, if we require these kinds of cases to go to Federal court. So the Fletcher bill basically strikes down current State law, like we have in Texas and many other States around the country. We also know that the Fletcher bill creates some awkward time frames for appeal, and in many respects the legislation makes it very hard for a patient to exercise their rights under the legislation. We know that the independent review process is much more tilted toward the insurance companies under the Fletcher bill than it is under the Norwood-Dingell bill. I think that we must face the fact that if we are really for protecting patients, we need to support the Norwood-Dingell bill. Every major medical group, the American Medical Association, in my State the Texas Medical Association, hosts of patient groups, have endorsed the Norwood-Dingell bill. It is a bipartisan piece of legislation. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), two of the Republican leaders, a respected doctor and dentist, have been fighting for this legislation for at least 5 years. Now is the time for action. I think that we can have a good bill, we can pass this bill, and we can hope that the President will see fit to sign it. One other issue that I wanted to mention very briefly about this legislation is the fact that were it not for an arcane Federal law, we call it ERISA, the Employment Retirement Income Security Act that regulates health plans and retirement plans that operate in more than one State, is the only reason that we are in the predicament that we are in today, having to pass legislation to be sure that patients are protected. Because after we passed our good legislation in Texas, which, as I said, has only resulted in 17 lawsuits in the last 4 years, what we found is that a court decision handed down by one of our Federal courts in a suit in which the Aetna Insurance Company was involved, overnight made a large portion of our folks in Texas exempt from the State laws that we had provided, because the court ruled that part of our State law and its coverage was preempted by this arcane Federal ERISA law. So all we are trying to do is restore the accountability that was provided in the law in Texas and many other States for HMOs by passing a law that in essence repeals an exemption that most, thought was not even in the law until the court ruled, created by a law passed by this Congress way back in 1974. All we are doing in this legislation really is putting the HMOs back in the same position as every other individual and every other business in this country, which, under the laws of our land, if they commit a negligent act, if they wrongfully refuse to provide health care, if they wrongfully deny medical treatment, they are ultimately accountable in the courts of this land. So no longer will we allow HMOs to be exempt, the only entity that is exempt, from being responsible for their actions. Mr. Speaker, I hope we have a good strong vote on this bill. I hope we pass the stronger bill. I am very pleased to be able to join the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) tonight in talking about this important piece of legislation.