Charlie Norwood

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney). (Mr. NEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the leader in human rights in this Congress.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I have wondered long and hard what one might say in the very few minutes that I have to convince my colleagues that this is not the thing to do. It is hard to determine what few important words might get us to realize that giving China permanent trade relations with America is wrong today. I feel very, very passionately about that. But I also want to say that there are good friends and others in this room who feel passionately that we should, and that is the beauty and the wonder of this debate. It has brought together such a mismatched group of people in Congress to come together and oppose and be for this particular amendment. That is the beauty of this body. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear, we are not debating an end to normal trade relations with China. We are not isolating China. Now, I support normal trade with China, with congressional review. I simply oppose making this permanent, in light of China's present conduct. China has normal trade relations with us today, right now; and they are going to continue to have normal trade relations under the same terms, whether the President's bill passes or does not. Both China and the United States will be able to trade with each other under the WTO rules, whether this bill passes or not. This is the one issue in my few minutes I hope Members will listen to. The United States will not lose any advantage to international competition or competitors by not approving this bill. This has been a real, honest to goodness fear for many of our Members, so please listen to this very carefully. I quote, ``The United States and China agree to accord firms, companies, corporations and trading organizations of the other party treatment no less favorable than is afforded to any third country or region.'' Where did that come from? That is Article 3(A) of the 1979 Bilateral Trade Agreement, our current agreement. If China joins the WTO, they have to give the United States the same trade privileges they grant any WTO member nation, regardless of whether we approve or disapprove permanent relations. So why are so many people adamant about passing PNTR? What does the bill really do? The answer is that it restricts the practical ability of this Congress to monitor China's progress in fair trade, in human rights and in military threats. So for my colleagues who were thinking of voting yes in order to not shut down trade with China, please reevaluate that. Under our current agreement, China trade will continue, and likely expand, whether this measure passes or not.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham). (Mr. LATHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint). (Mr. DeMINT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 5 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of the time.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney).

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes). (Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook).

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues vote ``no'' today, we have normal trading relations with China. Jobs, American jobs, bombs, Bibles, in a nutshell, those are the three concerns that we have been talking about for the last 5 hours. Every year, every year I have been here, we are asked to approve normal trade for China based on existing and potential progress with these three concerns in mind: jobs, bombs, and Bibles. We are told every year that, if we will just extend normal trade for one more year, that jobs in this country will not be adversely affected. My district has lost manufacturing jobs to cheap Chinese labor every year I have been in Congress. There are others of my colleagues who fit in that category. This is not just cheap labor, Mr. Speaker, this is also slave labor. We are told, if we just will extend normal trade for one more year, we will not have to worry so much about Red China dropping nuclear bombs on us because they are going to be much friendlier, our relationship is going to be greatly improved. Yet, every single year that I have been in Congress, China has increased its nuclear arsenal with technology stolen from us and increased its threats to use them against American cities if we dare oppose their invasion of our allies. We are told that, if we extend normal trade relations for just one more year, the human rights in China will surely get better, that Christians will not be jailed for having Bibles, and Muslims will not be jailed for having the Koran, the Tibetans will not be jailed for simply following their traditional religion. Yet, every year that I have been in Congress, persecution of anyone in China who believes in a higher authority has gotten much worse. All of these things, all of them are worse after 5 years of what we have described as normal trade relations with China. So what is our response we are considering to these violations? To grant them normal trade relations forever with no qualifications. Here is what we must decide today. Do we allow China to profit from stealing our nuclear weapons secrets? Does China profit from violating our existing trade agreements and throwing hard-working Americans out of their manufacturing jobs? Does China profit from threatening an invasion of our friend and ally Taiwan? Does China profit from threatening nuclear attack on our cities? Does China profit from forcing young Chinese mothers to endure forced abortions and sterilization and watch government doctors kill their child as it is being born? Does China profit from throwing Christians in jail for just having a Bible or crushing the people of Tibet when they wanted to worship as they saw fit? There are many who support PNTR because they honestly believe that an all-out global trade, with no restrictions and no oversight, has a chance of simply overwhelming China's corrupt political and economic system. I disagree, but I respect their position and do not doubt at all their honest motives. But there is a seamier side of the China lobby that has successfully spread false information to America's business leaders, and many of our colleagues and have basically taken advantage of those honest emotions. We have a choice in this House today, a big choice. Our collective voice, Mr. Speaker, will be heard by billions of people around the world. People yearning and struggling for freedom, hoping, fighting and praying for democracy and human rights and peace. Our choice will determine whether our citizens and those masses of humanity locked in darkness continue to believe in America as the great beacon of human decency and divine providence, a Nation by whose light all mankind can see that liberty still shines brighter than gold.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this bipartisan motion. Surely we should use our economic leverage with China to deter any Chinese aggression against Taiwan. It is a very simple motion that will do exactly what we need to do to protect our ally.

Mr. NORWOOD

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

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, let me say that with some difficulty I am going to vote against the gentleman from Indiana and for the gentleman from Mississippi's amendment. But I want to make it very clear that I have no greater respect for anybody in the world than the chairman of this committee and the gentleman from Indiana in their efforts to improve the defense of this Nation and in their concern for caring for our veterans and our retirees. They do not have to take a back seat to anybody on that. The wonder of this debate is, however, that we are really here today, all of us, trying to find a solution to a problem that we have known about a long time, and it started some years ago as a little low roar and now, by golly, we are in here fighting it out how who can do the best for our particular veterans. Medicare subvention, in my view, and in the gentleman from Mississippi's view is probably the better way to go. It does not fulfill our commitment totally, nor does it force our veterans to go to military treatment facilities. They do not have to do that. They can continue to go to civilian facilities if they like. Now, I am concerned about the difference in the cost. However, there is something badly wrong there. HCFA pays the same thing for an MRI, whether they go to Eisenhower Army Hospital or whether they go to a civilian community. The question is what is causing that cost and that is exactly what we need to do. We need to fix that and make sure it is cost neutral. I believe that we can do that if we put sort of the wheel to the grindstone. When we get through passing this today and giving our retirees part of what we owe them, Medicare subvention, we need to continue pushing, we need to continue to have this debate, and there is a bill for us all that will allow all of our retirees to be able to use the very health plan we have, the Federal employees' plan. That is what they want to do. They just want the same thing that we get, and there is absolutely no reason that you can justify that we should not do that and do that this year, do it immediately and keep our word.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, today I recognize the tremendous work performed by a group of dedicated and tireless professionals: the members of the American Association of Dental Schools (AADS). Many members, including those from the 10th Congressional District of Georgia, are gathering at the AADS 77th Annual Meeting here in the nation's capital. I congratulate the AADS for its achievements. AADS is the one national organization that speaks exclusively for dental education. Since 1923 the Association's institutional membership has trained the nation's oral health care providers. The Association has done exemplary work in leading the dental education community in addressing the issues influencing education, research, and the health of the public. Members of the Association including all of the dental schools in the United States, Puerto Rico, and Canada, allied dental education programs, corporations, faculty, and students. The nation owes a great debt to AADS for its unwavering commitment to excellence in dental education. AADS works to promote the value and improve the quality of dental education, and to expand and strengthen the role of dentistry among other health professions in academia and society. There is currently more focus than ever on oral health and I hope the nation will understand that oral health is a part of total health. AADS is dedicated to assisting its membership in providing service to patients of limited means and quality education of future practitioners. Dental schools and programs play a major role in access to oral health care, reaching many underserved low-income populations, including individuals covered by Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). AADS members play a critical role in meeting the oral health needs of the nation. It is with great pride that I honor my distinguished colleagues of the dental profession. Mr. Speaker, I honor the American Association of Dental Schools for being the leader in dental education. I urge my colleagues to join me in wishing AADS many more years of continued success.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Speaker, I rise reluctantly to oppose my friend, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons). But I do admire a worthy opponent, and he most assuredly has been that. I also find it very interesting that I rise and agree with both of the gentlemen from Michigan. The senior Member from Michigan, my good turkey-hunting buddy, has called this bill a turkey; and he and I both know that the turkey is a noble bird. We both know that had it been left to Ben Franklin, of course, that would be one of our national symbols. So we are ending up with a bill that does not really suit any of us on the Committee on Commerce. We would much rather have our bill. And I am going to support this bill not because I think it is a perfect bill. It is far from that. There are many aspects of this bill that I would certainly like to see changed. I am particularly disappointed that there are no interim storage or take-title provisions, among other things. But, in short, this is a seriously watered down bill. Now, I support this bill because I am sick and tired of the President playing games with this important issue; and I, for one, am ready to call his bluff. He says he wants to support responsible management of our nuclear waste. Yet every single time, every single time we have made a concession and moved his way, he says it is not good enough and wants more. It has happened every time. It is a classic case of moving the goal post. It is, obviously, that he does not want a bill to sign. He wants to play politics with this issue like he does with many other issues. We have haggled over and over on the details of this legislation for years now. The only remaining question is whether or not the President will honor a Federal responsibility to store this waste at one site instead of dozens of sites all across the country. It is my guess that he will not. Since passage of the Nuclear Waste Passage Act of 1982, ratepayers have committed $17.5 billion, and $573 million of those came from Georgia, into the nuclear waste fund for the purpose of building a permanent home for spent nuclear waste. The original deadline was 1998. The only reason in the world that we do not have a law and a good law that came out of the House and came out of the Committee on Commerce is that the President of the United States is playing politics with hazardous nuclear waste. It is just that simple. So I say to both of my friends from Michigan, we are doing the best we can do in view of the fact that we have had an administration that did not recognize the great bill that came out of the Committee on Commerce. Now let us see if he will honor his word and sign a watered down bill.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, this government offered a comprehensive employment contract to our military retirees. As a former member of the armed services, I was personally presented the package in the 1960s. I remember the sales pitch quite well, for the Army was very honest in pointing out the pros and cons of a military career. The negatives were, first, that you might get killed or maimed in the line of duty but if you survived, you would have to move your family from one side of the country to the other every couple of years, maybe even overseas, and you would be paid far less than you would in a similar skill civilian job in spite of having to deal with these hardships. The supposedly offsetting positives were that your out-of- pocket living expenses would be far less, since major expense items such as health care would be covered directly by the Army, both during your active duty years and in retirement. Retirement was available after 20 years of service at half of your last paycheck. Therefore, we were told we could afford to work and retire for far less than our jobs would command in the private sector or the Federal civilian workforce, for that matter, because of all of these great benefits. We would not need a big retirement check since we would have fully funded health care for life. We could live off a lot less since we would never face big health care bills. I was homesick for Georgia the last time I heard that pitch in the Republic of Vietnam in 1969, so I passed on the deal. Air Force Sergeant Earl Terrell of Smyrna, Tennessee, took the government at its word and stayed in for over 21 years. Sergeant Terrell retired in Smyrna because of access to military benefits at the Smyrna Air Force Base. His retirement pay is $14,676 a year for both Earl and his wife. That is below the Federal poverty line, but that did not bother the couple that much since they would not have to worry about health care costs so they could live off the entire $14,000. The deal started to go sour 6 years after Sergeant Terrell settled down in Smyrna when the Federal Government closed down the Smyrna Air Force Base. Sergeant Terrell has suffered a stroke and had heart bypass surgery. Mrs. Terrell had heart valve surgery just in January and has also undergone surgeries for an ovarian cyst and back problems. Without access to military health care, Earl and his wife now are paying $5,760 a year to Blue Cross and Blue Shield. That is 39 percent of his retirement income. That leaves the Terrells with less than $9,000 a year to live on. The Federal poverty line for a family of two is over $16,000. Since 1995, the Terrells have paid nearly $29,000 of their retirement income for health care that was promised free in exchange for 20 years of military service. Mr. Speaker and fellow Members of this House, I ask you, have we fulfilled our side of the employment contract with Air Force Sergeant Earl Terrell? The answer is unequivocally no. We have a bill pending in the House and Senate that will meet our promises to those who have borne the battle, H.R. 3573. Sergeant and Mrs. Terrell would be given the same FEHBP plan as our retired Federal civilian workers, at no cost. That means they regain their $14,000 a year retirement pay, still below the poverty line but at least what they were promised. At last check, the majority of the Members of this House from both parties have cosponsored this bill, The Keep Our Promises to America's Military Retirees Act. Mr. Speaker, let us try to do the right thing and let America keep her word and her honor and pass H.R. 3573 into law before this Congress ends.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 28, I was unavoidably detained and, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address an issue that is of great importance to me and I hope to my colleagues: The health and well-being of the brave men and women who dedicated their lives to the military service of our country. I am extremely proud of the overwhelming bipartisan support of H.R. 3573, the Promises Act, that I had the honor of introducing with my friend from the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows). I am confident that we will soon have over 300 cosponsors, because most of my colleagues realize that this is the right thing to do. However, Mr. Speaker, one thing that disturbs me greatly is the red herring that opponents of this bill keep throwing up with costs. How much will it cost? Where will the money come from? Will it break the caps? Well, that is not the point. The point is that we made a promise to these men and women and we have a moral obligation to keep that promise. We have our priorities backwards in this country sometimes. We should not be scrounging leftovers to find the money to fund health care for the men and women who dedicated their lives in the defense of this country. We should fund that first, then decide what to do with whatever is left over. That is the right and the honorable thing to do. That is what we should be doing as a Congress. However, Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues want offsets, I will give them offsets. Our own Committee on the Budget released a report saying that we waste $19 billion annually on major government programs. Mr. Speaker, cut that in half and we could pay for all the health care we need for our military retirees, and then some. Furthermore, the projected surplus over the next 10 years may be $10 trillion. This bill would cost less than 5 percent of that amount. Mr. Speaker, the money is out there; we just have to make a commitment to make it happen. Do not tell me it cannot be done. Of course it can be done. These men and women are dying at the rate of 1,000 per day, and it must be done and done soon. I urge the House and Senate leadership, the Committee on the Budget, the Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Appropriations, Committee on Government Reform, and the Armed Services Committee to put their heads together and pass this bill this year. Mr. Speaker, during World War II the famous Big Red One had a motto: ``The difficult we do immediately, the impossible takes just a little longer.'' We need some of that can-do attitude here and now in this Congress. We need to buckle down and do the right thing and keep our promises to the patriots of this country. We ask a lot from our veterans and our retirees. The least we can do is do for them what we told them we would do.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 27, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''