Charlie Norwood

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman does recognize that this set of rules may well not protect workers because they may not have a job in which to be protected. OSHA people are not going to Mexico and they are not going to Canada to check on them. We need to write a set of rules that will encourage employers in the workplace to be healthy and safe, including ergonomic rules. But this rule is a bad rule, and that is all we are talking about. The Labor Department issued a bad rule. Let us get rid of it and write a good rule.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker from the Democratic side made the point very nicely that if you will not have onerous rules, the workforce today, the employers today recognize the value of having workforce protections, and they have indeed. There is no question about it. Left alone, they have reduced repetitive motion stress in the workplace. But you are not going to get it reduced any further with the kind of onerous rule we are putting on them now. Remember what this is. This is about repealing a bad rule. It is not about making ergonomics go away. Lastly, I would simply add, it dawned on me as I was listening about the 15-pound turkey. I am more interested in the 15-pound child. What about the mothers all across America that have a 15-pound baby who is 8 months, 10 months old? What are we going to do next? In leaving the Labor Department to its own devices, we might. Should the Federal Government furnish a helper for every mother in America that has a 15-pound child that she lifts up and down all day? There are things in life we have to do in terms of our workforce. Can we make those better? Yes, of course we can make them better. It is pretty clear to me that the small businesses and large businesses of America are working on that, but we are not going to help them at all if we pass this rule. Let us get rid of a bad rule. For once let us say a Federal agency has written a bad rule and a bad regulation that will not solve the problem and let us try to relook at that and see if in fact we can help the workforce.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it very clear to my friends on the other side of the aisle, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, I care about the health and safety of workers just as much as they do. But this is a very bad rule coming from OSHA that could, indeed, hurt those same workers they want to protect. Let us just take one simple hypothetical. Let us say an employee hurts themselves playing softball. They know that, under this regulation, if they claim this musculoskeletal disorder and can blame it on the work force, then they can take 90 days off with 90 percent of their pay. The injured patient then gets to the doctor and gets the doctor to say this softball accident really is work related. The employers call the doctor and say, wait a minute, this MSD was caused by playing softball. I know that. Two or three of our employees saw it. The doctor says, sorry, I cannot talk to you about this. It is against the law. The OSHA SWAT team then comes in and says you have one MSD patient, you have one, therefore, you must make changes in your workplace, costing thousands of dollars for small businesses and perhaps millions for big businesses. Plus, you pay them 90 percent of the salary for 90 days. This can force small businesses to go out of business when their workman's compensation premiums double with all the other additional expenses one adds on top of it. Mr. Speaker, I want to hear OSHA explain to me how they are going to enforce these new ergonomic rules in the textile plants of Mexico and China. It seems we have trade agreements that allow these countries access to our textile market, so it would only be fair that those Mexican and Chinese mills should have to comply with these rules the same as American textile mills. We do not at present require Mexican and Chinese friends to comply with the minimum wage. So it concerns me that OSHA is planning to let them off the hook on ergonomics as well. I also want to see the OSHA plan for enforcement of these new ergonomic standards for the Canadian lumber industry. Under these new rules, it looks like it might be illegal for a logger to pick up a chain saw. I really want to know if our Canadian friends will have to operate under the same restrictions that we are. See, my district has lost hundreds of jobs in the past few months to subsidized Canadian timber prices, while we have all but kicked our loggers out of the National Forests. Now, I also have an even trickier question. When Mexican and Canadian truckers come driving their loads of textiles and logs down our interstate highways as called for by NAFTA, is OSHA going to enforce the same ergonomic standards on them as they do our Teamsters? Mr. Speaker, every Member of this House and every union worker in America needs to recognize a terrifying reality about the implementation of these standards. These new rules include a total labor of compliance for every corporation who will move U.S. jobs across our northern and southern borders out of this country. Mr. Speaker, it appears our workers may face more of a danger from new OSHA regulations than they ever would from repetitive motions. I urge rejection, I urge us all to disagree with this standard wholeheartedly. It is as bad as the one this House let the Labor Department pass 9 or 10 years ago on the blood-borne pathogen standard. I know how bad that one was because, in my other life, I had to live under that nonsense. Please do not allow them to get away with this again. Let us come back and write real standards.

Mr. NORWOOD

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

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), chairman of the Commerce Subcommittee on Health and Environment.

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

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to take just a minute to close this up and thank really everybody that has been involved with this over the past 6 months. I am sorry the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), my good friend, is not here. He has worked very hard and worked with me long to help us get to this point. He has done things way upstairs back there that the rest of us could not do, and I am grateful to him. This bill is, in my view, pretty meaningful. It has some very interesting prospects for America, one of which is the research. The biomedical research that we are talking about under the auspices of NIH is going to reveal to us, I believe, some anomalies in health care and in medicine that we are not aware of today. At least I hope that is where the research takes us. Second, and maybe we had not talked about it as much and it is equally important to me, is the education factor of this bill. I readily admit to anyone who asked, very selfishly I hope a lot of this goes to Morehouse Medical School. I hope they do a lot of the education and the research right there. And to continue to be selfish, it is for a very simple reason. The graduates, the doctors, health care professionals that they put out are the people that go into my counties and my communities and treat rural Georgia. That is what I am after here as much as anything else. So I thank all that have been involved. And I know that we will all follow this, the research and the education aspects of it, very carefully over the coming years and hope and pray that this does what we all intend for it to do.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, whether we care to admit it or not, there are disparities in health care in America today. In the minority health community, there are clearly significant disparities in health outcomes. In the African-American community, the Asian-American community, and the Hispanic-American community, there are disproportionate incidences of cardiovascular disease and certain forms of cancer. This also holds true for certain nonminority, low-income, rural communities as well. Mr. Speaker, the two questions we must have the courage and the determination to answer are why, and what can be done about it? It takes courage because the admission of the problem moves us all out of our comfort zone, in which we are all too content to just let racial and ethnic and class disparities improve on their own and work themselves out over time. It takes determination, because there is no easy answer. In fact, many health care experts sharply disagree on all the underlying causes of health disparities. Mr. Speaker, all of this takes determination, because there is no easy answer. In fact, many health care experts sharply disagree on all the underlying causes of health disparities. Many point to the role of continued income disparities, others to discrimination in diagnosis and prescribed treatments. Some point out a lack of training in our medical schools concerning racial, gender and ethnic differences in symptoms presented by patients when seeking treatment. All of these points make for good debate, but they in no way justify doing nothing while patients lives are on the line. There are solutions that can be identified right now as providing relief, and the Health Care Fairness Act is one of those remedies. For this reason, I am proud to cosponsor very similar legislation in this body with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), my good friend, and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield). This bill creates a Center for Health Disparities at the National Institutes of Health, provides increased funding and incentives for minority health and health disparities research and new support for educating both our health professionals and patients on common sense approaches to increasing the number of positive health outcomes for minorities and other health disparity patients. Mr. Speaker, I want to draw particular attention to the bill's emphasis on education. The bill will provide access to critical funding for those schools that are researching health disparities and educating the health professionals that will bring treatment to minority and health disparity communities. We can wait to do anything unless we address each cause or we can move immediately to repair those things that we can. Mr. Speaker, since we are dealing with the life and health of Americans, we have no choice but the latter, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1880) to amend the Public Health Service Act to improve the health of minority individuals.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on S. 1880.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Spence) for a job well done over the last 6 years. I thank him for fighting every day to keep our military from deteriorating and particularly thank him for this bipartisan conference report. I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). It is enlightening to us all to see this bipartisan conference report. That may be why it is good. There are many good reasons to vote for this particular conference report, but let me just isolate one. I do not think it is any surprise to any Member of this Congress that there has been a great deterioration in the health care benefits of our retirees. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Spence), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) finally for helping us right some wrongs. Today they have given us the opportunity to change direction and take the first step in fulfilling our promises we made to our Nation's retirees. George Washington, addressing the Continental Army before a battle during the Revolution, perhaps sums up best what we owe those who serve. ``The fate of unborn millions will now depend upon God, on the courage and the conduct of the Army,'' so says George Washington. When I think about these words and return to these words after seeing the volatile events of the 20th century, I realize they could not be more appropriate. Around the world, the courageous sacrifices of the American soldiers have lit the flame of liberty where once there was darkness and preserved this same flame within our borders so that generations to come will be able to walk free under its light. These are truly remarkable achievements for which we are today showing we are grateful. Our retirees bravely answered the call to duty when our country needed them, and we should and we must be there for them when they need us. I urge us all to vote for this conference report, bipartisan as it is. However, I must speak quickly to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor). It is no secret to anyone that, under the leadership over the last 6 years of the Republicans and of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), we have tried to stop the deterioration of the military. The problem has been a Presidential budget and the fact that we could not override with a veto.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks today by thanking my colleagues who have been very helpful in bringing this bill to the floor on the suspension calendar. The gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Stump) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, have been very helpful to us on this. I thank them and their staffs. As has been pointed out, Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for the conveyance of property from the Carl Vinson VA Medical Center in Dublin, Georgia, to Middle Georgia College and the Community Service Board of Middle Georgia. There are many benefits with this transfer of land. The VA obviously is going to be able to save on the cost of renovating several rundown old buildings, as well as the maintenance and upkeep costs on those buildings. The VA Center employees and patients are going to receive free tuition and fees to the Middle Georgia College, and free mental health counseling at a mental health facility that will occupy one of these buildings that is being transferred. Probably one of the most important features of this entire bill is that that property that will be transferred to the university system of the State of Georgia is going to be used to build a nursing treatment facility there. Now, in Middle Georgia it is absolutely a wonderful quality of life, but it is rural Georgia, and they have a very hard time competing for nurses, for example, with the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta and Atlanta, Georgia. This is going to give us a nursing facility right next to the hospital, which is so desperately needed at this particular VA hospital. In addition to that, and I am very pleased about this, this is a perfect example of the government and private citizens working together to improve the quality of life for all of our citizens. Part of this property goes to the Community Services Board, and the private citizens of Lawrence County, Dublin, Georgia, have raised over half a million dollars already to renovate one of the buildings that will be used for mental health, which later, after it is finished and completed, will be used for our veterans or their employees. Any of them that need any of these facilities, it will be made available to them. So I am proud of the people of Lawrence County because they are going to work to do their part to raise the private funds to restore these buildings that at the present time are frankly draining the VA Treasury, and are not helping one veteran in Dublin, Georgia. This move is going to help a great number of veterans by increasing our nursing staff, by making facilities available to those veterans. So again, let me thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), and all who have been involved. I encourage each of my colleagues to let us please pass this and let these folks down in Dublin, Georgia, improve the VA Center and improve their mental health and improve their nursing facilities.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of my very special constituents, Mrs. Pauline F. Smith, of Allentown, Georgia as she prepares to celebrate her 78th birthday. It gives me great pleasure to not only wish her a happy birthday, but also to commend her for her outstanding service to her community and country. Mrs. Smith, a life long Georgian, was born on October 2, 1922 in Tate, Georgia. Although Mrs. Smith's life accomplishments are too vast and rich to fully recount here, highlights demonstrate that Mrs. Smith has enriched and touched the lives of many through her commitment to, and love for, her family, community, and country. Mrs. Smith was married in 1944 to Mr. Lonnie Smith Jr. and moved to Allentown, Georgia where they raised two children, Sandra and Denise. Beyond her role as loving wife and mother, however, Mrs. Smith has played and continues to play a significant role in her community and in her church, the Allentown Methodist Church. Mrs. Smith's record of public service is also remarkable, both for its length and quality. In various capacities, from her work in the selective service office to her many years of service at Robins Air Force Base, Mrs. Smith selflessly served her country for 33 years, 3 months, and 3 days. Therefore, in recognition of her tremendous service and in honor of her birthday, I am happy, Mr. Speaker, to rise today and Join Mrs. Smith's family and friends in wishing her a very happy 78th birthday, and in wishing her many more happy and healthy birthdays ahead.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) as dean of our delegation for bringing this resolution today. Mr. Speaker, Paul Coverdell was a sterling example of what a United States Senator should be all about. He provided the kind of leadership for Georgia, America, and the world that will be sorely missed. Paul Coverdell was unshakeable in his resolve to support the right policies for Georgia and America. Yet in 6 years of serving with him in Congress, I never heard him utter an unkind word toward any opponent. He was a man of reason, of principle, and provided a shining example of civility in action in the arena of public debate. That is unusual to find a man such as that. He never to my knowledge backed down on principle; yet he held his ground with dignity and respect for the position of those who disagreed. And he never gave up. Since coming to Washington in 1993, Senator Coverdell fought to improve the education of America's children. That fight continues today. But because of his effort, I believe that fight will eventually be won because of his enthusiasm and his sincere belief that we could make it better. When it is, the final product will have the fingerprints of Paul Coverdell on every page. Senator Coverdell was likewise a champion of those who served this country in our Armed Forces. When Congress forgot the promises made to our veterans, Paul Coverdell reminded us all of those commitments. His legislation to restore those promises is still pending in both Chambers, and the finest tribute I think we could all pay to this true statesman would be to pass that measure into law before this session ends. Today, I recommit myself to helping make that happen. There are far too many issues to mention in which Senator Coverdell played a decisive role. But we need to reflect on Paul Coverdell's public service before he became a Senator, I think, because it reflects a lifetime of public service. He began adult life, of course, by serving America in the U.S. Army in Korea and the Republic of China. He served his State in the Georgia Senate for nearly 2 decades. He served America and the world as the director of the Peace Corps, as we have heard, where his leadership in building democracy was vital in reclaiming much of Eastern Europe from the dictatorship of Communism. Our hearts go out to Nancy Coverdell and the entire Coverdell family. They should be and are remembered in the prayers of this Nation in their hour of loss. And we should remember the loyal staff of Senator Coverdell. Perhaps the strongest confirmation of the basic decency of a Member of Congress can be found in the affection of those who work with him every day, many times under the most trying circumstances. From the true grief that I personally know his staff to be feeling today, the decency of this great American is affirmed in full measure. That slender thread of life by which we were tied to Paul Coverdell is now broken. But the wisdom, the generosity, the civility, the patriotism, and the dedication which he brought to this Congress will never die. The leadership of Paul Coverdell will continue to live in the legislation he has enacted and has sponsored. We can best honor his memory by seeing the mission through, from giving our children a choice in education to restoring the health care of the defenders of America. Mr. Speaker, let us pay tribute to a great leader by picking up the fallen banner of Senator Paul Coverdell and carrying it through to victory. I personally feel a great loss for a dear friend; indeed, we all do, a man that we have all become very close to and loved, a quiet, gentle giant in the Government of America. Today we pray for Paul's soul and pray God will give comfort to Nancy and the Coverdell family.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly oppose the Stearns amendment. I am not going to spend much time talking about it. It simply guts the bill. Do not vote for it. I do want to go back and refer to the Ballenger amendment for just a moment which basically says that, okay, we will let the docs actually get together and have a discussion about this great big insurance company that comes to town, is going to take over all their practices; and we will actually let them get in a room and talk about it without prosecuting them, except they cannot talk about fees. Now, I assure everyone that is part of the discussion. After having practiced dentistry for 25 years and fooled around a few years experimenting with this managed care environment, I can say absolutely that it is not possible to negotiate with HMOs without bringing up fees and payments. Some HMOs have contracts that require doctors to spend no more than 12 minutes with a patient. Other HMOs pay doctors bonuses to provide the cheapest possible care, even when another treatment is more appropriate. The list goes on, such as bonuses for using HMO facilities and suppliers even when they are inferior. Mr. Chairman, those who support this amendment, and I am talking about the Ballenger amendment, are technically correct when they say that doctors could negotiate over spending more time with patients, providing appropriate treatments with patients, or which facility to use without specifically bringing up cost issues. But if that is all the doctor can question in this negotiation, we will see every HMO in this country switch to one of their other options, which is straight capitation. I have actually tried to practice dentistry under these conditions, in which one is assigned a flat fee per person. Some years ago I think it was $3.00, not $10.00 as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) said, but $3.00. The plan does not put any standards in the contract, but the fee received is based on the same 12-minute per patient, cheapest care possible and the use of HMO facilities only. If one does not do all of these things, they just simply go broke. Now, the playing field out there is tilted. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) mentioned it. It is tilted. It is tilted way out of line. We have turned health care in this country over to the insurance industries. We have said, you run it, we cannot. The Federal Government will be solid about it. The States have all of their laws preempted, and by the way let us give the insurance companies an exemption from antitrust. That is what we have going on out there. Health care is not better off for it. Now, we need to, if we cannot get a patient's protections bill, at least level the playing field, so these men and women who care for your bodies every day can come together in a room and actually discuss their life.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I want to say to my dear friend, and I mean that, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), I simply do not agree with him. I think we ought to vote this amendment down. Is this about money? Of course it is about money. People who are going broke are concerned about that. I have been involved in managed care a few years. I can tell the Members right now it is a lot easier to stay home and go fishing than go broke, because their choice is to go broke or give bad care. That is the choices they give us. I have always wanted to tell this story. I hate to tell it when nobody is awake. It is a story basically about what this is all about. It has occurred since I have been in Congress. In 1996, Concordia Dental Insurance Company won the bid from the United States government to care for all the dependent personnel for our military across the country, a $1 billion contract. There is a little town in eastern North Carolina called Jacksonville, North Carolina. One hundred thousand people live there. Thirty thousand are civilians, 70,000 belong to the Marines. Now, there are only 30 dentists there, and Concordia comes to town and says, Guys, we are going to take two-thirds of your practice. We are go to cut everything that you are paid in half, your fees are cut in half. You do not have to take this contract. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) says they could just walk away. How can they walk away? They are taking two-thirds of their practice. They are simply saying, We want you to treat these people with quality care as long as you can. You may be out of business in a year, you may even last 2 years. These people said, No. We are not going to do this. These 30 dentists said, No, we cannot do this. We will go broke. We cannot feed our families or take care of our children's education. What do my colleagues think happened to these people? The next thing they get is the big arm of the Federal Government from the Federal Trade Commission slamming down on their door saying, We know you are in collusion. You have got to be, because none of you will come to work for this insurance company and go broke. Something has got to be wrong. You are talking to each other. Sure you are. We are going to prosecute you. Do my colleagues know what happened? A classmate from Harvard who was a lawyer from Concordia just happened to know a classmate of his at the Federal Trade Commission and he calls him up and he says, John, I cannot get these people to work for nothing. You need to help me do something about that. So our great Federal Trade Commission puts all of these 30 people under the threat of jail because they will not work for nothing. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues, do not pass this amendment.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the resolution of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) to remove the United States from the WTO, and I hope others in this body will agree with us on that. One of my friends and a man I respect greatly, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, said a minute ago that, if we remove ourselves from the WTO, the farmers and the ranchers will lose their shirts. Well, we are in the WTO, and the farmers and ranchers are losing their shirts. There is no reason for me to expect, under the present rules of the WTO, that that is going to get a bit better for them without reform. It has been odd to me that so many distinguished Members of this body have stood up and said, well, we have to stay in the WTO, but it certainly does need changing, it certainly does need reform. But we just need to stay in there so we can change it or reform it. Well, I do not understand that. It requires unanimous consent to make any changes inside the WTO today. If our leaders in the WTO simply want to try to improve our situation for our cotton farmers and they take it to the WTO, I can assure my colleagues that China is going to be there to veto that. If our representatives in the WTO want to improve our situation for our wheat farmers, I can assure my colleagues that France, a nation that subsidizes its wheat in order for prices to be low and competitive, is going to be sitting in the WTO to absolutely veto that. What I would like to do is, some of these very distinguished Members who want to stay in the WTO, and every one of them almost have come up and said we must reform it, well I am going to stay on the floor and listen to the rest of the debate. I would be very pleased if some of them would get up and explain to me how we are going to reform the WTO. I do not believe it can be done without a great threat and/or removing ourselves from the WTO. We need to work within an organization; I do not disagree with that. We need world trade; I do not disagree with that. But we need to be in an organization where we, indeed, have a little more say so about what happens to the trade in America.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I claim part of the time in opposition due to the fact that there is not enough time to discuss this very important issue, but I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis). We need to grant the ombudsmen subpoena power. We need to grant the ombudsmen subpoena power because there are some grave injustices being committed at the EPA, oftentimes with inadequate and bogus science. The EPA needs to be held accountable to the people that they were created to protect. For my fellow Members who may not be familiar with this situation, the EPA Ombudsman's office is or should be a final remedy within the EPA for anyone with a dispute or grievance with that agency. We all want to hold lawsuits to a minimum, particularly when taxpayer dollars are involved. In numerous other fields, this body has encouraged arbitration in lieu of litigation as a tried and true method of holding down court costs while still protecting the consumers. It also opens up the crowded court dockets, frankly, for cases that truly need to be in court. This is the purpose of the EPA Ombudsman's office. There is, however, a very large problem with how the program is currently being operated. Current funding has allowed only two arbitrators for the entire country, two for the entire country. Those two officials have no binding legal authority to conduct any real investigation into a complaint. They cannot force truthful testimony, the release of necessary documents, or other evidence. They do not even have the legal power to enforce the EPA to participate in a hearing. This lack of funding, lack of staff, lack of legal authority has given the EPA the ability to run roughshod over local and State government and private citizens without any accountability outside of Federal court action, which is often a practical impossibility for those who have been injured. My constituents unfortunately have firsthand experience in what this shortcoming really means in real life. In Augusta, Georgia, my farmers used sludge from a waste treatment plant as fertilizer on their fields after EPA recommended the procedure as a safe and practical means of eliminating sludge. The farmers explicitly followed the EPA guidelines. It now appears this recommended procedure is being seriously questioned, and it may have been under question as the farmers were being advised to do so. Upon this discovery, did the EPA do anything to look into this matter? No. They closed ranks and did everything possible to deflect responsibility for the matter. That is not accountability. We do not know who is right or wrong in this fiasco at home, but we do believe that the EPA Ombudsman should be allowed to find the truth. Currently, the Ombudsman has limited authority to examine questionable EPA dealings. We need to give this office adequate oversight power to watch what the EPA is doing. They are accountable to taxpayers, and we need to make sure that they uphold that mission. The Bilirakis amendment would give the Ombudsman the legal power to force EPA to participate in a grievance hearing. My word, the Chairman has a hearing in his hometown and the EPA will not even participate. It gives the Ombudsman the ability to compel the agency to testify truthfully. For any citizen, business, or agency in this country to be held accountable for their actions, it is crucial that they be required by law to cooperate with the process of an independent investigation of a complaint. This measure provides this critical oversight for EPA. It is long overdue. I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for bringing this to our attention. Support this amendment. Support the Ombudsman for the EPA.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong, strong support of the Collins-Linder amendment. Now, I am sure we are going to hear today the standard EPA mantra that the new air quality standards would prevent thousands of asthma attacks and hospital admissions. We have already heard it. The problem is that was determined with very faulty studies and bad science. These were precisely the studies, the faulty studies, that the D.C. District Court found were not backed by credible evidence and violated Congress' legislative authority, and that led the court to overrule this agency. That is the first branch of the Federal Government saying to this Federal court that they must stop. Furthermore, the Committee on Commerce listened hours on end to a debate with EPA on this and found the same thing: this science is not credible. We should not go forward with something until we know exactly what we are doing because there are negative consequences of this. Everybody needs to vote for this amendment and tell the EPA to cut it out.

Mr. NORWOOD. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. NORWOOD

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