Charlie Norwood

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, tonight I will cast a vote in support of the Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 2004--to provide $87 billion in supplemental funding for military operations (making up roughly $66 billion) and reconstruction efforts (accounting for an approximate $21 billion) in Iraq. I believe giving our troops in the field the financial support they need to finish the job in Iraq and providing this critically strategic nation with the resources needed to rebuild its infrastructure and establish a free government is the absolute right thing to do. However, Mr. Chairman, while I will ultimately support this legislation, I do not believe providing the approximately $21 billion for Iraq to complete its reconstruction efforts should be carried out completely by way of a grant--as the legislation states. Instead, I believe 50 percent of this funding should be made through a grant and the other 50 percent through a loan to Iraq. This, I believe, would still accomplish the same goal, and also help ensure that Iraq will remain a financial stake-holder in helping bear the costs for its reconstruction. Sadly, Mr. Chairman, it's true that Saddam Hussein has already left Iraq with $200 billion in debt. And I agree with those who have pointed out that saddling Iraq's infant government with more debt so soon in the reconstruction process could put their young government in serious peril and endanger the work that has been done to free the Iraqi people, create an important ally in an unstable region of the world, and fend off terrorist thugs before they have an opportunity to ``set up shop'' on this fertile ground. Yet Mr. Chairman, I believe this can be adequately addressed by following the recommendations contained in the Pence Amendment that was offered earlier tonight. In short, by providing the first 50 percent of this funding through a grant to be made available immediately--the more critical needs in these reconstruction efforts can be met. Then, once a democratically elected government is in place and has been given time to take root, the additional 50 percent in funding could be made available through a loan. Additionally, I believe that if France, Germany, Russia, and other creditors to Iraq would forgive that nation's debt owed to them, then our President should have the ability to then convert the 50 percent in funding represented by a loan into a grant. Unfortunately Mr. Chairman, the Pence Amendment was ruled ``out of order'' and not offered as an alternative on the floor for a vote. If it had been, I would have supported it and continue to believe its premise presents the best solution to accomplishing our goals in Iraq, bringing our troops home as soon as possible, and doing both in a more financially responsible manner.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the motion to instruct conferees which would prevent the Department of Labor from implementing regulations to update complex and outdated, the key word is outdated, wage and hour regulations and provide additional overtime protections to millions of this country's workers. Numerous hearings have been held in my Subcommittee on Workforce Protections of the Committee on Education and the Workforce in the last several Congresses, and they have demonstrated the need for the current regulations to be updated after 1938 to meet the needs of today's American workforce. The Department's proposed regulations, Mr. Speaker, will guarantee overtime pay to 1.3 million workers who do not presently get overtime now. Now, remember, 1.3 workers are going to get an increase in the amount of money in their pocket. It has been of interest to me as I watched on national television some of the leaders of the opposition of this say, oh, just a few people are going to get overtime pay. Oh, just a handful. Well, it is not a handful if you are part of that 1.3 million. This also will ensure that 10.7 million workers who are eligible for overtime continue to get it. A vote to accept the Harkin amendment is a vote against giving overtime to those 1.3 Americans and a vote to truly threaten overtime pay for the 10.7 million working families. I think it is imperative we take a minute and try to get the record straight as to what the proposed regulations do not do, because Big Labor and their friends in the Democratic Party have been playing fast and loose with the facts. These regulations do not take overtime away from 8 million people. In fact, those 8 million people do not make overtime now. They are made sure that they do not make overtime, but they could make more money, which is what they are interested in, because they work on their production and their production could yield a lot more money if they could work the hours they choose to work. These are numbers which have been spread around not by economists but by lobbyists in a Democratic labor think tank. They simply do not add up. Check these numbers. They are plain and simple an untruth, the numbers that have been thrown around. These regulations would not strip overtime pay from policemen, firefighters, nurses, and other first responders. Listen, these regulations would not strip overtime pay from policemen, firefighters, nurses, and other first responders. Whoever says that is not telling the truth. Workers in these jobs who get overtime pay today will continue to do so, and more of them will get overtime pay under these new rules. These regulations do not affect a single union member who gets overtime under his or her collective bargaining agreement. These regulations do not affect a single union member. For workers whose rights to overtime pay is in their labor contract, these regulations simply have no effect. Finally, these regulations are not a take-back by employers. This is not an effort to trim the payroll by denying workers overtime. In fact, the Department of Labor estimates that under the proposed regulations, businesses will pay almost $900 million more in overtime in next year alone. What employers support a rule that would cause them to pay more in overtime pay? Because, my colleagues, they know that the current system just does not work; and it does not fit the 21st century. It is outdated, it is complex, and it is broken. Employers cannot know who they have to pay overtime, and employees cannot know if they are entitled to overtime, and the Department of Labor cannot effectively and efficiently enforce the law. My colleagues want to keep that? Who does support a Harkin amendment? Trial lawyers, for one, who have made a killing on gotcha class action litigation, filing lawsuits to try to get overtime pay for corporate executives and rocket scientists; and Big Labor supports the Harkin amendment, not because it has any effect on union members who are already protected under their contracts, but because labor has turned this into a scare tactic and an organizing tool to raise money and to collect more union dues. It is just that simple. The Harkin amendment would only add to existing confusion, making matters worse for both employees and employers. It would result in fewer hardworking Americans getting overtime. It would result in fewer hardworking Americans getting overtime, and it is nothing more than a big tool of labor and the trial lawyers. That is why the President has vowed to veto the bill if the Harkin amendment, which would result in fewer workers receiving overtime, is included in this bill. I urge my colleagues to reject this distortion, this misinformation, these outright untruths that have been spread and, I might add, spread very effectively about these regulations and all of us stand up and vote against this motion to instruct.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise on the floor of the House today to share, sadly, yet another tragic story of another instance where senseless criminal acts, acts that could have been prevented and should have never happened, were allowed to take place because of our badly broken immigration system. Mr. Speaker, for the last year, South Florida has been terrorized by a serial rapist. Beginning in September of last year, seven females in the Miami area, ranging between the ages of 11 and 79, have been victimized by a vicious, brutal criminal. Needless to say, the year- long attacks have left most women who live in the Miami area fearing for their safety and on guard for these past 12 months. Thankfully, the local law enforcement authorities in the area believe they now have their man. Earlier this month, Miami police arrested Reynaldo Rapalo. A citizen of Honduras, he is accused of raping the seven women I mentioned earlier, and trying to attack and rape four others during that same time. The Miami police indicate that they have Mr. Rapalo's fingerprints, his DNA that links him to these dastardly crimes, and finally his confession. Tragically, Mr. Speaker, they also had Mr. Rapalo himself back in October of last year, before six of the rapes had been allowed to occur. He was arrested on molestation charges, and at the time Mr. Rapalo's C-1 visa had expired. He was living here then illegally. Mr. Speaker, had the CLEAR Act been on the books last October, Reynaldo Rapalo would have been detained and deportation proceedings would have begun and, more importantly, the women who were subsequently brutally attacked would have never fallen victim. The sad fact is cases like this one are far too common, and our government has turned a blind eye to the criminal alien crisis in America for far too long. Today within our borders, there are 400,000 illegal aliens with standing deportation orders that we cannot find. Among these are 80,000 criminal aliens like Mr. Rapalo, murderers, rapists, pedophiles and the like. These individuals were in the hands of law enforcement at one time but turned loose because of an immigration system that is unresponsive, unaccountable, and just plain broken. Mr. Speaker, while our men and women wearing the badge continue to arrest and rearrest the same criminal aliens that our failed immigration system continues to put back on the streets, our Federal Government sends just 2,000 Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, BICE, in the field to enforce these immigration laws, telling those officers, the victims of crimes like those witnessed in south Florida over the last year, and the 80,000 criminal aliens this government cannot find, one simple thing: we are simply not serious about this crisis. This Congress is not serious about this crisis. Earlier this summer, along with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) and the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal), I introduced a bipartisan bill that would get serious about our Nation's growing criminal alien crisis. The bill, entitled the CLEAR Act, is a measure that would make clear that our Nation's 600,000 local and State law enforcement officers have the authority to enforce our Nation's immigration laws, and we would give them the training, access to data, and the resources that they need to get the job done. Finally, it would give some much-needed help to the 2,000 out-manned Federal agents we have enforcing immigration law today. Mr. Speaker, today's broken and failed immigration system is simply unworkable and for this government and this Congress to stay on the sidelines and let 80,000 criminal aliens create more horror stories like those perpetuated by Mr. Rapalo is simply unacceptable behavior. I urge my colleague to get off the sidelines and support the CLEAR Act, get involved in this game, and let us get serious about America's criminal alien crisis.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month was a very somber time for our Nation, in fact, for all freedom-loving people. It was 2 years ago this month that America and the world watched in horror as terrorist thugs took the lives of an estimated 3,000 innocent people on American soil. Our worst fears were realized, our very way of life was challenged, and our world was changed on that day, perhaps forever. In the days, weeks, months, and now years that have followed, our Nation has responded to that challenge. In the war on terrorism that ensued and continues today, we have led the free world in rooting out these terrorist thugs and in holding accountable those who would harbor and aid them in their insidious pursuits. The challenge and cost has been great, but the stakes are even greater. This is a war we simply cannot afford to lose. Still, Mr. Speaker, for all we have done and all we are doing at home and abroad to secure our homeland, there is a troubling and growing crisis within our borders that has been largely ignored and presents another challenge in securing our homeland that simply must be met. It is a crisis that has created countless innocent victims and that continues to put our Nation's citizens and law enforcement officers in greater and unnecessary danger with each passing day it is not addressed. Mr. Speaker, the crisis I am referring to is America's criminal alien crisis. The sad fact is our own badly broken immigration system has created this very crisis; and the numbers, quite frankly, are staggering and shocking. First, consider the staggering. Today, there are roughly 400,000 individuals living in the United States who have received their final deportation orders to go, but have not left. Why have they not left? It is pretty simple. It is because our Federal Government does not know where they are. Now for the truly shocking. Of the 400,000 individuals that should have been deported, 80,000 of those are criminal aliens, meaning that they have been charged and convicted of committing criminal acts, some of which include the most heinous and atrocious deeds one can possibly imagine. Yet these 80,000 convicted criminals, rapists, murderers, pedophiles and the like among them, who were in the hands of law enforcement officials, were simply turned loose because of an outmanned, inefficient, and unaccountable immigration system that is failing both the law-abiding citizens of our Nation who live here legally and peacefully and the courageous, hardworking men and women who wear the badge who protect us who must face the prospects of arresting and rearresting these criminals over and over again. Mr. Speaker, it is also worth noting, again looking back at earlier this month's somber anniversary, that an estimated 3,800 of these individuals are from countries with a known presence of al Qaeda. Unfortunately, America's criminal alien crisis has been allowed to continue and worsen because our Federal Government and this Congress are not serious about addressing it. Today there are only 2,000 Federal agents who have the job of finding any of the 400,000 I mentioned earlier. Mr. Speaker, that is not a fair fight, and it is not the right message to send to the American people. Recently, along with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal), I introduced the CLEAR Act. This is a bill that makes clear that our Nation's 600,000 local and State law enforcement officers have the authority to enforce immigration laws, gives those 600,000 men and women wearing the badge the training, access to data and appropriate funding they deserve, and gives the 2,000 Federal agents in the field the assistance they so badly need. And that, finally, provides the needed accountability that our immigration system has lacked for far too long. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join me in sending a strong message that this Congress is serious about protecting Americans from this crisis within our own borders, and I encourage my colleagues to support the CLEAR Act.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I think it is appropriate that we be honest here just a little bit. Medicare is a program that needs reform. That does not mean it needs to go away. Now, if my colleagues think everything is perfectly okay with Medicare, go for it. But Medicare can be better, and those on the other side of the aisle have to work with folks to get it better. Secondly, I know none of my Democrat colleagues would want to continue to promote the lie about the ``wither on the vine'' phrase. Let us get that straight once and for all. Nobody over here ever said that. Mr. Newt Gingrich never said that. I was in the room when he gave the speech to the American Medical Association. He said HCFA should wither on the vine because it is one of the worst agencies in this town. He wanted HCFA to wither on the vine to make Medicare better. Now stop promoting that untruth.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Speaker, I rise today to share another tragic story with my colleagues of another senseless criminal act that could have and should have never happened but was allowed to take place because of our broken immigration system. By the accounts of those who knew him best, 27-year-old Tony Zeppetella was a model son, a good brother, a loving husband and father, and a valued law enforcement officer with the Oceanside, California, Police Department. Sadly, the world lost Officer Zeppetella just last month when he was gunned down on a routine traffic stop. According to witnesses, it was a brutal gangland-style murder. Officer Zeppetella was shot once as he was walking away from the suspect's car. The suspect then pistol-whipped Officer Zeppetella, grabbing his firearm in the process and shooting him again at point blank range. Madam Speaker, the individual accused and arrested for the murder is Adrian Camacho, an illegal and criminal alien who has a rap sheet that includes numerous gang- and drug-related charges and convictions and hard prison time. While it appears Adrian Camacho has been deported a number of times to his home country of Mexico, he was allowed to continue to return to his personal criminal playground, the United States, time after time after time. America's committed law enforcement officers who protect us every day, officers like Tony Zeppetella, deserve better than an immigration system that creates a revolving door for 80,000 criminal aliens living in the United States, a system that asks them to spend their time arresting, then rearresting the same individuals. This makes their job far more difficult and dangerous than it already is. Earlier this month, along with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal), I introduced The CLEAR Act. It is a bill that would address our Nation's criminal alien crisis and make a real difference for our men and women wearing the badge. More specifically, The CLEAR Act would require the Federal Government to take custody of criminal and illegal aliens apprehended by local and State law enforcement agencies or else pay the locality to detain them. It would also create a new system for the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or now known as BICE, to take custody of criminal and illegal aliens from localities and take them to a BICE facility for processing and deportation. If a Federal agency is truly uncooperative in this process, The CLEAR Act allows the local or State law enforcement department to hold that agency accountable by establishing an unprecedented administrative review process and fine schedule. Lastly, the CLEAR Act would create a very real financial disincentive for criminal and illegal aliens, like Adrian Camacho, from illegally returning to the United States over and over again. It is also a bill that carries the endorsement and support of our Nation's well-respected law enforcement groups, groups such as the National Sheriffs' Association, the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, the Southern States Police Benevolent Association, and the Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement. These are groups that represent America's rank-and-file officers and are groups that understand that an immigration system that allows 400,000 illegal immigrants with deportation orders to walk our streets and a system that allows 80,000 criminal aliens to continually commit violent and horrific crimes within our borders is an immigration system that puts our men and women wearing the badge in additional undue and unnecessary danger. Madam Speaker, Officer Tony Zeppetella is a hero to the people whose lives he touched, his family, his wife and infant child, and friends and fellow officers that he left behind, but he is also a hero to all of us who are Americans because of his service to make our Nation a safer place. Madam Speaker, it is time our Federal Government and this Congress got serious about our criminal alien crisis. The dangerously inefficient immigration system we have today has created far too many stories like that of Officer Zeppetella. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing. Take a thoughtful, long look at our problem. Support our local and State law enforcement officers. Support the CLEAR Act, and let us straighten up this immigration system in America.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I am afraid to say that it has happened and happened again. A week ago, I rose to tell my colleagues the case of a brutal crime committed by criminal illegal aliens in New York. This time it happened near a small town in southern Illinois. Mr. Speaker, near Cobden, Illinois, in the congressional district of my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), three men, two of them illegal aliens, sexually assaulted a 13-year-old girl and a 15-year-old girl. Now, Mr. Speaker, there are 400,000 individuals who have received their final deportation orders; 400,000. That means they have been apprehended, they have been told to depart, and they have been released and are somewhere in America. They cannot be found within our borders. Of those 400,000, 20 percent, 80,000, of them have criminal convictions; and I am not talking about running a stop sign. They have been in the hands of our law enforcement and have slipped away. Mr. Speaker, I only pray that I am not reporting one of their crimes standing here next week. Mr. Speaker, not only are the residents of this country continually falling victim to these brutal crimes of criminal illegal aliens, we are also paying for them out of our own pockets. Criminal aliens put an incredible strain on America's law enforcement and criminal justice resources every day. Taxpayers are footing the bill for the imprisonment of Mazimiliano Silerio Esparza, a 33-year-old criminal alien who brutally raped two nuns, killing one in Oregon. He copped a plea agreement to avoid execution and taxpayers in Oregon now will be paying for his life imprisonment. Mr. Speaker, that is why we introduced the CLEAR Act, the Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act, last Wednesday, to give our local police the authority that they need to detain criminal illegal aliens. I would like to review quickly just a few of the highlights tonight, and we will do it night after night until this becomes clear. First and foremost, we are going to make it very clear in our law in what it says in regards to the 700,000 local law enforcement officials around the country. They have the inherent authority to enforce immigration laws, period. But it is confusing. We are going to straighten that out so no one will be confused. This is the only major set of Federal laws that local law enforcement are not actively helping to enforce. That is only the first page of a 22-page bill. The rest of the bill provides resources and tools for our local law enforcement people to actually get the job done. Mr. Speaker, the CLEAR Act will add a new category to the National Crime and Information Center database so that police across the Nation can access the information simply from their patrol cars. Also, Mr. Speaker, once and for all, we are going to make sure that these violent criminal aliens are in the hands of law enforcement and will be deported from this country the day they complete their jail time. We are going to do this by mandating the expansion of the Institutional Removal Program, and one night next week we will talk about that. But, Mr. Speaker, in the meantime, I encourage my colleagues to take a really close look at this landmark legislation and let us help each other put an end to these tragic events that have plagued our country. We cannot do it with 2,000 INS agents. That simply is not in the ability or within the realm of possibility to get these criminals. Some of them who have crossed this border may well be terrorists; 2,000 Federal agents cannot do it. We have to call on the 700,000 local law enforcement agencies to come together and help the Federal Government lock up and then deport these 80,000 violent criminal illegal aliens. I am not sure, and neither is this government, exactly how many of those 400,000 that have slipped across our border, how many of those may be terrorists. Do we not want to know? Is that not what part of homeland security is all about? And my colleagues are telling me we are going to protect this homeland from people who slip across our border with 2,000 Federal agents? It cannot be done, Mr. Speaker. We have to get serious if we want to protect this Nation's infrastructure.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next for morning hour debates.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise out of breath simply to urge my colleagues to vote for this. This is an enormous undertaking. The Secretary has done a great job for us. I think all Americans I know are as concerned about bioterrorism as any part of terrorism out there. I thank the chairman for bringing this bill, and hopefully everybody here will help him and help the Secretary move this thing forward.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce four legislative proposals which were each formerly included in H.R. 1583, the ``Occupational Safety and Health Fairness Act of 2003.'' As was true of H.R. 1583 in its entirety, the goal of each of these individual proposals is to address a unique situation in our law where employers, and especially small employers, are denied fundamental fairness or equitable results in their efforts to defend themselves against citations issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for alleged violations with which, in good faith, they take issue. Specifically, the ``Occupational Safety and Health Small Business Day in Court Act'' gives the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) additional flexibility to make exceptions to the arbitrary 15-day deadline for employers to file responses to OSHA citations when a small business inadvertently misses the deadline by mistake. The ``Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Efficiency Act'' increases the membership of the OSHRC from three to five members to ensure that cases are reviewed in a timely fashion. The ``Occupational Safety and Health Small Employer Access to Justice Act'' permits the award of attorney's fees and costs to small business owners that prevail in court when contesting OSHA citations to ensure that the agency doesn't waste taxpayer resources on fruitless cases. And, the ``Occupational Safety and Health Independent Review of Citations Act'' restores independent review of citations issued by OSHA by clarifying that the OSHRC is an independent judicial entity that is given deference by courts reviewing OSHA issues. With this in mind, Mr. Speaker, the Workforce Protections Subcommittee has conducted a hearing on the provisions contained in H.R. 1583, and we firmly believe that a record has been produced that very strongly supports the four individual proposals I introduce today. I have withheld the introduction of several provisions formerly contained in H.R. 1583 because unlike the four proposals I introduce today, I believe further research and discussion would be helpful in determining how to improve these proposals. I invite all Members and especially the Minority Members of this Congress to join in these discussions and help small business achieve the fairness they deserve. But again, Mr. Speaker, the proposals I introduce today have withstood the inquiry of hearing, and I believe, stand ready for mark- up in their current form. Each is designed to make what I believe is a narrow, precise, and sensible adjustment for an omission regrettably not caught by Congress at the time of original passage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. In my mind, Mr. Speaker, each of these proposals lends itself to bipartisan support, and I ask each of my colleagues on both sides to seriously consider such support.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share the tragic tale of a New York mother's brutal attack, why it should never have happened and what can be done now to ensure that it never happens again. Mr. Speaker, just this past December, a man and woman were sitting in a New York City park when they were suddenly surrounded by a gang of young men. The gang kicked and beat the woman before dragging her along the nearby railroad tracks, forcing her into woods where they threatened to kill this 42-year-old mother of two and repeatedly raped her. Mr. Speaker, it was a vicious, shocking, horrific crime. But, Mr. Speaker, it was a crime that should never have happened. That should have never been allowed to happen in the first place. The reason it should have been prevented is that the five males charged with carrying out this heinous act were living in the United States illegally. Even more unbelievable, four of them had criminal pasts and had been in the hands of law enforcement authorities, two actually having served jail time. But instead of being immediately deported, as the law says, they were released back on to the streets, back into our society, allowing them then to commit more crimes. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, this is just one story of many stories, stories of crimes that should have been prevented, of victims that should have never been. These stories are a reflection of our immigration law enforcement system in our Nation that is badly broken and in need of immediate repair. It is a system that provides little or no coordination between Federal, State and local officials, is badly outmanned, and results in safe havens for common criminals who roam the countryside instead of safe streets for the law-abiding citizens who call this home, and needlessly and increasingly endangers the very homeland security of the United States at a very critical time in our Nation's history. Mr. Speaker, today in America there are almost 400,000 individuals who have been ordered deported, but are instead hiding out in our communities. Of these, roughly 80,000 are criminal aliens, and I am not talking about running a stop sign, I am talking about violent criminals. That means there are 80,000 illegal aliens with criminal convictions that are on the prowl, thanks to our broken immigration system. So what great force does our Federal Government provide to enforce the immigration laws of our Nation and account for the 400,000 illegal aliens with standing deportation orders, or the 80,000 of those who are criminal aliens? Just 2,000 folks who work for the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Mr. Speaker, as they say in north Georgia, these folks have just got more than they can say grace over. These 2,000 men and women work hard, they are good people, but, as the numbers suggest, it is not a fair fight, and this is not a realistic goal, if we intend to enforce our immigration laws. Mr. Speaker, it is time we got serious about fixing our sad immigration law enforcement system. This week, after much thought and work, I introduced the Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act. We are going to call it the CLEAR Act of 2003. It is a bill that would finally give assistance and motivation to those 2,000 agents in the field by granting local and State law officers access to data, clarification of the jurisdiction, and appropriate funding and training to help them. Finally, it gives clarification and teeth to the laws already on the books, and order and accountability to a system that has been lacking in much of that for far too long. Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity here, I believe, to finally insist that this country enforce the laws that are on our books. We are a Nation of laws. I believe that. I believe that is what makes America great. But for us to say that we are going to enforce our laws against 400,000 illegal aliens that are out there with deportation orders, or the 80,000 that are criminals, or the 4,000 that come from countries friendly to al Qaeda, or the 10,000 or so that are needed for questioning by our national security agencies, at a time when we are concerned about terrorists, we simply absolutely must do something about this, and the CLEAR law will do that. I encourage my colleagues to look at our bill and hopefully cosponsor it.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I have absolute proof that Dave Lauriski comes from the private sector, and I am delighted that he comes from the private sector to bring to us new and innovative ideas on health and safety for our miners. I must oppose this amendment, and let me say that I do so, I believe, for the sake of the health and safety of American miners. Any attempt to slow down the progress of what could be groundbreaking safety technology or hinder its widespread use is just wrong, and that is what this amendment does. This amendment basically is unnecessary because the Mine Safety and Health Administration acted on July 24 to suspend the proposed rule referred to in the Rahall amendment. I do not know the legal mumbo-jumbo, I just know they have absolutely postponed this rule for very good reasons. If we pass this amendment, it is not going to allow us, perhaps, to write a rule that involves the new technology that could be the technology that saves a lot of lives. This amendment carries with it certain unintended consequences that is going to run counter to the interests of promoting workers' health. MSHA made the decision to postpone the implementation of the rule because of the first field test of new coal dust technology, called personal dust monitors, PDMs, which are very expensive and could be very life-saving for miners. These tests showed such genuine promise that MSHA concluded that additional tests were needed before moving forward with the proposed rule. We need to do the study, do the testing and get this technology, and then be able to write the rule to put it into place. Both the mining industry and unions both supported this decision. In fact, the Mine Workers president sent out a press release the day after MSHA postponed its rule applauding that decision. Clearly, because the results of these field tests could cause MSHA to rewrite sections of its rule, to incorporate the technology of PDMs, MSHA needs the test results before it can move forward, and then it does need to be able to move forward. Again, that is not a delay. It is a positive move intended to advance technology that hopefully will be great for the mining community. Please do not confuse an arbitrary delay with a positive effort to move forward on technological advance. In sum, this amendment is unnecessary. In fact, it represents a regulatory overkill basically without any clear benefit. Perhaps more importantly, this amendment could prevent MSHA from completely utilizing the new technology. Vote against this amendment because it is a positive vote for progress.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I just simply rise in very strong opposition to this amendment which basically prevents the Secretary of Labor from implementing regulations to update complex, and I do mean the word complex, and outdated, and I do mean the word outdated, wage and hour regulations and provide additional protections to millions of this country's lower- income workers. Numerous hearings have been held by my Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, and I mean numerous, and that has demonstrated over and over again the need for updates to the current regulations in order to meet the needs of today's workforce, not an 80-year-old workforce. The regulations, if adopted, will guarantee overtime to an additional 1.3 million low-wage workers, mostly women and minorities, and clarify existing overtime rights of 10.7 million workers. For the first time in decades, 20 percent of the lowest-paid workers in America would be guaranteed overtime pay. Now, if that is what my colleague calls playing with the definition of eligibility, I guess that is what we have done, because we, I think, have done the right thing for many Americans. I support these regulations. The Secretary should be commended on a job well done and for bringing an 80-year-old law into line with the realities of today's workforce. Some will try to say that we can have it both ways. Some will say that all we do by voting for the Obey-Miller amendment is to protect overtime for current workers, but still allow the Secretary to simplify and clarify these regulations. That is simply not true. It is just plain wrong. The Obey and Miller amendment will only worsen the confusion of current wage and hour laws by freezing in place today's complicated and outdated system of inconsistent wage and hour laws. It should come as no surprise that in the last several years class action overtime lawsuits have become the fastest-growing category of employment litigation. The only winners under this amendment are the trial lawyers who have lined their own pockets with the ``gotcha'' class action lawsuits. The Obey-Miller amendment does nothing to clarify the complicated and outdated rules governing overtime. In fact, I believe it makes the problem worse by creating two classes of employees, some who get overtime and some who do not, even if they are doing the same job for the same employer. Try explaining that to an employee or one of your constituents why she does not get overtime, but the employee hired the day before, doing the exact same job, does. Nothing in these regulations affect unions, period. Nothing in these regulations affect the overtime pay of nurses, period. Also, let me be clear, the proposed regulations do not make it easier to deny overtime to workers. I urge my colleagues to reject what I consider a distortion of misinformation, downright untruths, not, of course, by my distinguished colleagues who are bringing the amendment, but by others, that have been spread all over this town about these regulations. Vote against this amendment.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Speaker, it is my opinion that H.R. 660 will hurt the ability of small employers to access insurance coverage. Contrary to creating larger pools of small employers, H.R. 660 will fragment the small group insurance market into a myriad of smaller and smaller pools with healthy small firms separated from those firms with sick employees. The basic fabric of small employer insurance--that healthy and sick must be pooled together to create cross-subsidies--will be irreparably torn to the detriment of all small firms. Small firms will be returned to the unstable and erratic marketplace of the 1980's-- before states imposed small group reform protections. Specifically, the dissenting Members of the Committee find that H.R. 660 will lead to: (1) Higher Premiums for Most Small Firms and Rampant Discrimination (II) Widespread AHP Failure and Millions of Dollars in Unpaid Claims (III) More Uninsured--Particularly Among the Most Vulnerable (IV) Consumers Stripped of Their State Protections (V) No Administrative Cost Savings (1) Higher Premiums for Most Small Firms and Rampant Discrimination H.R. 660 would allow insured Association Health Plans (AHPs) to avoid covering the oldest and sickest smallest employers by charging them unaffordable rates that would not be allowed if the AHP was subject to state law. As a result, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that 80 percent of small employers would see their premiums increased as a result of the passage of H.R. 660. A June 2003 Mercer study predicts health insurance premiums will increase by 23 percent for small employers that continue to purchase state regulated insurance. Under H.R. 660, insured AHPs could ``forum-shop'' for the state with the weakest rating rules (a handful of states lack any formal premium restrictions). Once the AHP's policy is approved in a weekly regulated state, the AHP may sell the coverage across the country without regard to the rating rules in the remaining 49 states. For instance, New York is normally a community rating state that does not allow variation of rates between small employers because of differences in the health status of their employees. But an insured AHP could sell coverage in New York that charges much higher premiums to small employers with sick employees. This will allow the AHP to attract low-risk employers from the state regulated pool--a practice known as ``cherry-picking''. Employers with sick employees would remain in the state regulated pool because they would be effectively barred from the AHP through the quotation of exorbitant rates. The Small Business Administration 2003 study on Association Health Plans describes it as follows: ``Thus AHPs located in states with the less stringent state laws could offer insurance to the lower cost groups that are now forced to subsidize higher cost groups in those states that require community rating or narrow rate ``bands.'' The American Academy of Actuaries warns against this exemption of AHPs from state rating rules: ``The result would be that small employers whose employees are greater health risks are more likely to obtain coverage from the private health insurance market, where rates are limited, than through AHPs, who may not have the same limitations. State small group legislation sought to eliminate this sort of selection in the market by requiring health insurers to put all their small groups in one pool and to limit the premium charged to one employer relative to another. Introducing AHPs that are not required to adhere to the same rating rules brings selection back into the market. The consequence will be that the rates for the two pools will diverge, causing further instability in an already fragile marketplace.'' The Committee had an opportunity to clarify this critical point during the Committee mark-up. Representative Majette (D-GA) offered an amendment that would have prohibited AHPs from varying the rates of small employers beyond the variance allowed under state law. The Committee rejected this amendment. Indeed, it appears that proponents of AHP passage have long held evasion of state rating rules as a key objective. In ``Insuring the Uninsured through Association Health Plans,'' the AHP proponent National Center for Policy Analysis argues against premium rating restrictions in the small group market because they ``keep premiums artificially low for the sickest groups and artificially high for the healthiest.'' NCPA argues that ``in a competitive market, every new person in a plan will tend to be charged a premium that reflects the expected costs of that person's health care at the time of entry into the plan. . . . However, in health insurance the tradition is to scorn new entrants for `cherry picking.' Yet cherry picking is nothing more than trying to satisfy consumer needs better than a rival.'' It is also important to recognize that H.R. 660 would allow discrimination against small firms with sick employees before and after enrollment with an AHP. In this cruel ``bait and switch'' game, a small firm believes it has secure health insurance coverage only to find it placed in jeopardy when an employee falls ill. The Small Business Administration 2003 study describes the post-enrollment discrimination process: The House legislation, however, would also permit some of the abuses of the insurance principle that led states to adopt the rate reform legislation in the early 1990's. Some states still permit insurers to use forms of durational tier rating based on claims experience or ``reunderwriting'', the practice of processing claims information in a manner similar to the initial underwriting process, typically using diagnosis-based or other risk adjustment to determine like future claims experience and appropriate rerating action. The association's insurer could offer very low rates as long as all of a group's members are in good health, but increase the premium to reflect the fully anticipated cost when one or more group members develop expensive health conditions. AHPs would be mainly regulated by DOL which does not have the resources and experience of state insurance departments. \7\ The ability of AHP's to forum shop for the most lenient state means that a small firm enrolled in an AHP who has an employee contract cancer, or another dread disease, could face an immediate--and unlimited--premium increase. The AHP would not necessarily have to wait until renewal to impose this premium increase and the premium increase could be of such a magnitude that the small firm would have no choice but to drop coverage. Although the firm could return to the state regulated market on a guaranteed issue basis, the premiums offered by regulated carriers would be very high because of the fact that AHPs had ``cherry picked'' the low-risk firms away from the state regulated pool. Ultimately, this dramatic adverse selection will drive carriers from the unsustainable state regulated small group market leaving high-risk small firms with no access to coverage within a short period following AHP passage. With regard to self-funded AHPs, H.R. 660 allows them to differentiate the premiums of small firms based on health status to the extent state law allows. This is contrary to the Committee's stated objective of furthering the ability of AHPs to play the same role that large employers play under ERISA. Section 702 (b) of ERISA--added by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act--clearly prohibits large employers from charging similarly situated employees different premiums based on their health status: A group health plan, and a health insurance issuer offering health insurance coverage in connection with a group health plan, may not require any individual (as a condition of enrollment or continued enrollment under the plan) to pay a premium or contribution which is greater than such premium or contribution for a similarly situated individual enrolled in the plan on the basis of any health status-related factor in relation to the individual or to an individual enrolled under the plan as a dependent of the individual. This means that two computer engineers working in Seattle for Microsoft can expect to pay the same premium for their employer group health plan--even though one is very sick with cancer and the other perfectly healthy. Under H.R. 660 however, a sick computer engineer's firm could be charged a much higher premium than a healthy computer engineer's firm even though both firms are members of the same Association--perhaps a Seattle Association dedicated to technology start-ups. Clearly H.R. 660 is not furthering the ability of small employers to access the stability of large employer coverage; instead it is retracting the stabilizing protections small employers enjoy under current state law. Furthermore, limiting a self-funded AHP's ability to rate based upon health status to state law will not limit an AHP's ability to ``cherry-pick'' from the state regulated market. Ample opportunity for risk selection remains, including: Rating based upon age and gender: H.R. 660 would exempt AHPs from state rules that limit the ability to increase a firm's premiums based on the age and gender of employees. Older individuals typically generate claims costs nearly seven times those of younger individuals. In fact, actuaries consider age as a very close proxy for health status. Young females typically generate significantly higher claims than those of their male counterparts. With the unlimited age/gender rating flexibility granted under H.R. 660, AHPs could offer very low rates to firms with low-cost younger workers, draining the state regulated pool of the types of firms needed to keep premiums stable for firms dominated by older individuals or women in their childbearing years. Geographic ``Redlining'': H.R. 660 allows AHPs flexibility to determine their geographic service area. AHPs would be free to avoid geographic locations with high health care costs. They could choose to avoid certain parts of a city with populations with a high prevalence of expensive illnesses. For instance, Hispanic Americans have a disproportionately high rate of diabetes, and the African American community has been particularly hard hit by AIDS. AHPs could avoid selling coverage in minority neighborhoods--or charge a much higher premium to firms located in those areas--as a proxy for rating for health status. AHPs also could avoid geographic locations where significant portions of residents engage in high-risk occupations--they could avoid lumberjacking towns or farming communities. The League of United Latin American Citizens and the National Council of La Raza recognize these risks and have opposed H.R. 660. Exclusion of Very Small Firms: So-called ``baby groups''--firms with fewer than 5 employees--are actuarially very expensive to insure. Their claims expenses generally are much higher than those of firms with more employees. HIPAA requires insurers to accept these very small groups and states require insurers to pool these very small firms with the rest of the small group pool. H.R. 660 would allow AHPs to exclude very small firms from their membership altogether (e.g. establish a ``mid-sized'' business association) or accept the small firms as members but charge them much higher premiums than their larger counterparts. The use of age, gender, geography and firm size in rating practices provide the flexibility necessary for self-funded AHPs to limit their covered lives to low-risk, low-cost firms. Opponents to this legislation recognize that the rampant cherry picking H.R. 660 will foster will hurt all small firms in the long run. That is why the American Academy of Actuaries and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners are joined in their opposition to H.R. 660 by the following business organizations: National Small Business United 28 Chambers of Commerce Four Farm Bureaus 10 Local Small Business Associations (e.g. New Hampshire High Tech Council) 17 Labor Organizations (II) Widespread AHP Failure and Millions of Dollars in Unpaid Claims The General Accounting Office (GAO) reported that a previous 1974 preemption of state law for Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements (note: all AHPs are MEWAs) left nearly 400,000 consumers with over $123 million in unpaid bills. H.R. 660 will force this sad history to repeat itself--but the unfortunate results will be magnified since the growth of the internet and other communications channels will allow unsound AHPs to attract vulnerable members at a much more rapid rate. Former Chief Counsel for the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and Inspector General for the Department of Defense Eleanor Hill warns: AHPs are fundamentally the same types of organizations as many MEWAs that have, in the past, been sponsored through associations. If exempted from state regulation, AHPs would pose the same kinds of unacceptable risks to consumers. . . . Nothing in this legislation would prevent the same proliferation of plan failures and consumers losses that occurred when these types of organizations were last clearly exempt from state regulation.\8\ Former FDIC and Resolution Trust Corporation Chairman Bill Seidman also has issued warnings regarding the exemption of AHPs from state oversight: ``I am concerned that it places consumers at risk and could set the stage for a taxpayer bailout similar to the one necessitated by the savings and loan failures of the 1980's. AHP failures will be driven by three fundamental weaknesses in H.R. 660: 1. DOL Lacks Resources and Expertise to Takeover State Regulation of Self-funded AHPs 2. Insured AHPs will Exist in a Regulatory Vacuum, with Neither the States or DOL Able to Regulate 3. Solvency Standards are Inadequate DOL Lacks Resources and Expertise to Takeover State Regulation of Self- funded AHPs Transferring regulatory authority of self-funded AHPs to DOL will represent a monumental change in the scope of DOL's regulatory responsibilities. Although it is often quoted that DOL currently administers ERISA for current group health plans--DOL's role is very limited. They are not responsible for reviewing reserve levels or assuring that actuarially fair premiums are charged and they are not in constant monitoring mode as state insurance commissioners are. DOL has admitted that its enforcement efforts under ERISA are: . . . considerably different from and often more limited than the remedies generally available to the states under their insurance laws. In this regard, it is important to note that, in many instances, states may be able to take immediate action with respect to a MEWA upon determining that the MEWA has failed to comply with licensing, contribution or reserve requirements under State insurance laws whereas investigating and substantiating a fiduciary breach under ERISA may take considerably longer. In fact, H.R. 660 does not even authorize the Secretary to immediately terminate a failing AHP's operations. Instead, it directs the Secretary to apply to the appropriate United States district court for appointment as trustee to administer the termination of the plan. A 2002 General Accounting Office (GAO) report found that DOL's Office of Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration (PWBA) is understaffed for its current responsibilities. With regard to pension responsibilities, the report found that DOL faces an ``overabundance of work'' as well as ``limited investigative resources'' and ``staff shortages.'' It found that a review to determine pension plan noncompliance with ERISA would ``require PWBA's full investigative staff 90 years to fully and accurately complete. Similarly in 1997, Assistant Secretary of Labor Olena Berg testified: ``An infrastructure adequate to handle the new responsibilities [for Association Health Plans] replicating the functions of 50 state insurance commissioners, simply does not exist.'' Berg noted that the current staff would be able to review each health plan once every 300 years. H.R. 660 includes no provisions that would address this problem. No additional resources or retraining dollars for DOL are included. Insured AHPs will Exist in a Regulatory Vacuum, with Neither the States nor DOL able to Regulate H.R. 660 includes very broad preemption language that appears to authorize an insured AHPO to sell insurance coverage nationwide and disregard the laws of 49 states once its policy is approved in one state. Thus once an AHP has an approved filing in Michigan, it could sell insurance coverage to New Yorkers. But who would protect the interests of New York policyholders? The New York state insurance commissioner will not know which consumer protection laws are or are not included in Michigan statute. And even if the New York commissioner was an expert regarding Michigan law, it is unlikely he would be authorized to enforce such protections. The enforcement authority of insurance commissioners is generally limited to the enforcement of their state's laws--not the laws of other states. Conversely, it is unlikely the Michigan insurance commissioner is authorized to take action against an insurer for behavior against a resident of another state. His role is to protect the interests of his residents. Thus, the insured AHP would exist in a regulatory vacuum. State insurance commissioners' hands would be tied by the Federal preemption provisions, and the Department of Labor's oversight authority is quite limited with regard to insured AHPs--the focus being on the initial certification of meeting the Board and other requirements to be considered a ``bona fide'' association. This regulatory vacuum will allow fraudulent and sham operations to flourish. Premium dollars will have disappeared into personal off-shore bank accounts before any action by regulators can be taken, leaving consumers uninsured and providers with large unpaid medical bills. Solvency Standards are Inadequate The National Association of Insurance commissioners, the American Academy of Actuaries and others have all criticized H.R. 660 for inadequate solvency standards. H.R. 660 allows AHPs to maintain as little as $500,000 in surplus and caps even the largest AHPs at a $2,000,000 requirement--an amount equivalent to just two premature million dollar babies in a neo-natal intensive care unit. This is contrary to typical state solvency regimes which use open-ended rules, recognizing that the larger an AHP grows the larger a capital base is necessary. The American Academy of Actuaries notes: The proposed rules governing the minimum surplus requirements for AHPs do not account for the growth of the AHP. Historically, there have been many examples of AHP-like organizations becoming insolvent. Following such events, most states enacted solvency standards. To maintain the benefit of these standards to consumers, the surplus standards should be similar to the minimum requirements for Heath Risk-Based Capital (RBC) developed by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). Also the bills at issue rely on affordable reinsurance vehicles that do not currently exist in today's marketplace. Former Resolution Trust Chairman Bill Seidman warns that ``The Savings and Loan experience teaches us that a lack of adequate solvency standards or investment guidelines can quickly lead to financial failures.'' The NAIC also criticizes H.R. 660 as including ``woefully inadequate capital reserve requirements'' and further cautions: The most troubling aspect of the NFIB plan is it lacks sufficient oversight to ensure that financial struggles do not result in failures. Under the NFIB legislation, the AHP would work with an actuary chosen by the company to set reserve levels with little or no government oversight to ensure the levels are sufficient or maintained. Also, that AHP is required to ``self-report'' any financial problems. As we have seen in recent months, relying on a company-picked accountant or actuary to alert the government of any problems can have dire consequences for the consumers who expect to have protection under their health plan. The combination of a regulatory vacuum for insured AHPs, an understaffed and inexperienced DOL and inadequate solvency standards lay the seeds for a large crop of devastating AHP failures and frauds across the country that injures thousands of consumers. Organizations with vast experience in health care fraud--such as the National Association of Attorneys General--recognize that opposition to H.R. 660 is imperative because ``State oversight and regulation is the best way to insure that plans remain solvent and that consumers are protected against fraud. (III) More Uninsured, Particularly Among the Most Vulnerable A June 2003 Mercer study performed for National Small Business United indicates that an additional one million individuals would lose coverage and become uninsured if H.R. 660 became law. A 1999 Urban Institute study predicted the uninsured would increase by 250,000 if AHPs were exempt from state law and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) indicated that as many as 100,000 of the sickest individuals could lose coverage. While these reports differ in nagnitude, they all predict that AHPs will worsen the uninsured problem, not solve it as proponents contend. (IV) Consumers Stripped of Their State Protections States have enacted a broad pantheon of state consumer protections in the last decade. A sampling of these protections include: 44 states ensure access to independent review; 48 states limit how much insurers can charge sicker groups; 50 states impose detailed requirements to assure fair marketing; 50 states require mammography screening coverage; and 47 states require diabetic supplies and education. Self-funded AHPs would be exempt from state consumer protection laws under H.R. 660. Insured AHPs could forum shop for the state with the least consumer protection laws and only use those limited protections when selling in the remaining 49 states. The Committee accepted an amendment by Rep. Van Hollen (D-MD) that would apply state prompt payment laws to insured AHPs. This amendment did not apply any other state consumer protection laws to insured AHPs, nor did it apply state prompt payment laws to self-funded AHPs. With one stroke, passage of H.R. 660 would eliminate thousands of state consumer protections across the country. (V) No Administrative Cost Savings Numerous research reports have reviewed Association Health Plans and all found that lower premiums offered by AHPs would stem from ``cherry- picking''--because the AHP limits its coverage to the healthiest small employers--and the avoidance of state mandated benefits. The 2003 Small Business Administration Study found: From an objective standpoint, AHPs are likely to lead to moderately lower insurance premiums from a combination of lower direct and indirect taxes, avoiding anti-selection and other cross subsidies, avoiding some mandated benefits and avoiding the cost to comply with multiple state regulations. The Congressional Budget Office assumed no administrative savings from AHPs and predicted that nearly two-thirds of any cost savings from AHPs would result from attracting healthier members from the existing insurance pool, with virtually all of the remaining savings stemming from reduced benefits. A June 2003 Mercer study estimates that AHPs would gain a pricing advantage through risk selection, not greater administrative efficiency. The modeling estimates that the average morbidity (a measure of whether a firm is ``sick'' or ``healthy'') of firms enrolling in AHPs would be 21 percent lower than the average morbidity of small employers in the market today. These reports found no administrative savings for AHPs because AHPs would need to perform the same functions as insurers today--enrollment, billing, claims administration. Providing health insurance to small firms is resource intensive because the insurer is often providing the types of services that a large employer receives internally from a dedicated employee benefits department. Research report after research report indicates that AHPs cannot avoid those costly functions and that their prime avenue for costs savings is ``cherry picking'' and benefit reduction. Conclusion Exemptions from state law for Association Health Plans have been tried and failed before. Far from being a solution to the plight of the small employer, H.R. 660 would exacerbate the cost and stability problems in the small employer market. Consumers will find themselves uninsured just when they need coverage the most--when they fall ill. And providers will be left with millions in unpaid medical bills. Furthermore, H.R. 660 will undo the small group reforms woven together by states over the last decade to respond to the damage and pain that rampant cherry picking imposed on the small employer community in the late 80's.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I want to congratulate the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns) on this legislation, H.R. 1170, and would like to encourage strongly all of our colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, the Child Medication Safety Act of 2003 requires States, as a condition of receiving Federal education funds, to establish policies and procedures prohibiting school personnel from requiring a child to take a controlled substance in order to attend school. I could not agree with that more. The problem is, parents feel the pressure from school officials to put their child on drugs like Ritalin or Adderall. Basically, these can be potentially dangerous drugs, and the underlying part here is that only licensed medical practitioners should recommend these drugs and then carefully be able to monitor the child for harmful side effects. The very idea that the pressure can be brought to bear on a parent to force them to put a child on any of these drugs, and particularly Adderall and Ritalin, just goes against the principles of good common sense. School districts and teachers ought not to presume to know medications that a child needs. If a child in fact needs medication, only medical personnel have the ability to determine that. I am very pleased that this bill will hopefully begin to rein in some of the consequences of leaving it up simply to the school to determine if a child needs to be put on a medication and, more importantly, to put the pressure on the parents. This does not keep the school officials and the parents from having good conversations about a child. Obviously, we all want that. I am absolutely satisfied that the bill offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns) does not keep that from happening. Mr. Speaker, let us support this common sense legislation and move on.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), we are not too far off on what we want to do here. Perhaps the gentleman does not like the language exactly like it is, but I am also absolutely certain the gentleman does not want children placed on the disability list when they should not be if it takes away from other children. I think the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) is doing the right thing. I am sorry it is just a sense of Congress. It should be changed language in this legislation. The system is suffering. We are putting people in disability situations that are not, and that is harmful, I believe, to the system. There are those that are being wrongfully identified, and I do not know who should make that decision. A physician might be a good possibility. If others are, it might be a smart idea to make sure we are right about them and have people who are certified by the State health board.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, let me rise to support this amendment. This language really needs to go to conference. It needs to be in the bill. There are too many people placed in special education that should not be in special education, and that harms the system and it also harms those that should be in special education and the dollars that flow to them. All I am saying is let us put the right people in special ed, and those that should not be there not be there. This amendment was read earlier stating, ``The term `specific learning disability' means a disorder due to a medically detectable and diagnosable physiological condition relying on physical and scientific evidence,'' and then the reading stopped. The important part of this language is, and I continue, ``and not based on subjective criteria.'' I do not know that part was not read out, but that is the part that is so important because that is why so many people are in special education that should not be in special education. I urge Members to pass this and we will get into conference and talk further.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I particularly appreciate the time right now. We need to take just a minute and ask ourselves a question, and perhaps somebody can answer it. In 1975, IDEA was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Republican President. From 1975 to 1995 the Congress was controlled by the Democrats. Where were my Democratic colleagues' amendments then to fund IDEA? Why did they not fund it in the 20 years while they were in control? Why has it been only since Republicans have been in control of this House that we have increased funding for IDEA? There is a very good reason for that, my colleagues. If the Federal Government does not pay its share, it comes out of the school districts and that affects disabled children and nondisabled children. I wish to advise the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) that this bill protects the civil rights of 88 percent of our schoolchildren that are not in special education without reducing the civil rights of special education children. To say it otherwise is simply not the way it is done. It is not the truth. I want to also just briefly mention the cap on attorneys' fees. The money from the school districts that is used to train our children is going into the pockets of attorneys rather than going to train our children, whether they are in special ed or whether they are not. There is no question in my mind that we need to deal with that. Last, the discipline amendments in this bill. The discipline amendments in this bill are not unfair. What is unfair is how the bill was written in 1975. I strongly support this legislation. It does not go quite as far as I would like for it to go, but it greatly improves that bill that has been on the books for 25 years. I have been trying to improve this discipline provision almost for 5 years. We have passed it in this House, I know, three different times. It has been taken out in the other body every time. I have done this because of my concern that the system we have today is a double- standard system for the behavior in our schools, one for special needs students and another for nonspecial needs students. It is critical to the safety of the special ed student that we pass these disciplinary provisions. My colleagues know as well as I do that there are people, teachers, who have been harmed because they could not remove a dangerous child from school. Now, all we are really doing is saying that rather than after 10 days they can now have 55 days to discipline a special education student. They really do get a manifestation determination after 55 days. They do get special education. The other very important part of this is that it says that State laws will prevail for students who bring weapons, drugs, or commit felonies in school. A special ed child who would bring a gun or a pair of scissors and kill one of my constituents does not make any difference to them whether the children in the classroom are in special ed or whether they are not. We cannot stand here and say that the disciplinary changes we are making in this bill are harmful to the students of America. It is very, very important for the students of America, the 12 percent that are special needs students and the 88 percent that are not. I encourage my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), to vote for this bill. He is a good man. The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) is a good man. They do want full funding for IDEA. They did not do it when they were in charge; but they do want it, just like we want it. This is the right thing to do at this stage. I plead with my colleagues to pass this thing and let us move forward with protecting the children in the classroom.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I thank the chairman, both chairmen, for doing a tremendous job on this energy bill. In the last few years, we have seen repeatedly, I believe, the critical need for an efficiently working and comprehensive United States energy policy. To most Americans, energy policy is viewed rather simply, Mr. Chairman. Americans see it at the gas pump when they fill up their car, or they see it at the mailbox when they receive their home heating oil and natural gas bills in the winter months. Now, while prices have softened a bit in the last few weeks, the last year has been filled with volatile spikes in both natural gas and crude oil. Although enactment of this bill will likely have little effect on gasoline prices this summer, the bill will serve as a blueprint of change, an immensely positive change in policy for America going forward. Today, our responsibility now offers great opportunity. A truly comprehensive national energy plan should include the utilization of all domestic resources that can be extracted in an environmentally sound fashion, a diversified and well-balanced portfolio of fuel sources for electric generation, including nuclear, clean coal, hydro, and natural gas; improvements to transmission capacity ensuring the reliability of our electric transmission grid; efficient energy incentives; conservation measures and targeted research dollars with an eye on the future. Mr. Chairman, the chairman's bill achieves all of this. It strikes the necessary balance. I rise today in strong support. Not since early 1992, and until this administration, has the importance of U.S. energy policy been prioritized again, where it should have been. Many, including me, were disappointed when the energy conference ran out of time last year, so I want to commend again the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin), the House leadership, and this administration for their commitment to putting energy policy so quickly back on top of the Leaderboard. Today, we can take another step forward to uniquely reposition ourselves as a country in terms of energy independence and getting back ahead of the curve. Given true U.S. energy independence is paramount to our national security, I encourage all Members to support this sound, coherent, comprehensive policy for America.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, our Nation is at war. Thousands of the fighting men and women of our Armed Forces are serving on the battlefields of Iraq, defending freedom, liberating the Iraqi people, and making our world a safer place to live. Today I rise to recognize and commend all of these courageous service personnel, but wish to pay particular tribute to the brave soldiers serving in the 319th Transportation Company. The 319th, part of the larger 375th Transportation Group out of Mobile, Alabama, is an Army Reserve unit based in my hometown of Augusta, Georgia. The 319th has a proud history. During the Vietnam War, the 319th Transportation Company logged over a million miles, delivered over 92,000 tons to the battlefield, and was ambushed by the enemy on seven separate occasions. Today, for the Reservists serving in the 319th, the voyage from Wrightsboro Road Reserve Center in Augusta to the war zone of Iraq began this past January with a short trip to nearby Ft. Stewart for specialized training. Then in mid-February, the 319th Transportation Company, along with the unit commander, Captain Mohandas Martin, deployed to northern Kuwait where they received their assignment, to support the more than 50,000 Marines in the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. When Saddam Hussein thumbed his nose for the last time and the war began in Iraq roughly 3 weeks ago now, the 319th began the next phase of their voyage, going into the deserts of Iraq, delivering by truck the critically important fuel to the Marines advancing to Baghdad and Saddam Hussein's final day of reckoning. Their mission is an unheralded one; but as we have all realized on the round-the-clock cable news broadcasts, it is the success of the supply units traveling the roads of Iraq, like the 319th, that have been vital in the early success of our coalition forces and will ensure our ultimate victory. As I said, Mr. Speaker, theirs is an unheralded mission, but also one that puts the members of the 319th at great risk and peril. In their first week operating in Iraq, the 319th headed out from their base of Camp Viper in Iraq for a multiday mission to deliver fuel near the front lines. According to the reports, while on their journey, vehicles of the company came under heavy enemy fire more than once in their ambush attempts. Thanks in large part to the efforts of the Marines, the 319th continues to supply, the attacks were thwarted, and all members of the 319th Transportation Company returned safely to regroup and prepare for the next mission and the next journey to the front lines of war. Mr. Speaker, to the people of the Ninth Congressional District of Georgia, my constituents, the soldiers of the 319th Transportation Company represent different things: a good neighbor who lives down the street, a close relative or spouse that is sorely missed at home, or even a mother or father to a child that misses a parent and needs them back. It is true the soldiers of the 319th Transportation Company are all different, but they are all the same in one simple and very important way, they are all heroes. Because of them, these same Marines moved closer to finally ending Saddam Hussein's horrific reign of terror and ability to aid and assist terrorists around the globe. Because of them and others serving in the war today, loyalty, duty, honor, and personal courage are not words relegated to the history books, but instead living and shining examples for all of us on the battlefields of Iraq. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, it is because of them that the battle cry in our Nation's war against terrorism is particularly meaningful today in the deserts of Iraq. So finally I say to the 319th, keep up the good work and ``Let's roll.''

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with the support of several of my colleagues on the Workforce Protections Subcommittee to introduce legislation designed to correct matters of fundamental unfairness in the area of workplace safety and health. Our goal is to address situations where employers, and especially small employers, are being denied fundamental fairness and/or equitable results in their efforts to defend themselves against citations issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, for alleged violations with which, in good faith, they take genuine issue. This matter of fundamental fairness is achieved through several key amendments to the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. This proposal targets only those situations when an employer must defend against heavy-handed or arbitrary enforcement of health and safety laws. This measure is especially targeted to help small employers who do not have the means to defend themselves against the substantial resources and formidable power of the Federal Government. With this in mind, Mr. Speaker, the amendments we propose are designed to level the playing field so that these employers are: (1) Not deprived of their day in court due to legal technicalities; (2) not forced into settlement when they believe OSHA is wrong, just because it is the most cost-effective option available; (3) aware of the legal standards under which they will be judged; and (4) extended legal consideration for their unique situations and good-faith efforts to comply with the law. Each reform in this proposed legislation is designed to make what I believe is a narrow, precise, and sensible adjustment for an omission regrettably not caught by Congress at the time of original passage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. In my mind, Mr. Speaker, all of the provisions in this legislation lend themselves to bipartisan support, and I ask each of my colleagues to support this proposal.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, Elsie P. Brown has had a remarkable career in public health and primary health care that spans over thirty years. Few Georgians have worked as diligently for so long to address the need for providing quality health care access to Georgia's underserved populations. Elsie is soon retiring from her current role as the Director of Government Affairs and Membership Services, for the Georgia Association For Primary Health Care, Inc. During Elsie's tenure, she has provided critical leadership and unwavering commitment in bringing to the forefront at the state and national levels the need to improve access to primary care. While Elsie can give you the facts, it has been her ability to work with everyone, from patients to Governors, from physicians to Congressmen that has made her a unique force in this movement. It is largely through her single-minded effort that the state of Georgia has made its very first state appropriation for Federally Qualified Health Centers in Georgia from its portion of the tobacco settlement. There is no one who has served in Congress from Georgia over the last thirty years who has not had Elsie and her ``troops'' make the case increased emphasis on access to care for everyone with vigor and persistence. Yet, Elsie has always seemed like a friend rather than an advocate. She understands the workings of government as well as she understands the delivery of primary care. Her work has contributed directly to the creation of Community Health Centers in 37 Georgia counties. This has resulted in access for over 100,000 quality primary care visits for the poor and underserved. Elsie's retirement will leave a void in the Health center community, but the legacy she leaves as a result of her thirty year commitment to making Georgia a better and healthier state will stand as an example to all who follow her.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Colorado. Mr. Speaker, yesterday over the northern Iraq city of Bashur, in the deepest, darkest time of the night, the unmistakable and ominous rumblings of C-17 transport planes could be heard overhead. They came in low, delivering roughly 1,000 paratroopers from the U.S. Army's 173rd Airborne Brigade, known affectionately as Sky Soldiers. They were there to support the U.S.-led coalition of nations to liberate the Iraqi people and end Saddam Hussein's reign of terror. Their immediate mission was to secure a snow-covered airfield near Bashur that could be used to bring in additional support and supplies. Within hours of their successful landing in the still of the night, by the way, one of the largest of its kind since World War II, the 173rd Airborne Brigade, the Sky Soldiers, under the command of Colonel William Mayfield, had accomplished their mission. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of all of our men and women fighting for freedom around the clock today in Iraq, but there is no question I do feel a special kinship and bond with the Sky Soldiers and a keen sense of pride in their contributions during this ongoing military campaign. I feel this way, Mr. Speaker, because I too served with the 173rd Brigade during the Vietnam War. Since it was originally constituted in 1917 as an infantry brigade and an element of the 87th Division, the 173rd Airborne Brigade has compiled a proud history of wartime accomplishment and distinction. During World War II, the Headquarters Company of the 173rd Infantry Brigade fought in three European campaigns as the 87th Reconnaissance Troop. The troop reverted to Reserve status after war, but in 1963 it was allotted to the Army and activated on Okinawa as the 173rd Airborne Brigade under the command of Brigadier General Ellis Williamson. While training extensively to make mass parachute jumps, the brigade earned the nickname of Sky Soldiers. The brigade was deployed to Vietnam in 1965 and became the first major ground combat unit of the U.S. Army to serve there. At its height in Vietnam, the 173rd had roughly 3,000 soldiers assigned. Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the 173rd has a proud and distinguished wartime record. During its more than 6 years of continuous combat in Vietnam, the brigade earned 14 campaign streamers and four unit citations. At the same time, individual Sky Soldiers received 13 Medals of Honor, 32 Distinguished Service Crosses, 1,736 Silver Stars and over 6,000 Purple Hearts. Here in Washington on the Vietnam Memorial Wall, there are over 1,790 Sky Soldier names listed, a lasting reminder of the contribution made to our Nation by the 173rd during the Vietnam War. Today, the 173rd Airborne Brigade is based in Italy where it serves as the European Command's only conventional airborne strategic response force for the European theater. Mr. Speaker, the 173rd was heard from last night and, make no mistake about it, they will be heard from again. With the U.S. Army's Sky Soldiers on the ground and on the job in northern Iraq, our military campaign to end Saddam Hussein's torturous regime is one step closer to victory. Finally, Mr. Speaker, until that victory is securely in hand and this campaign has ended, let us keep the Sky Soldiers and all of our brave military men and women defending freedom in our thoughts and prayers. All the way to the Herd and God bless. I thank the gentleman for yielding.