Charlie Norwood

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, in this debate we have come a long way. We are actually beginning to agree on some things. I am proud of my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), for having an external review provision in his bill. In fact, we all do, because all of us understand that is precisely the better way to get our patients the care that they need. I would like to speak to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) before he leaves. I noticed that he made a couple of remarks about employers, that they are not involved. I will say, I have been doing this a long time, 5 years, and I do not know many employers I have not met with. I am sure there are not many I have not begged to come to my office over the last 5 years, from General Motors, to Wal-Mart, to IBM, to Caterpillar, to you name it. I have asked them to come. I have said, look, guys, we have a serious problem going on out here. Help me with this bill. I am not after them. I am simply trying to get people to quit practicing medicine that are not licensed. They did not want anything to do with it. They did not help. They absolutely did everything that they could do to make sure we do not want anything to happen; we like it like it is; we are in control, and that is what we want. They did not work with us at all, but I worked with them. I worked with them for 3 years, hard. We met with one of them every day. Here is the bill, help us with it. They would not. Many employers, and I am sure not all, but many employers have had the opportunity to help us make it better and what they want is absolutely nothing. Now, why? Well, there are two types of employers. Seventy-five percent, I would say, of the 160 million Americans, are in insurance plans that are partially funded and partially administered, and those employers typically they do not practice medicine. They really do not. That is why we have worked very hard in this bill to make certain those people would not be made liable, because they are not sitting there every day, the CEO, trying to tell the administrator, no, this patient cannot have that surgery but this patient can. The problem is that other 40 million Americans that are under plans, very good plans, too, the big guys, really good stuff, they do practice medicine, though. The gentleman said they did not, but they do. Just because they make tires does not mean they do not have an insurance company in the backyard. I can guarantee they do, and they make decisions of medical necessity, long distance, untrained people, planned and paid to deny care. That is what they do for a living. These medical directors make big money. They do not last long if they do not deny care. My problem with that is that they are looking at a computer screen. They are not using the art of medicine, the science of medicine. They are going down a mathematical screen on a computer. People are going to be killed like that. Medicine cannot be practiced that way if the patient is at least not looked at. They never talk to the patient. They just call up and say, no, my computer screen says no. How could that cardiologist possibly know anything, that has been seeing someone as a patient for 30 years, that is a next door neighbor that a lot is known about? That is the problem; it is that group. Do I want them out of this? Yes, because basically they do try to do a good job, and basically have very good plans, but there is not a way to take them out of it because they are practicing medicine without a license; and that, Mr. Chairman, is what the problem is. If we had it all to do again and go back 5 years ago, what would I do? I would make it a Federal crime to practice medicine without a license. That would stop this mess, because that is indeed what is going on. Now, why are the employers scared? And they are. I am in sympathy with them about that. They are scared because the insurance industry scares them. They have great practice at this, Mr. Chairman. They have been doing it in States across America for the last 20 years. They go in and scare the bejeezus out of these employers. They say, gosh, if this is not done, if that bill is not killed, costs are going up 25 percent. Guys, if this is not done, we are going to find that everybody gets sued every day. We do not say that in that bill. My word of mercy, I am for employers, too. We have to support, Mr. Chairman, to change the system, a bipartisan bill. That is the only way that I know to get a law in a split Congress with a Democratic president, but it is so important we have to get it done now. This window of opportunity, where we have my friend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner); my friend the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn); my friend the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske); my friend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell); my friend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg); we are all pretty close to agreement because we all have recognized the fallacy in a system of practicing long distance medicine by people who make their living by denying those claims.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, however one views this debate, it is exciting. Think about where we have come in 5 years. I mean, here we are, all members of the Committee on Commerce. All of us know each other well. We are generally good friends. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and I do not disagree on probably three things on this Earth. We are actually sitting here all talking about the same thing. We are talking about a managed care system, Mr. Chairman, that has gone awry, where it allows people to practice medicine who simply are not licensed to do so. Even if they are licensed to do so, usually it is a dermatologist telling a cardiologist how to treat their patient; and they are 2,000 miles away, looking at a computer screen. They have never touched that patient. They have never listened to their heart. They have never listened to their lungs. They are 2,000 miles away, and they say, Doctor, you cannot possibly be right. I know better. I have got a protocol in front of me. That is what we have allowed to happen in this country. Now, have some people been killed? You bet. Why do my colleagues think the insurance industry said to Congress in 1974, give us the system. We will manage the costs. We will make it cost cheaper. By the way, we are going to have to deny some benefits to do that. We are going to kill a few people. For God's sakes, give us immunity, too. And we did. They are the only industry in America where we say they are absolutely protected from being responsible for their actions. We do not believe that. We tell everybody they need to be responsible for their actions, do we not? We tell welfare mothers. We tell deadbeat dads. We tell teachers. We tell everybody. One has to be responsible for oneself. When one harms somebody, one has got to step up to the plate. Do I want anybody sued? No. I am not interested in lawsuits, and I never have been. But the people who are practicing medicine without a license are being paid to do so. They are incentivized to do so. They lose their job if they do not do it. Do I want a hammer over their head? Yes. Do I want that insurance clerk to think twice when he says to that mother, I know the pediatrician thinks your child needs to be hospitalized, but I know better. I have got it on my computer right here. I want that clerk to think twice about it. If that clerk makes a decision that denies a benefit that is in a plan and causes death or injury, then, by golly, maybe we should go to court on that. We ought to go to State court. I strongly believe that now. A lot of us do not disagree on a lot of this. We do disagree a little bit on the liability. I want to just tell my colleagues that, in our bill, employers who do not make medical decisions cannot be held liable on H.R. 2723. It states that a cause of action may only be filed against an employer when the employer exercises discretionary authority to make a decision on a claim for benefits covered under the plan and the exercise of such authority results in injury or death. What that means is that the employer has the ability to make some decisions. If one of those decisions it makes is a medical decision, if it absolutely denies one of the patients a benefit that is in their plan, and they die from it, yes, we are saying the employer needs to be responsible for that and needs to be called up. The only system of justice we have in this country, where does one right a wrong if one does not do it in a courtroom anymore? We are not going back to the O.K. Corral. We are not going back to six guns to solve our problems. We have only one system of justice; and to say to an entire industry in this country, no, they never have to be held accountable for the decisions that they make, even though the Congress of the United States told them they could do all of this, discretionary authority does not include an employer's decision to include or exclude from the plan any specific benefit. What that says, they can have anything in it that they want to. Now, we agree on a lot of things, but the one thing that is a must, my colleagues must vote for the bipartisan bill if they want to protect patients because that is how we get to a law.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen). (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, dead people really should not have to go to external review. Of course we exhaust all administrative remedies, unless there is bodily harm or death which occurs before you get to external review. If you do not do that, we encourage those people to drag it out forever until someone can die. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, it is now my great pleasure and honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema). (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, it is my great privilege, pleasure, and honor to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske).

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute which I need to respond to my friend from Tennessee. I am delighted that our lawyer friends would like to see some type of legal reform. Would I agree that we need to stop the extortion, and frivolous lawsuits and all those things that cause defensive medicine prices to go up that I have lived with all of my life? Absolutely right. But legal reform can never mean that we take the civil rights or the due process away from 160 million Americans across this country and simply say, In your case with health care insurance you're on your own, baby. Now we have got external review that is going to stop most of that anyway; it is going to be very hard to be negligent. And I think we are not going to find this big rash of lawsuits. But to say, Americans, the justice system is not there for you when somebody denies you a benefit that damages you and kills your child, what kind of justice system is that? Are we going back to six guns and the OK Corral when one is wronged? No, I do not think so. The good news is that ours is very modest. We go back to the States where we took this away from them in 1974. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn). (Mr. HORN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to this debate through all three committees, and I am looking for a place to hang my hat. I am very much for the access provisions. I am for medical savings accounts. I am for deductible of long-term care, of insurance. I am for HealthMarts. I even can live with Associated Health Plans if we will put just a little bit of patient protections under ERISA. But I am not going to vote for this, even though I have a bill that I dropped in the spring that is just like this, because I have concluded, after listening to this debate, that this effort is not to have a law. This bill was not ever intended to be a law. This bill simply is intended to go to conference with patient protections to act as a poison pill, to make sure that we cannot pass those protections that we want. I know my Republican friends. They would never put up a bill, whether it costs $50 billion, as some say, $43 billion, as others say, $8 billion, as others say, it does not matter, I know we would never put up a bill we intended to be law without trying to figure out how we are going to pay for it. We are not going to raise taxes to pay for it. We are not going to dip into social security to pay for it. There is no excess in the Treasury, there is only excess of our FICA money. Maybe there will be next year, but this bill does not give us any assurances at all as to how it would be paid for. This is a bill that can be passed out of the House of Representatives, but it is not intended to be the law of the land, at least not this go-round. Maybe at another time, another date, we can get that job done. So I have to oppose the bill simply on the basis that it is a poison pill.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, I thought, if I could, I would take a few minutes and try to put this debate in perspective. There really are a couple of serious, serious problems in health care in America today; and since that involves each of us, each of our families, it involves each of us, each of our families, and it involves every constituent we have whether one is a Republican or Democrat. It is a very important debate, and I am so pleased that we are going to have this opportunity to stand up and discuss it, but let us try to put this in the box. We are going to talk about two things. One of those things that must be discussed and will be discussed over the next 2 days is that we have a serious problem with so many Americans without any coverage. Both sides, Democrats and Republicans, recognize this is a problem. Both sides say they want to correct it, and I believe that to be the case. I have often said if we thought that was a top priority in the Congress of the United States, you need to stand up and say that is a top priority in the Congress of the United States. We are going to correct that, and we are going to fund that. We are going to take the dollars it takes to make sure that we do not have 43 million uninsured Americans. The other part of the debate though is equally important. It is about people who actually do have insurance. I had a colleague say to me that health care reform does not do a bit of good if you do not have health care insurance. That is most assuredly true. But health care insurance does not do you a bit of good either if the benefits that the plan has offered you are being denied on a regular basis. What we have done in this country over the last 30 years is we have turned over the health care industry of this country to the insurance industries, and they are in total charge. We preempted state laws, we are very silent at the Federal level, there is no public policy at all. The insurance industry is very much in charge. The access bill that is before us is about the 21st century. It is about health care in the future and how we will try to help people have access to the health care. I will be perfectly honest with you, I am on my fourth or fifth bill, I forget. In the 101st Congress we had a bill, H.R. 2400. In the 105th Congress I had a bill named Parker, H.R. 1415. It had 234 cosponsors on it. This year I dropped another health care bill, H.R. 216. And all of this was about your benefits within your plan and who is in charge of health care. But realizing early on this year that this business of access is equally important, I dropped an access bill in February very clearly stating we need to deal with the problem of 43 million Americans that are uninsured. What I was saying back in February are these are two separate subjects, though they are health care. You must keep these separate, because each solution has a different constituency. Perhaps you can pass both things, but if you blend them together very much, you can kill both things. Mr. Speaker, let me just wrap this up and simply say we have two subjects. One is access, that is, looking into the future of health care, how we can solve some problems, and it should be debated. We are. It should be voted on, and it will be. It should be paid for though. I think if we ever get there, we will do that too. But the other part of this is about Bob Schumacher from Macon, Georgia, whose wife is dying, and she has been denied a benefit that is in her plan. If we do not deal with this problem right now, we are going to find that further Americans are complaining about their health care, further Americans are going to be harmed, further Americans are going to be killed. All I ask you to do is let us have both debates, let us have separate votes on this, and let us try to come to an American vote; not a Republican vote and not a Democratic vote. Let us vote as patients on this. What would you have done if it was your family? I look forward to the debate, Mr. Speaker, over the next two days, and I am sure that if we are careful about it, the American people will enjoy it.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, in a few days this House is going to vote on an issue that will impact the health of every family in this country. The managed care lobby will do their best to confuse the Members of this body as to the real effect of the Bipartisan Consensus Managed Care Improvement Act that I introduced along with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). I urge all Members to simply read the bill. The HMO lobby is telling Members that employers can be sued for simply offering a health plan, for their choice of a health plan, for the actions of that health plan. But yesterday Members heard in this Chamber the truth, the actual language of the bill, that dispels every one of these falsehoods. The managed care lobby has also tried to tell Members that employers and insurers can be sued for not buying or providing a specific benefit, and that this bill would mandate all kinds of new coverage. Read the bill, page 61 beginning on line 24. Read the bill. Employers and insurance companies cannot be sued for, and I would like to quote: ``The decision to include or exclude from the plan any specific benefit. How can we be any clearer than that? The managed care lobby has told Members that this bill opens the door for unlimited punitive damages against health plans with jury awards soaring into the hundreds of millions of dollars. To begin with, 30 of our States have already capped punitive damages. In my home State of Georgia, if the consensus bill becomes law, when it becomes law, there will be no punitive damages allowed regardless of the circumstances. It is for precisely this reason that the consensus bill puts these court remedies back into the hands of the States, where tort reforms have been far more effective than here at the Federal level. Read the bill. We have left a way for insurance companies to remain shielded from any punitive damages. Not a penny. If there is a dispute and the health plan agrees to settle it fairly with external appeals, they remain shielded from all punitive damages. Read the bill, on page 60 beginning line 3. I quote again: The plan is not liable for any punitive, exemplary or similar damages if the plan or the issuer complied with the determination of the external appeal entity. How can we be any simpler than that? As a matter of fact, read the whole section of this bill of who can sue for what. It is just three pages. But those simple three pages overturn 25 years of injustice, and they close the door on unscrupulous health plans using this loophole in the law to breach their contracts and kill people with impunity. The HMO lobby has one last chance to defeat this legislation and that is to distort the issue. If they were successful, I believe they would find the end result of their success would be far less agreeable than the reasonable reforms of this bill. We can correct the problems of managed care with responsible legislation right here in the People's House, or it will be corrected by the courts and the States, without the carefully crafted provisions to ensure that we do not disrupt our current health care system in the process. For those who would oppose reforms, take your choice. But either way, the people, the Constitution and the rule of law will prevail in this room next week.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan. In Agreement With Right to Sue an ERISA HMO

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, Members on both sides of this aisle have joined together to address one of the most egregious violations of the individual rights upon which our Nation was founded, the right to due process in court. Since 1974, federally governed managed care insurance plans have enjoyed a near total immunity from any legal accountability for injuring and killing the citizens of this country for monetary gain. No thinking, feeling American can agree to let that stand. I tell my colleagues today, Mr. Speaker, that will not stand. But, Mr. Speaker, the industry lobbyists who have profited behind the skirts of ERISA are now engaged in a last-ditch fight to deceive the Members of this body and the American public concerning the truth of what we seek. So, tonight, Mr. Speaker, I want to set the record straight. The bipartisan Consensus Managed Care Improvement Act that I have cosponsored with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) provides full relief from the travesty of current law while providing full protection for employers and decent insurers against frivolous and vicarious lawsuits. The managed care lobby has told us that employers could be sued for simply offering a health plan to their employees, they are actually going around saying that, or could be sued just by choosing a particular plan. Mr. Speaker, read page 60 of the bill beginning on line 33. The bill says, ``Does not authorize any cause of action against an employer, or other plan sponsor maintaining the group health plan, or against an employee of such an employer.'' One cannot be any clearer than that. Employers cannot be sued for offering health insurance in our bill or choosing any particular specific plan. Now, the HMO argues that lawyers could find a way around that protection. But the United States Supreme Court has held that ``plain meaning'' interpretations would prevail. Who do you believe, the lobbyists or the Supreme Court? There is only one way under this bill that employers can be sued. If an employer decides to do more than offer health insurance, by trying to practice medicine, yes, then they can be sued. If an employer decides to weigh in on a decision of medical necessity, they will be held responsible for that decision, as they should be. But if that employer chooses to stay out of the dispute and leaves the decision up to medically trained professionals, they remain shielded from any type of liability, as they should be. Read the bill. Page 61, beginning on line 13, an employer can only be sued if, and I quote out of the bill, Mr. Speaker, ``The employer's . . . exercise of discretionary authority to make a decision on a claim for benefits covered under the plan . . . resulted in personal injury or wrongful death.'' Would a Member of this body like to argue that anyone should be able to wrongfully cause the death of a human being and then be shielded from that responsibility? Let us have that debate. I think they will not argue that. Under this bill, an employer is free to buy any health plan on the market for their employees and face no liability whatsoever for having done so. If the employer is asked to step into the middle of the dispute between the employee and the health plan, they simply should refuse, leave the matter up to the doctors, and face no liability whatsoever. The managed care lobby has told us that this bill opens the door for unlimited punitive damages against health plans, with jury awards soaring into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Read the bill. We have left a way for insurance companies to remain shielded from any punitive damages, not one nickel. Read the bill. Page 60, beginning on line 13, and I quote again, Mr. Speaker, ``The plan is not liable for any punitive, exemplary, or similar damages . . . if the plan or issuer complied with the determination of the external appeal entity.'' It cannot be any simpler than that. There is only one option left the HMO lobby to defeat the legislation: Distort the issue, scare the employers into believing it. We know it, and they know it. I believe that truth and justice will prevail during next week's vote on this issue. No amount of lies, Mr. Speaker, no amount of threats will deter the Members of this body who know the truth from moving forward on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I ask my fellow Members who support this bill to spread the truth to those who may not know it yet. This evil cannot be allowed to stand. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to seeing my colleagues next week on the floor of this House when the truth will come forward as to what is happening to health care in the United States of America.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Madam Speaker, we continue to hear how Wisconsin dairy farmers got a raw deal back in the 1985 farm bill and how the dairy farmers in other parts of the country are doing better at their expense. But it is interesting, the Department of Agriculture records show dairy farmers' take-home pay is higher in Wisconsin than in the majority of farmers in the rest of the country. I urge all of us to support this bill, to support fair play for dairy farmers in all 50 States by voting for the option 1(a) proposal in H.R. 1402.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 987, the Workplace Preservation Act, and I commend the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) for pushing this bill. The purpose of this bill is pretty clear and I think very compelling. It requires the Secretary of Labor to hold off before issuing standards or regulations on ergonomics until the National Academy of Sciences completes a study on the actual cause of ergonomic injuries. This Congress has spent nearly $1 million to determine with some degree of accuracy just what is the status of medical science with respect to the diagnosis and the classification of ergonomics problems. Why in the world OSHA would want to proceed before we have a good understanding of this is frankly beyond me. I do not know how many hearings over the last 3 years I have sat through where scientists and doctors have come before us and testified they do not know or understand the cause-and-effect relationship between work activities and musculoskeletal disorders. Now, what is ergonomics? It is simply a repetitive motion syndrome. If you take two people and both of them work and in their work they move their hand like this all day in doing their job, that is in fact repetitive motion. The question may be, will one of them have a carpal tunnel, will one of them have a musculoskeletal pain? If that is the case, why does one have it and not the other? We do not understand that. Medicine does not understand why one does and one does not. In addition to that, one of those two people may go home at night and knit and they use that motion over and over again. If they have musculoskeletal pain, the question then would be, what caused it? Is there a direct correlation between that motion and the pain? Is that pain being caused by knitting every night or is that pain being caused by working every day? Never fear, OSHA is here. OSHA is an agency that is incompetent in writing these standards. OSHA cops are incompetent in regulating people on this subject. The business community, it is true, is working very, very hard to try to make the workplace an easier place, in lifting, in turning, in twisting, in doing the same repetitive motion all day. They frankly are doing a pretty good job. Why is OSHA wanting to regulate that? Well, it is an agency that likes to regulate. They are trying their best to give themselves something else to do. We all know agencies up here spend a lot of the taxpayers' money getting studies to say exactly what they want to say. What the doctors and scientists tell us is that they do not know for sure. There is not a direct correlation. OSHA, of course, tells us it is very sure, that it knows, and it is sure they know what to do. Mr. Chairman, we should absolutely wait until this study is complete. Use good science. Mr. CLAY, Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez).

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, as a Georgian I rise today in support of the Lake Oconee Land Exchange Act, which would enact a mutually beneficial exchange of the land between the USDA Forest Service and the Georgia Power Company. The exchange would result in consolidation and more efficient management of National Forests, increased protection of wildlife and habitat, and improved recreational access for all our citizens. The Forest Service will exchange Forest Service land that lie under Lake Oconee, behind Georgia Power's Wallace Dam on the Oconee River in northern Georgia, flood rights on contour strips around the lakes, and two parcels in neighboring counties, in exchange for lands Georgia Power owns within the Chattahoochee and Oconee National Forests. (1415) The exchange involves approximately 1,200 acres of Forest Service land for approximately 1,100 acres of Georgia Power land. The exchange will allow the Forest Service to acquire one of two remaining non-Federal properties within congressionally designated wilderness areas in north Georgia. This tract is in the middle of the Rich Mountain Wilderness and totally surrounded by other National Forest lands. The vast majority of lands being given up by the Forest Service lies at the bottom of Lake Oconee and are not actively conveying any public benefit. The remainder of the properties being relinquished to Georgia Power are currently occupied by Georgia Power facilities in Rabun County. These properties are of minimal value to the National Forest and would be more appropriately owned by Georgia Power. In addition, 67 percent of the lands of Rabun County are currently part of the Chattahoochee National Forest. This concentrated ownership poses a considerable strain on the ad valorem tax base of Rabun County. Included within the land exchange is the conveyance to Georgia Power Company of over 145 acres of property in Rabun County that currently houses Georgia Power facilities. The divestment of this property will facilitate Rabun County and their properties with their limited tax base. As the primary sponsor of the House companion bill, H.R. 1135, I urge my colleagues' support for this legislation with the assurance that this exchange will allow improved management by both parties, resulting in increased environmental protection and actually more enjoyable utilizations by the citizens.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, today we debate more than guns, we debate how to get a handle on violence. Everyone in this House admits, and the majority of Americans recognize, that there are a multitude of factors that led to the tragic school shootings this spring in Littleton, Colorado, and Conyers, Georgia. If we are serious about ending this kind of violence, we have to address all the factors that led to it. We must deal with the denigration of religion in society, for religion is the foundation of personal morality, the greatest of all protections against violence. As George Washington stated in his farewell address in 1796: ``Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.'' We must also deal with ensuring a zero-tolerance for any weapons in our schools. We must deal with the smut on the Internet and throughout our society. We must deal with juvenile crime, and the fact that we too often coddle teenagers who engage in murder, rape, and robbery. These are the real solutions to Littleton and Conyers, not more gun control laws. Let's be honest and quit dealing with just the edges of the problems. Let's quit giving the easy political-out answers. Let's take a hard, cold look at what kind of nation we've become, what we've allowed to develop in this nation, and not shy away from the tough actions needed to change our course. If anyone commits a violent crime with a gun, they should never again be allowed to own one. If an adult illegally provides a weapon to a child, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and we should increase the penalties to the harshest possible. Children should not have access to guns. Children should also not be allowed to have access to the filth and graphic violence that permeates the Internet, airwaves, cable television, electronic games, and record shops. Most of our young people manage to maintain morality in spite of this smut. A very few, those on the edge, cannot. It only took three of those young people to created the havoc that brings us to this debate. Unless we deal with these societal problems, we will be doomed to repeat the tragedies of Littleton and Conyers. Let's rebuild the guardrails of our society that will keep the less fortunate or the emotionally-disturbed from going off the side of the mountain--and taking the innocents with them.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), to respond to that question.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. NORWOOD. Say it again.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, the Norwood, the Talent, the Barr, the Petri, the Hill, the Shadegg, the Nussle, the Hutchinson, the Bryant amendment is about safety and security in the classroom for all the students, special needs and not special needs. It is about allowing these individuals charged with the awesome responsibility of providing for the education of our youngsters, the authority to take the necessary steps, absent bureaucratic barriers from Washington, D.C., to secure that classroom for all students. Having special needs can mean many things. It can mean emotionally or mentally disturbed. It can mean blindness or deafness. It can mean many other types of behavioral problems, even a learning disability like a poor reader or language skills. Too often the fact that someone has some type of problem that might lead them to bring weapons to school in the first place becomes the very license to get them back in the school room, despite the fact that they brought a weapon into the room. I cannot, to save me, understand that. The very problem that they have allows them to come back into the classroom 8 months later with a weapon. That is wrong, Mr. Chairman. If a child has a special need that causes him to bring a gun to school, that child should not be in the classroom. It does not mean the child should not be educated, if at all possible, but not in a situation that endangers the lives of the other children in the classroom, including the other special needs children. Our primary concern, Mr. Chairman, has to be for the safety, for the safety, of the 99 percent of our children in the classroom; 85 percent without special needs, 14 percent with special needs. Now, the effect of this amendment is that all children are treated equally when it comes to weapons and safety in the classroom. Special needs children are not treated the same. They are given special privileges, but when it comes to guns, all are treated equally. The 14th amendment recognizes that there should be equality under the law and equal application of the law, and we do not do that now. This amendment expresses the sense of Congress that all students, disabled, nondisabled, special needs, nonspecial needs, are entitled to a free and appropriate public education. My goodness, who can disagree with that? The word ``appropriate'' must mean safety first, and there must be a zero tolerance for guns in our schools. Appropriate, being alive is more important than appropriate learning. We have lost 27 people over the last few years, students and teachers, in school rooms. We must say to the world, no one may, under any circumstances, bring a gun or a weapon to our classrooms in the United States of America; period, the end. This amendment is supported by the National Association of Secondary School Principals. I submit that for the record. It is supported by the American Association of School Administrators, and I submit that for the record. It is supported by the 95,000 local school board members. Vote for this amendment, for goodness sakes. Mr. Chairman, I include the following letters for the Record: The National Association of Secondary School Principals, Reston, VA, June 16, 1999. Hon. Charles Norwood, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Norwood: The National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP)--the nation's largest school administrator organization--thanks you for introduction of an amendment to the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender, Accountability and Rehabilitation Act of 1999 (H.R. 1501) which amends the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). For several years, principals have vocalized the tremendous difficulties created by a ``dual discipline'' system that requires certain students be disciplined differently than others. This legislation will finally allow schools to discipline all students equally in relation to possession of a weapon. While we support the amendment, we are very concerned about language in the measure relating to cessation of educational services for suspended or expelled youth. As advocates for students, NASSP believes that all children should have alternative education options available to them if the general education classroom is not the most appropriate setting for learning. If we do not address the educational needs of those children who are most vulnerable by providing a ``safety net'' of services for rehabilitation purposes, the costs to society will be greater in the future--both monetarily and in humanistic terms. We encourage Congress to provide additional funding for alternative education options to address these needs. Thank you for recognizing the inequities related to discipline which are created under differing sets of laws, and for taking action to remove these legislative and regulatory barriers. We also thank you for taking under consideration the need for alternative educational services and the financial resources needed to accommodate this goal. Sincerely, Gerald Tirozzi, Ph.D., Executive Director.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), a good friend who has been so helpful on this.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), our newest Member from Georgia.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle).

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Let me just say that special needs children are treated differently. Everybody who is sponsoring this amendment totally agrees in that, that they deserve special attention. But when it comes to weapons and when it comes to guns, everybody in school must be treated the same, so that we can protect the 99 percent of the other students. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg). (Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)