Charlie Norwood

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman very much for yielding me time. I congratulate the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) from the Committee on Commerce and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), for bringing this legislation to the floor; but maybe most of all I want to thank and congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), who has been working on rural health community health centers for years. In fact, as long as I have been in this body, he has been a mover and shaker of improvement of rural health. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the House amendment, S. 1533, the Health Care Safety Net Improvement Act of 2002. This legislation is critically important and goes a long way to ensuring that Americans living in our Nation's rural areas receive the same access to dependable and quality health care that the rest of us enjoy. It is vital that our national health care safety net programs be as strong as possible. I represent a rural area of Georgia. I have 26 rural hospitals. I have a part of the State where it is not that there is not health care, there is just not enough. And I am happy to be able to be part of this effort to strengthen that up. This bill accomplishes that. And it also provides the needed flexibility to effectively improve health care services for the underserved, as well as provide a 5-year reauthorization of our Nation's Community Health Centers, the National Health Service Corps, and grants for rural health care programs. Beyond the funding alone, this legislation takes major steps towards improving the efficiency of the programs that we already have out there. With the community health centers, the Health Care Safety Net Improvement Act of 2002 consolidates and streamlines the program while also empowering the Secretary to make grants available where appropriate and also authorizes a loan guarantee program with safeguards. With our National Health Service Corps program, again, beyond just the funding, this legislation delivers a host of provisions that improve patient access to high-quality health care in health professional shortage areas. Among these, this provides for the inclusion of behavioral and mental health professionals and the National Health Service Corps scholarship and loan repayment programs. In the area of Rural Health Care Services Outreach, Rural Health Care Network Development, and Small Health Care Provider Quality Improvement grant programs, this legislation also provides adequate funding. And I will state what is really important in this bill in my opinion, Mr. Speaker. It establishes an Office for the Advancement of Telehealth, which is telemedicine and teledentistry at the Health Resources and Services Administration. This office will promote telehealth medicine and dentistry technologies in rural area, frontier communities, and medically underserved areas and for medically underserved populations to expand access to high-quality health care service, improve the training of the health care providers and improve the sharing of health care information. It expressly says in this bill that it is only, and this to me is important, it is only the sense of Congress that States should develop reciprocal agreements so that licensed telehealth providers can conduct consultations under differing State laws. I am delighted that we at the Federal level decided to leave that to the health professionals at home in the States to determine how they will work that out. Finally, the Health Care Safety Net Improvement Act of 2002 provides the necessary funding for the community access program which is designed to provide assistance to communities and groups of health care providers, to develop or strengthen health care delivery systems that coordinate health care services for individuals who are uninsured or underinsured, which is the typical problem in rural areas. It also authorizes the award of grants to States for the development and implementation of innovative programs to address the dental workforce needs of dental health professional shortage areas. As a dentist, obviously, this is an issue near and dear to my heart; and this legislation goes a long way in addressing this problem. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote for this measure today and send a strong and positive message to our Nation's rural health care patients. I urge all of us to be consistently aware that in the rural parts of the Nation, there are health care providers there in private practice and we want to make sure that we do not do anything in legislation like this to put those people out of business who are out there struggling today to deal with the underserved.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, the freedom we enjoy here in America is anything but free. Our Nation's disabled military retirees have paid the ultimate price for that freedom. Yet today we show our gratitude to these heroes by denying them the benefits they have earned through their service. I'm speaking of the dollar-for-dollar offset of military retired pay and VA disability compensation that is currently being imposed. A law passed in 1891 requires a disabled career military veteran to waive the amount of his retired pay equal to the amount of VA disability benefits he is rightfully owed. Mr. Speaker, this is a poor way to show our gratitude to America's disabled veterans. During my time in Congress, I have remained a strong advocate for correcting this law and bringing an end to the prohibition that exists with concurrent receipt. I think it is particularly appropriate that on this day--the day when this body rightfully granted the President the authority to call on our Armed Forces in dealing with Saddam Hussein's wicked regime--we have a unique opportunity to keep our promise to the service men and women who have served so bravely in defense of freedom and this Nation throughout the years. We in Congress do have a unique opportunity and more importantly, a responsibility, to do the right thing for America's disabled retired veterans through the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act of FY 2003 (H.R. 4546). By addressing the inequity that exists through this legislation, we can take a major step towards ending this injustice and sending a strong message of support for these true American heroes.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very, very strong support of this motion, and I would take this opportunity to congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for years of work.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, today our Nation stands at a crossroads. I noticed that it is quieter today, it is a solemn day, it is a serious day as Members of Congress individually try to make the right decision and hope and pray that we do. Are we to move ahead protecting America and free people by authorizing the use of military force against Iraq, accepting the very grave danger that we know will come with that decision, knowing that there are many, many questions that we have in Congress that go unanswered and, frankly, cannot be answered in many cases except in the future? Or are we to wait on the U.N. Security Council to decide for us? Are we to allow the Security Council to determine what is the appropriate course of action for Americans and when that action should be taken? All the while waiting for these answers, many of which that cannot be answered, while Saddam Hussein plots and plans or even strikes us with a terrorist armed with chemical or biological or nuclear weapons. The question is not whether he has nuclear weapons. He has weapons now of mass destruction that can be put into this country at any time. It seems to me the greater of the two dangers is for us to wait and wait until Saddam Hussein strikes. And make no mistake about it, if given the opportunity, and it will be there, he will strike. When this madman has carried out his mission and New York City is gone, not just the towers but the city, or Atlanta, Georgia, is gone or Washington, D.C., is gone, what then, Madam Speaker, will we debate? What will the sleeping tiger do then? The possible answers to that are extremely frightening. For the past 11 years, the U.N. has basically been a paper tiger. The Security Council resolutions that we put in place to protect the world from Saddam Hussein and his regime have gone from being resolutions to suggestions to really a very bad joke. Today we see where the U.N.'s policy of turning a blind eye has gotten us. None of us know if France or China will give us permission to protect ourselves or if the U.N. will ultimately join us. But we do know one thing for sure. It is the Congress and the President's responsibility to protect this country. It is not the responsibility of the U.N. or any other nation. It is our job. I do believe the President is to be commended for working with the U.N. Security Council and certainly should continue to do so, and we should welcome their help if it is offered, but should the U.N. disagree with the President on the correct course of action or if they stall to the point that our national security is put in even greater peril, our President needs the authority to make the best decision for our Nation and ensure our safety. With all due respect, the President is the leader of the Nation, Commander-in-Chief. I, for one, trust his judgment and his decisions on my behalf and everyone else in my district, but not necessarily so for the U.N. Madam Speaker, I believe time is of the essence. Every Member of Congress should support this authorization for the President to protect us and our borders and provide our national security in dealing with Saddam Hussein. In the wake of last year's dastardly terrorist attack on September 11, many have asked this body and in this town, could it have been prevented? Today, Madam Speaker, this Congress has an opportunity, I believe, to do the right thing, to ensure that another equally criminal and reprehensible attack against humanity is not carried out and to rid the world of this madman. Our President, this Congress, must now be prepared to say in a loud and a united voice we will protect our country with whatever military force is necessary. Without this united voice, there will be no diplomatic solutions. There will be only, for sure, war.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, unlimited liability is an unacceptable drain on our health care system today. It is about access to care. It is about unruly costs from defensive medicine. We have got to make a change before it begins to truly affect our patients any more than it already has. Now, I understand that people who have been injured by medical malpractice deserve redress. I also know people on the other side of the issue believe you can never match a value to a human life. But when is it enough? Is it enough when a sick patient cannot find a doctor because too many doctors have closed down their practices over rising malpractice premiums? Is it enough when an emergency trauma center closes its doors? Is it enough when nurses and support personnel in that trauma center are put out of work, Mr. Speaker? There has got to be a figure out there somewhere that is enough. Saying that no figure is enough and that we can never place a limit, some reasonable limits on noneconomic awards, is to condemn the American patients to lesser care as this reckless liability system takes its toll on our health care system today.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to ask you to vote ``no.'' Vote ``no'' tonight. Maybe next year, maybe the year after that, but right now we do not need to pass this bill. We call ourselves being here because we want to have trade promotion authority, we say we are here because we want to have fast track, and I keep asking myself, why did that take 300 pages? Why could we not give the President the authority he wants with 10 pages? What is all this other about? I have been trying to figure it out since 7 o'clock tonight. Well, I do not know all the answers, but I know enough to know this. It is the final nail in the coffin of the textile industry in America. This will do it. We will not have to fight about it anymore. We are going to lose the jobs if this passes. Many of us right here are going to lose wool plants in our district, you know who you are, just because somewhere in this 300 pages there is another three lines or two. The President has authority right now. He can make trade agreements anytime, anyplace he wants to. We do get to say yes or no, reject or agree, and we actually get to amend. That is what we are trying to take away here, is it not? We want to take away our ability to amend. Well, ladies and gentlemen, we just ought not to give up our responsibility. Five previous Presidents have had this authority. What has happened to us? Well, we import more and we export less and the trade deficit rises. We talk in this bill about displaced workers. I never could figure out what a displaced worker was. But I am pretty sure they are some of the folks in my district who are losing their jobs. I wish I had longer, but just vote ``no'' tonight. The past five presidents had this authority and what happened? We imported more and exported less. The trade deficit keeps climbing. What does free trade mean to you? Does it mean we open our borders to receive foreign imports or does it mean foreign countries open their borders so we can export? Whatever it means to you, the fact remains we are importing $2 hammers and exporting jobs and closing our industries. We talk about displacing workers--what does that mean? It means thousands of people losing their jobs in the textile industry, the timber industry, in agribusiness, and the steel industry, without American labor laws--antidumping. We have generous benefits for ``displaced workers'' and health benefits--even for workers whose factories move overseas to countries that have preferential trade agreements with the U.S. That is tantamount to saying we know our trade agreements will lead to more factories closing and more displaced workers. Why would you ever need this if this bill is about exporting? The Senate said we want a vote if you are going to trade away our antidumping laws or weaken trade remedy laws. Why would anyone object to this unless you are going to trade away American trade laws and turn trade over to the WTO, where China has as many votes as we do? But do not worry Congress, we are not giving our responsibility over to someone else. We can always pass a resolution that we do not agree with a trade deal that is unfair to the U.S. Then what? So what? We can write letters to the trade ambassador saying don't go to Doha and agree to nonreciprocal trade agreements and the ambassador can do what he pleases, as he did at Doha.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to take a minute to thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) too and thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) for their hard work on this issue. Since I hope I will be representing many of the forests in question that we are discussing here in the 108th Congress, this issue will continue to be very important to me. Securing sufficient dollars for law enforcement to ensure the safety, environmental quality, and the security of the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests is critically important, as future generations deserve to enjoy this treasure as those have in the past. I look forward to working with both gentlemen in the coming weeks to preserve this objective within our Georgia forests.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I heard comments earlier tonight saying that we should not be debating so late, that nobody would be awake. My contention is it does not matter whether one is awake or asleep. We cannot get anything out of this kind of debate at all. I do not believe I have ever heard more misrepresentations or mistruths or demagoguery on a subject in a long, long time. I could spend the night discounting some of the things, but some of the statements are just absolutely ludicrous, like people lining up over here saying that $320 billion going into prescription drugs is going to harm people. Who in the world thinks we are going to spend $320 billion of the taxpayers' money to harm somebody? There are statements saying in 1964, Republicans hated Medicare; they voted against it. That is not true. That is not true at all. Republicans, in fact, the majority voted for Medicare, and not all the Democrats voted for Medicare in 1965. It was a discussion worth having back then. But do not stand up here and say all Republicans hate Medicare. Those who continue to say that Republicans say Medicare is going to wither on the vine, I saw that speech. I have a copy of that speech. Newt Gingrich made the speech. He said that HCFA was going to wither on the vine, and that outdated organization needs to have some rework, because it is interfering with the care of patients, for pity's sakes. There have been a lot of complaints about the rules, and not a lot of truths about the bill. This is not a perfect bill. I know that; Members know that. All of us could do better. Any one of us could write a perfect bill if we did not have to worry about a budget. We could write a perfect bill, all of us could, if we did not care about bankrupting the trust fund, but we do. But I will tell Members what this bill will do. They can call it, say it, do any way they want to, but what this bill will do is it will help the poorest and help the sickest seniors. We need to do it now, because this is the only game in town.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that this bill represents a mammoth undertaking by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and I would like to compliment the hard work done by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member, in bringing this important legislation to the floor. It is something that we must pass, we must get into law immediately, and I am delighted that we are doing so in a bipartisan way. There are things I would like to see different in this bill, as I presume most Members would, but we simply do not have that luxury. We have to find a way to protect the American people from bioterrorism today with a bill that can become law immediately. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and too many others to mention have actually found that way in this bill. This bill will provide additional support for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), my good, dear friend, for his work in that area, as well as the public and private health care systems throughout America's local communities. It will improve communication among all levels of government, which is where we clearly have the greatest problem at present. It provides a stockpile of sufficient drugs, vaccines and other supplies that we found we were short of when forced to abandon our offices to anthrax last year. It encourages a development of new drugs and vaccines to combat bioterrorism, and it increases the security at our borders and for our food and drug supplies and waterworks. I compliment the chairman for getting the Prescription Drug User Fee Act reauthorized through 2007 as an important precursor to solving the long-term challenges of the prescription drug cost. Mr. Speaker, we can make improvements later. We need action yesterday. I urge the passage of this bill today.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, as an original co-sponsor of this, I rise in very, very strong support of this resolution. The selection of Yucca Mountain as a permanent nuclear waste repository is probably one of the most important questions that can face this Congress and for years to come. As we all know, and it has been said over and over again, over 45,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel are currently scattered across the country in some 70-plus sites across our Nation. Clearly, clearly, it is in the American public's best interest to construct one permanent, highly secured repository for this waste. And, hopefully, one day a lot less of the waste as we get our mixed oxide fuel plants built and we can reduce the volume of this waste, which is where I hope we are going. Twenty years ago the Nuclear Waste Policy Act set a policy in motion. Twenty years ago. The DOE has now spent over $6.7 billion on characterization and development activities at Yucca Mountain. Now, part of this debate really ought to be why in the world has it taken 20 years to solve this problem after spending $7 billion, not to speak of the millions of dollars that ratepayers have spent? Having been to Yucca Mountain, I believe the dollars spent have yielded credible research and pretty sound science that justifies this Congress moving to the next step. The vote today does not lock us in forever and we are not committed forever to Yucca Mountain, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) pointed out. Even the Washington Post and the New York Times actually agree with me that now is not the time to jump ship. Granted, that gave me some second thoughts, but they are right. Now is not the time to jump ship. The development of a permanent, secure repository for spent nuclear fuel is imperative for this country. It is important to my constituents at both the Savannah River site and Plant Vogle, but it is absolutely vital to the national energy policy and to our homeland security. I urge our Members, vote ``yes'' on this today.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to spend a moment on the floor of the House this afternoon dealing with an issue that passed this House by voice vote overwhelmingly during the discussion on the agricultural bill earlier this session. We now have in conference the ag bill that seems to be moving forward. I have grave concerns in one particular area, Mr. Speaker, that I am going to be working over the course of the next few days to seek clarification because I want to make sure that the intent of the House and the Senate are preserved in the final form that comes out of conference. Mr. Speaker, there has been a practice of cockfighting, game hens, that has been tolerated by this Congress even though it is now illegal in 47 States. The public long ago has come to the point that this practice is inherently inhuman and barbaric. The handlers of these fighting birds drug the animals to heighten their aggression and to clot the blood. They affix knives or ice picks like gaffs to their legs and place them into a pit to fight until one of them is dead, all for amusement and illegal gambling. Mr. Speaker, this barbaric practice is slowly being made illegal around the country. It is currently legal in only three States. The problem is that under current law it is still legal to transport these birds from States where it is illegal to States that it is legal, and this loophole is exploited to allow people to maintain, to train, and it facilitates illegal game bird fighting. Last October, my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), and I offered two amendments to the farm bill that would close these loopholes and strengthen the penalty for violations of animal fighting laws. These two amendments were passed overwhelmingly by this body by voice vote, adopted in identical form in the Senate. This, in fact, should not even be a conference item. Identical language was adopted by both the House and the Senate. The intent of both Chambers was to close the loophole, ban foreign export of fighting animals, and increase the penalty. According to the House Agriculture Committee's Web site, a conference committee is permitted to deal only with matters in disagreement between the House and the Senate. It may not change language that both have previously approved. Unfortunately, it is pretty clear to me that people are, in fact, looking at watering down the penalty provisions in particular, and to deal with problems, some people are saying, I have been told by one high-ranking member of the conference committee that they are concerned that there is not a problem with 4-H clubs dealing with raising these chickens that the 4-H'ers produce. Well, first of all, to prosecute a cockfighting case, law enforcement officers must have evidence of the illegal activity. The birds intended to be used in these cock fights are identifiable by several indicators, including the special structures that they are kept in, the fighting paraphernalia, the specific drugs that are provided to them to heighten the aggression and to aid the blood clotting. The Animal Welfare Act already prohibits interstate transports for dogs for fighting purposes, and we have not had anybody come to this floor and say, well, we have these provisions in Federal law and we cannot have legitimate show-dog activities, that it is interfering with the buying, transport, and delivery of animals for purposes that do not impact animal fighting. Of course not. Reasonable people apply the laws reasonably, and this is absolutely specious. There is a problem, however, because people will run through this loophole to continue to exploit the illegal game fighting that is happening in these States where it is illegal but it is legal to grow them, legal to train them, legal to transport them. One of the problems is that the current penalties are 26 years old. They are not high enough to warrant prosecution of violations. What we hear from the U.S. Department of Justice and the USDA, that they have indicated that they would give more consideration if they were a felony and included higher fines and jail time. That is what the House passed. That is what the conference committee should protect, and if we are not able to do that, Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to bring a motion to this floor to instruct the conferees to respect the rights and the will of the House and the Senate and to do what the American people want and end this cruel and barbaric practice.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I strongly support the underlying bill, and I ask my colleagues to vote down the Miller substitute. There are many reasons to do that. We have heard many of them this afternoon. I would like to focus in on just one area. Mr. Speaker, this substitute is a classic case of putting the fox in charge of the hen house. Believe it or not, their substitute would make union officials trustees of any savings plan that is given to workers they represent. This will jeopardize hundreds of billions of dollars in workers' savings. Just blocks away from this House, just a couple of blocks, a Federal grand jury is determining whether a dozen or so union presidents violated their fiduciary duties by inside trading of stocks tied to Global Crossings Corporation, in which they have invested workers' pensions through union life insurance companies. Meanwhile, workers were losing billions from the bankruptcy of their company. This substitute will turn private savings of union workers over to these same leaders. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, I can tell my colleagues that this country is suffering from what The New York Times reports is a wave of union corruption. Just yesterday, I heard testimony about the embezzlement of millions by New York City's largest public employee union. I heard about workers who only make $20,000 a year forced to pay dues of $700 a year, which was then used for penthouses, maid services that were really male prostitutes, clothing, overseas trips, Super Bowl tickets, topless bars, and it goes on and. Do we really want that same crowd to get their claws into the individual savings of these workers? I do not believe any of us would want to do that. As some of my colleagues know, I raised a few chickens on my place back in Georgia. I have had dogs on that property, and I love them very much. However, I would never let my dogs start eating my chickens. It would naturally be rough on the chickens, and the dogs would never hunt again. Now, I know my Democratic friends love the support they get from labor leaders. I know they want to feed them any chance that they can get. But please do not feed them the savings of hard-working American families. It is bad for the dogs, and it is murder for the chickens. Friends, that dog has already got feathers on his snout that look a whole lot like pension money. I urge my colleagues to vote down the Miller substitute.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3391. I commend it to all Members of this body, and I hope every Member will vote for this bill. No doubt the outcome of this vote will be noted by the body across the way, and it is important that we vote for something that is needed so badly. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown). And a great deal of credit and thanks should go to the Committee on Ways and Means, especially to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson). On the commerce staff, I thank Pat Morrisey. He put up with a lot to get us here, and Erin Kuhls, Julie Corcoran, and Bridgett Taylor. They worked so hard to get us to where we are today. Many Members have mentioned the good things that are in this bill. There are a lot of good things. I particularly would like to highlight the benefit that will be made available to patients for them to actually know if Medicare will cover a benefit that is a covered benefit. That is called preauthorization or predetermination, and probably in the end there is not much more in this bill that will be more important to the quality of care for Medicare patients to actually get treated. But I note, as the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) has said, that this is a first step. I hope we will all recognize that, and I would like to have a colloquy with the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis); and I will ask both the question at the same time. Although many good things have been done in this bill, this is a first step and I want to be part of working these two committees together next year and I would like to hear from both Members. Can we plan to move forward next year?

Mr. NORWOOD. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I think that it is perfectly clear to me and perhaps to other Members that there really are people in our body that just do not like the pharmaceutical industry. It is a little baffling to me. I do not impugn their motives, I do not question their motives, I just do not understand it because this is a bill not about profits; but this is a bill about making sure that medications that are produced for adults are then further studied for children. I do not understand exactly why a system that has worked so well and has produced what we wanted it to do should be attacked so tonight. I have time only to make just one point, but the pharmaceutical industry does not choose which drug is to be studied. Therefore, it does not choose which drug can have 6 months' extension on its patent. Not every drug is eligible for pediatric exclusivity. The decision about whether to issue a written request, that rests with the FDA. That is not based on dollars and cents. It is based on which medication needs to be studied. If there is no written request, there is no opportunity for pediatric exclusivity which means the 6 months' extension on their patent. Hence, and for sure, blockbuster drugs like Rogaine and Viagra will never gain the ability to have pediatric exclusivity. Lastly, I think just on labeling, I want to point out to you that when you go to the drug store and you get your little plastic vial and it has a label on it, the label on the medication is the doctor's orders. The pediatrician has written to the pharmacist what we want on the label. And to imply that pediatricians in this country simply do not have enough sense to understand that a drug produced for an adult has to be changed for a child is wrong. I give them credit to know that they worry about what they write and what kind of prescription they write, and they carefully put the label through the pharmacies on the drug. I encourage my colleagues to vote for this and let us go forward and study these drugs for the children of this country that has proven to be reliable, the system that we have been under lately.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Farm Security Act of 2001. I cannot say enough good things. I cannot commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) enough for his leadership and for the very thorough and deliberate manner the gentleman has followed in crafting this important farm bill. This bill answers a question, a vital question to this country, a very important question to the people of this country: Do we want the American people fed and clothed by the American farmer? That is a question that is before us because it is possible if something does not change, that we will not be fed and clothed by the American farmer. We will have to depend on other nations. When Congress passes this bill, the Farm Security Act, we are saying in a very loud voice, yes, we do intend for the American farmer to be the backbone of our industry in this country, and we will depend on them for our food and fiber. Recently American farmers have struggled through increasing difficulties. It is no secret. Talking to farmers while traveling through the 10th Congressional District of Georgia, I have listened to their concerns. The farmers in this country need our help if we want them to stay in business. Earlier this year Congress made a firm commitment of support. My colleagues all remember setting aside $73.5 billion over the next 10 years. We have the opportunity, we should take the opportunity today to take the next important step. As evidenced by annual emergency agriculture spending, many policies in the 1996 farm bill have not been effective. This farm bill is well balanced and remedies these inequities, addressing critical farm program needs while also increasing conservation program dollars by approximately 80 percent. Within the commodity title, farmers are provided a three-piece safety net and the option to update base acreage. What that safety net really is, it is a safety net for the American citizen, a safety net for the American consumer, not just the farmer, but for all of us who are fed and clothed by the American farmer. While maintaining the fixed decoupled payments and the marketing loan payment, this farm bill adds a countercyclical payment, too. This allows the farmer flexibility and security in planning for the future, a prescriptive answer to many of their concerns that I have heard since 1996. Finally, I want to talk about the peanut program just a minute. It is a critically important issue to Georgians. Recognizing the new challenges within the program and the need for reform, I am pleased with what this great committee has done. While it may not be perfect in the eyes of everyone, I believe this historic reform is an equitable one and is well crafted to ensure the viability of the American peanut farmer. Mr. Chairman, U.S. farmers have been asking for our help. I am happy to tell my friends in Georgia that help is on the way. I hope all my colleagues will vote for this bill.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to fully endorse and authorize the use of force as directed by the President of this great Nation. Now is the time to lead the most extensive campaign again terrorism this world has ever seen, to annihilate those sources of hatred and terror, to break any nation assisting them in their efforts, to cleanse the Earth of this entire breed. Mr. President, no matter where we have to go, no matter how long we have to fight, we are prepared to fulfill our duty to generations to come, for them to live in a world free of terrorism. Our mission is of the grandest kind and must be resolved on the grandest scale. Our Nation will not cower from this fight. We will march into the lion's den and slay this pride. No mistake about it, we are fighting for our lives and livelihoods and we will prevail. To say it in a way that perhaps Osama bin Laden might understand and other terrorist groups, I ask them to hear me tonight. We are coming after them and the fury of hell is coming with us.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution to condemn these terrorists. Our hearts are broken for the loss of life. We must condemn this act. We have to treat our wounded. We pray for the mortal souls of the victims, for peace and grace of the family members, and we will mourn, and we will bury our dead. Then what? These attacks have likely cost more American lives than we lost at Pearl Harbor, and in a far more cowardly manner. War has been declared on America. Now what? Do we capitulate and wait for the next terrorist attack? Do we wait for another attack on our freedom and American lives? Do we really think we can deter these barbaric acts or really prevent them? Is preventing 9 out of 10 terrorist attacks going to be enough, or do we fight back and make the price they pay for evil so high they will never again wish to attack America? They have recognized that we have a justified reluctance in waging war while still having difficulty identifying specific nations or even groups of targets, or, for that matter, even determining who to name in a declaration of war. Mr. Speaker, I urge approval of a declaration of war, granting our commander in chief his constitutional ability to prosecute a total war, not unlike maybe the 7th Congress had to deal with with President Thomas Jefferson in his fight against the terrorism of the Barbary pirates. Mr. Speaker, we have been attacked. We are at war, and we just lost a battle. Let us move this debate to the level necessary to defend our country. I urge every Member to vote for this resolution and rapidly move to the real debate to protect America.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me the time, and I am very grateful for the opportunity to perhaps straighten out a little bit maybe of what has been said. I say to my colleagues, the first thing is I believe in my soul that the President of the United States does, in fact, want a bill to protect patients. I do not have any doubt about it. He has told me that on many occasions, all the way back to governor. I also respect the office of the Presidency, and I believe that unless we get his signature, we are going to be continuing to do the same thing that we have done now for 6 years. This is not just about passing a bill. This is about changing the law of the land so patients can be protected in a health care system that has radically changed over the last 30 years. I make no apologies to any of my colleagues. I think my colleagues know pretty well where I come from on this issue. I have great affection and respect for the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Berry). I basically support the bill. Why in the world would I not? I helped write the bill. I am not against that bill at all. What I am against is not having a change in the law. Now, what I have done is, I have tried to figure out to the best of my ability what could we do to acquire the signature of the President of the United States and, at the same time, maintain at least what I humbly think is the reason all of this got started. I am real excited, I have to say, I am real excited that in our bill, in the Ganske-Dingell-Berry bill, that the President is willing to sign our patient protections. All of us know how important those are. Some of us know, as well as I know, what is in there. I am very pleased about that. I am very pleased that now the President is willing to sign, for example, our access pieces. I am excited about that. Those are off the table now. The problem is, for the President, that he wants to sign a bill that he can have some input into. Now, that is fair. There are some poison pills for this President in our bill, as were potentially poison pills in the Norwood-Dingell bill a couple of years ago that President Clinton would not have signed. I fought a lot of people to make sure those poison pills in the Norwood-Dingell bill were not there. Guess who I fought. I fought my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert). I fought almost every Member of the Republican Conference, and I stayed steady to a principle that I believed we should have, which is there should be some limit on liabilities. It is totally unfair to people to put their profession, their business, their family, their wealth in a position where they could lose it all just because somebody may have a particularly talented trial lawyer. That is not fair. But I never would put those in or go along with putting those in the Norwood-Dingell bill because I knew President Clinton would not sign that. I was trying to get this law changed because we are now in the sixth year. Patients are not any better off today after 6 years than we were 5 years ago, and it is time to bring this gridlock to an end. I have looked for a way with this President that we might take some poison pills out for him. The founders said, if we want a law of the land, the President of the United States has to sign it. For a President of the United States to sign a bill, he is going to participate. This President feels very strongly that we should have the bill, but he wants some protections in there. So we were getting from him an agreement to sign a bill that does what? It gives us the patients' protections exactly like we wrote. It gives us an external review panel made up of independent people. That is so important for the patients, and we need that signed. It is a bill that says, for the first time in years, every American in this country can choose their own doctor. That is so important. Does it say what we are trying to do or what the President is trying to do: that we are not going to hold HMOs liable for their actions when they deny care, when they deny a benefit or delay a benefit and they kill or harm some of the people that have been used up here as an example? Does anybody really believe that I want to do that? That I do not want to hold their feet to the fire? I promise I want to put their feet in the fire on this; but there is a way to do that where we also can get this bill signed and achieve our other things. We will talk about the amendment later. But I want everyone to understand I support this bill. But I support one even more that will go into law.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to follow the previous speaker, because medical savings accounts hold the best promise for allowing Americans to break out of managed care entirely and take control of their own health care for the first time in many years. I do not have time to go into this a lot, but some of the most serious, real problems faced today by medical savings account companies is that a far higher mix of seriously ill patients are flocking into MSAs than other health plans, to the point that negative selection is currently hurting MSAs, not traditional insurance. The reason so many people with preexisting conditions are flocking to MSAs is that MSAs provide freedom, freedom to get the drug your doctor ordered, freedom to see your specialist without seeking permission from anyone or to have to file an appeal for an overturn. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment for medical savings accounts because I think that it will help all of us do one of the things I have been trying to do all along, is get away from managed care.

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

Mr. NORWOOD. Because there is no way that you can make it exactly the same between the physician and the HMO, I do not believe. If the gentleman is talking about the rebuttable presumption, and I presume he is, what I would say to him there is that I did the best I could do in negotiations to continue to allow the patient to have the recourse to going into court.

Mr. NORWOOD. I stand by the fact that if an insurance company does exactly what they are told to do by a group of physicians in the external review model, then we have to encourage them to offer the treatment and not put them in a position so that they have always the fear of being drug into court. But as the gentleman knows, I agree that that patient should have the right to go into court.