Charlie Norwood

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, it is a great pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill), who has been so very helpful in helping us put this together.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I did not make any agreement in the last Congress never to come back and try to make this better.

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

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant)

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I would have considered it 3 days ago, but I will not consider it right now on the House floor. I will tell the gentlewoman, though, that one can offer services. Nothing in this bill says that the schools back home cannot offer services.

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

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I would need probably an hour and a half to respond to that diatribe, but I will take 30 seconds, if I could. Let me just simply point out, we are not throwing anybody out in the streets, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) knows that. We are saying that you have to be treated equally, and that the paramount issue in schools is the safety for 99 percent of the children. We are saying they are treated equally. They are suspended for 10 days, that is true, and then another 45 days, but the reality of the fact is that many of them are getting back in school. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. All of us up here know that anybody is an expert that agrees with you. There are experts on both sides of this issue. I want to just point out this business about the definition that they are complaining about, the definition of a weapon. Members really should have voted against that in 1997 if they did not like that definition. The current definition, they have already voted for at least once, in 1997, when that definition passed through the IDEA bill by 420-3. Now is a little late to be concerned about that. We have things in our bill that take care of that. Mr. Chairman, it is a great pleasure and also a great honor for me to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent), a good friend of mine who has worked very diligently on this.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, my thanks go to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for offering this amendment, which is much like a past bill we have debated many times. I am delighted we are going to have the opportunity to vote on it today. The fact is much of what we really have been hearing in the last couple of days, in my opinion, is a lot of political posturing. Many of the bills being offered are offered in order to secure political points, not to really deal with the problem of juvenile violence and violence in our schools. Well, this amendment actually does. This amendment actually deals with some of the problems and the causes of youth violence and offers, I think, some real help toward solutions of these problems. Mr. Chairman, this amendment attempts to encourage prevention activities. I think we all recognize that prevention programs can be very helpful with juvenile crime. I do not, for example, for one moment, believe that prevention programs are the solution within themselves. That is not the whole answer. We do need very strong disciplinary actions and we have done so in other parts of this bill, but prevention programs are a part of the mix, a vital part of the mix, especially if we allow our States and cities and localities the time and space in their life to implement those most successful solutions that occur at home. Mr. Chairman, I believe we do just that with the Goodling amendment, and I want to urge all of our Members to support this. I would like to remind our Members that on July 15, 1997, most of my colleagues voted for H.R. 1818. That was legislation that is very, very similar to this amendment today, and those that have been around for awhile, I will remind them that the vote was 413 to 14. So they have every good reason to continue their good work from 1997 and vote for this amendment today. I urge all of our Members to support the Goodling amendment, and again I thank my friends on both sides over here for making this opportunity possible.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, to the chagrin of some of my colleagues, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I say that because I have had so much help in support of this amendment from the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent) the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill) the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant) and the list goes on. I thank them greatly for their support and help in bringing this to the floor. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to begin the debate on a very important reform that will help ensure safety in our school classrooms. When I talk to teachers and principals and superintendents at home, and I talk to them a lot, just like many of my colleagues do, I find that school safety is one of the greatest topics of concern. They are very, very concerned for the safety of themselves and the students, and they are very specific with me about one of the ways we can help them improve school safety at home. Schools must be allowed to have a consistent policy for disciplining children who bring weapons to school. As it stands now, Federal law requires schools to have two different discipline policies for those who do bring a weapon into the classroom, one policy for disabled students and another policy for non-disabled students. Current Federal law requires the student who brings a gun to school be suspended from school for a year. We rightly and should have a zero- tolerance policy for guns at school. However, for disabled children, that rule simply does not apply. Schools are not allowed to have the same discipline rule for disabled students. A disabled student receives preferential treatment when it comes to being punished for bringing weapons to school. For all practical purposes, a disabled student would be suspended for no longer than 55 days and even then must be provided educational services. My amendment begins the change. It allows schools to have a consistent discipline policy for students who bring weapons into the classroom. It allows students with disabilities who bring a weapon to school to be disciplined under the same policy as a non-disabled student in the exact same situation. It ends the two-tiered discipline policy that is in current law. It sends a message that weapons at school will not be tolerated. Additionally, this amendment clarifies that school personnel may modify any disciplinary action on a case-by-case basis. Let me repeat that. This amendment clarifies that school personnel may modify any disciplinary action on a case-by-case basis. I doubt that there can be a more important job in America today than teaching our children. This is especially true for special education teachers. Education for those with disabilities allow all of our children to have the opportunity to learn and succeed. We are for that. We all are for that. But at the same time, Mr. Chairman, we need to make sure that our teachers and students are protected. We need to be sure they are safe in schools. We need to ensure that our children, disabled and nondisabled alike, have a safe learning environment in their school. Learning itself will soon become a casualty if we do not do this. Make no mistake, a vote for the Norwood-Talent amendment is a vote for school safety. A vote against the Norwood-Talent amendment is a vote against school safety. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I do not understand at all why we cannot have this debate with the clear feeling and understanding that this is not about politics, this is not about party. Some of us just think he is wrong, this is wrong-headed foreign policy. I believe that in my absolute soul. We do not need to be attacking from the air, we do not need to be attacking with ground troops. We need to get out of the Balkans. It is going to lead to a disaster that will carry us well into the 21st century, and primarily because it is not in our national interest. I totally disagree with that. Is it a humanitarian cause? Absolutely. And are there ways we should deal with that? Yes. But we need a leader, not a commander-in-chief. We needed a leader to deal with this with Europe. Many, many, many months now have gone by. I have been there and done this, Mr. Speaker. I watched this occur as a young man when we went to Vietnam. I did not question the Congress and I did not question the President. He said we needed to go, and I was ready to go. I will tell you another thing. Those of you who think this is such a clear-cut mission, perhaps if you are young enough, and I consider myself, maybe we ought to resign from Congress and go into the Balkans. Let us fight through the mountains over there with the Marines, if that is what you believe is so important; and if you are not young enough to go, send your sons. That is the question: Will you let your son die for humanitarian interests that we well should put on the backs of the Europeans? It is time for them to grow up. We need a leader who is sanctioning Britain and sanctioning France and talking to Russia and saying you guys have been burned down twice in this century, you need to be in the Balkans. You need to have peace. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to vote for this one minute, and I hope no one will, because I agree this may allow him to put ground troops in.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I will tell the Members, it is easy to be proud to send our troops into Kosovo if Members have never been there. They have to understand what we are asking our troops to do, and we need to clearly understand why we are asking the sons and daughters of American mothers to die for these humanitarian causes. There are other ways, if we act. Mr. Speaker, I believe this debate will determine the course of American policy and military policy, foreign policy, for the next century. I urge my colleagues to totally ignore the partisan ramifications of our decisions and instead base our votes on the constitutionally defined security interests of this Republic. Today we hear the argument that to withdraw from an unconstitutional war undermines the morale of our armed forces and steels the resolve of those with whom we contend. If we accept that argument, we will have granted absolutely war powers, not just to this administration but every administration in the 21st century. That rationale demands that we keep quiet, we go along with every military adventure of every president, for the same reasons. Instead, I ask Members, I plead with them, to listen to the words of John Quincy Adams in 1821: ``(America) knows well that by once enlisting under other banners than her own . . . she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice . . . She might become the dictator of the world;'' or the police power, in my words; ``she would no longer be the ruler of her own spirit.'' If we refuse to do our constitutional duty in this body, in this House, the horrible warnings of President Adams may become reality. Serbs are fighting Albanians, Albanians are fighting Serbs. People in the Balkans have fought and have committed atrocities against one another for at least 500 years. Now we allow our Nation to be dragged into a quagmire for which there will be no exit. I believe that within the next few days the President will be delivering a new speech if we send troops into the Balkans. He will lament the death of Americans in combat in the Balkans. He will call on the Nation to ensure that their ultimate sacrifice will not be in vain. Have we heard this before? In the process, he will commit my great-grandchildren to policing the Balkans, not because we are threatened, not because we are under attack, not because freedom of this country is not secure, but simply to enforce a new world police order in Europe. Mr. Speaker, let me allow the President not to make that speech. Do not help him make that speech. Vote to end this nastiness today.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I would like to simply point out that the right to start a war or declare a war is left to the American people. They get to do that through their elected representatives. The reason the Constitution gives that right to the American people is that we are going to ask them to sacrifice their sons and daughters and our Treasury on behalf of the war that they asked us to start. This amendment was mentioned earlier, that it takes a lot of the options off the table. It takes only one option off the table, and that is the option of the President to start a war with ground troops without the permission of the American people. Mr. Speaker, if we need to have a ground war, the President can come to Congress, where he should come, because this is what is known as the balance of power, when the legislative branch has some power and the executive branch does. When the Executive is wrong, and I think they are wrong, they should come to the Congress. I ask Members to support this amendment.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for bringing this up. I rise today with our colleagues to support H.J.Res. 37, the Tax Limitation Amendment. The resolution asks simply for a two-thirds supermajority in both Houses to approve any Federal income tax. Now, I could not help but observe what the gentleman from Maine said. He said James Madison would be rolling over in his grave today because we might be amending the Constitution. I can tell my colleague what would cause James Madison to roll over in his grave today, and that would be if he had to file a 1040 form that he could not have had any idea that we would have ever gotten to. The gentleman from Massachusetts stood up and said this is about nothing. Well, I beg his pardon, it is about something. It is about taking the livelihood away from hard-working Americans. We do not ask them on a voluntary basis to please send in some taxes; or would they not like to help out this time. We tell them to send in their taxes to this Congress so that we can spend it, or we will turn the Justice Department loose on them and put them in jail. Now, that is a very serious thing that we do to the American people that are trying to prepare to have their first home, trying to prepare to send their children to school or prepare for their own retirement. I have a question for those who would oppose this amendment. Why are they afraid of the American people and the States? If we pass this resolution in the House and Senate, we have not passed the amendment, we will have only allowed the States and the people to ultimately decide this issue. Those of my colleagues that would decry this measure to curtail unnecessary future tax increases claim, oh, this is unfair; that the American people do not really want it, that they prefer it remain very easy for Congress to take their dollars that they work so hard for. Well, if that is true, what about the reasoning for objecting to the resolution? What are my colleagues afraid of; to give the American people an opportunity to say no? It ought to be very hard for us to take the taxpayers' hard-earned money. We do not spend it well, anyway. The taxpayer cannot keep us from spending it, so we should at least make it harder for us to collect it. Three-quarters of our states would have to approve the Amendment before it became law. Are you afraid that in reality, there aren't even a dozen states that would agree with you? Or maybe you believe the American people and the states just aren't knowledgeable enough to make the right decision--at least, the right decision according to you, and the inside-the-beltway crowd. My friends, that kind of thinking is why we went to war with Great Britain to win our independence. This city, this Congress, the President, the Supreme Court--none of these determine the Constitution. The people do. We serve them--they don't serve us. They decide the law--and you seek to take their right to self- government away. If not, what are you afraid of? Maybe it's the fact that the American people have different ideas about how to run this country--and where I come from, the people still rule. The American public demands accountability and fiscal responsibility on the part of its elected officials when considering tax increases. For this reason, nearly two dozen states have either already enacted or are considering tax limitation protection. These standards of limitation have resulted in the slowing down of taxing and spending growth. Meanwhile, the job rates in these states have grown, and their residents have more money to add to the economy. The American economy is on a roll, fueled by hard work, and need not be slowed down by future tax increases. A supermajority requirement to pass any increase, would validate the fact that two-thirds of residents in states that have passed such legislation are in support of doing so. In furtherance of states' support for these measures, the governors of New York, Florida, Texas, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and nine other states have given their backing. I urge my colleagues to listen to the sentiments of the American public on tax day 1999. I understand that amending the constitution is serious business. That's why it is left up to the states, instead of this body. Let the states and the people decide. They rule, not us. Support the Tax Limitation Amendment.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I will not take 5 minutes, but as we come to a conclusion on this debate after almost 5 hours, it is and should be fairly clear to all of us and certainly to the American people that the American education system needs reform, it needs changing, it needs improving, and I do not think we can get any disagreement at all from Democrats or Republicans that that is a true statement. But, as usual, we come down to how do we implement that, how do we achieve that goal, and, as usual, we do have different ideas about how one might do that. Today's bill is about being flexible. It is about allowing people back home, who do very much understand the need for good training and good education, people who actually know the names of some of the children that we wish to educate, people who have a great deal riding on the education system for their State, and indeed, and most importantly, for our country. I listened to a debate a day or two ago where it was pointed out, and I think it has been pointed out this afternoon in numerous occasions, that all 50 Governors support this Ed- Flex. I oppose the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), and I do not really like doing that especially because of my respect for Mr. Kildee, but I oppose all these amendments simply because every amendment is based on taking away what we started out to do 5 hours ago, which was to be flexible in our funding for education. The 50 Governors that support this particular bill happen to be Democrat and Republican. My Democratic Governor in Georgia I am very confident believes in education, and is very concerned about education in our State and is going to make the right decisions to the best of his ability. A lot of times some of the Governors, Republican and Democrat, who are trying to make decisions about education back home cannot do so because of the rings of red tape, and that goes back to the philosophy, and maybe the basic difference in us here is the philosophy in many people up here that only education, only the problems in education, can be solved in Washington. Only we care. Nobody back home could possibly care about our children, and their training and their education as much as we care here in Washington. Mr. Chairman, that is not the contest. The contest is not who cares the most. The contest is what must we do in order to improve their training and improve their education. I think that the 50 Governors are right. I think there is accountability in this in the sense that there is only one thing we are asking the States to be accountable for: Are they better or are they not? Have they improved, or have not they? And that is the question, and if my colleagues have not solved that within 2 years, then they are not eligible for Ed-Flex. So with that in mind, let us give it a try. Let us see how we do. We have given it a try in 12 States. Let us try all 50 States, and let us look, I say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), and see what the results is. Let us look and see if the test scores are going up, if they are learning better, if they are preparing for life through education better, and if they are, let us do a lot more of this, and if they are not, then let us draw back and say, well, maybe they care back home in Georgia, but gosh, they just are not as smart as we are. We are going to have to take back over.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for taking time really to hold this public discussion of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Many people at home know it as IDEA. I must say that when I talk to teachers back home and school superintendents back home, this is one of the greatest topics of concern. In many cases, many of the younger, newer teachers think all of a sudden in the last few years we invented IDEA, which is not the case, of course. It was passed in 1975. When we took, the Republicans took control of Congress, we tried to deal with some of the discipline problems, just 2 years ago, that are occurring in IDEA, so this is sort of new news to youngsters who are just out of college and just started teaching. Let me begin by stating that I doubt that there can be a more important job in America than teaching our children. I do not know what it would be. This is especially true of our special education teachers. Education for those with disabilities allows all of our children to have the opportunity to learn and succeed. Ensuring that all of our children have a safe and orderly environment in which to learn must be and is a top priority. Most every teacher I have talked to about IDEA brings up the problem, Mr. Speaker, of classroom discipline. Teachers tell me that there is a great double standard that exists when disciplining disabled students. For instance, a nondisabled student who brings a gun to school can face a much stronger disciplinary action than a disabled child who engages in that very same activity. Mr. Speaker, we need to make sure that our teachers and students are protected in the classroom while at the same time ensuring that disabled students are fairly treated. This is critical if we are going to make sure that our children, disabled and nondisabled, have a good learning environment, a good order at their schools. Learning will soon become a casualty if it has not already if we do not do this. And soon enough our children will become economic casualties if they do not learn well. I believe that we should trust our teachers to determine who should be in the classroom. They will know firsthand which students are discipline problems and which students are just having a hard time reading up to their grade level. They will know how to deal compassionately with those students with disabilities who, because of their disability, may be disrupting the classroom experience of others. We can and should provide a good education for all without putting our teachers in this untenable position. In addition, I want to speak a minute about this unfunded mandate that the gentleman from Pennsylvania was talking about. We have since 1975 mandated to our States that they do certain things at the school districts. The same law that mandated what our special education teachers have to do said we, the Federal Government, will fund that. We will pick up 40 percent of the tab. You at home pick up 60 percent of the tab. That simply has not been the case. It has been only under the gentleman's leadership over the last 4 years, Mr. Speaker, that we have finally gotten the funding level up to 12 percent. That is a long, long way from 40 percent. Now, what does that mean? That means people at home who are paying property taxes that go to their schools who want to use that money to add new teachers do not have it because they are funding special education. If we want to use that money for bricks and mortars, which we should do at home to build new schools, we do not have it because it is going to special education, and the Federal Government is just simply not keeping its word, and I will yield back after making one point: My great State of Georgia, for example, is a perfectly good example. We received almost $54 million as part of this mandated special education money. But had we received what the law required, it would have been over $276 million. We received $54 million. By law, we should have received $276 million. Mr. Speaker, we can fix a lot of roofs in Georgia, and we can hire a whole lot of teachers back in Georgia if the Federal Government will do what you are trying to get them to do and fund their fair share. In 1975, Congress passed the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, commonly known as P.L. 94-142. The Act built upon previous legislation to mandate that all States provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to all disabled children by 1978. P.L. 94-142 established the federal commitment to provide funding aid at 40% of the average per pupil expenditure to assist with the excess costs of educating students with disabilities. Historically, the appropriations for IDEA have not come close to reaching the 40% level. Federal funding has never risen above 12% of the cost. Going into the 104th Congress, the federal government was only paying about 7% of the average per pupil expenditure. Since the Republicans took control of the Congress, IDEA appropriations have jumped dramatically. Since 1995, funding for IDEA has risen over 85%. The more than $1.4 billion funding increase since FY1996 demonstrates our continued commitment to help States and school districts provide a free, appropriate public education to children with disabilities. We are now paying 12% of the average per pupil expenditure. The Congressional Research Service estimates that over $14 billion would be needed to fully fund Part B of IDEA. The FY1999 appropriation for Part B was $4.3 billion, leaving States and locals with an unfunded mandate of nearly $10 billion. Local school districts currently spend on average 20 percent of their budgets on special education services. Much of this goes to cover the unpaid Federal share of the mandate. In my district, the Richmond County School District receives $1,176,260. If IDEA were fully funded, this school district would receive $6,027,156, an increase of $4,850,900. President Clinton proposes to level fund IDEA for FY2000. Under his budget request, the federal government would cut the Federal contribution to approximately 11 percent in FY 2000. Considering that the number of children with disabilities is projected to increase by 123,000 from 1999 to 2000, the President's budget request actually cuts funding for children with disabilities form $702 dollars per child in FY1999 to $688 dollars per child in FY2000. The President continues to ignore this unfunded mandate on States and local school districts by requesting no increase in funds for grants to States for providing assistance to educate children with disabilities. The President has proposed creating a myriad of new Federal programs, which all do good things. But I think that before we create new programs out of Washington, the Congress needs to ensure that the Federal government lives up to the promises it made to the students, parents, and schools over two decades ago. Once the Federal government begins to pay its fair share, local funds will be freed up, allowing local schools to hire and train high-quality teachers, reduce class size, build and renovate classrooms, and invest in technology. We can both ensure that children with disabilities receive a free and appropriate public education and ensure that all children have the best education possible if we just provide fair Federal funding for special education.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote for articles of impeachment. Now, I do not like that. I am not happy about that. In fact, I am deeply saddened by that. I did not come here to impeach Bill Clinton or any other President, as I imagine most of my colleagues did not. So maybe we might take one other look at one other consideration in these last hours. Mr. Speaker, if you would allow me to quote President Clinton: ``There is no question that an admission of making false statements to government officials and interfering with the FBI is an impeachable offense.'' President Clinton went on to say, ``If a President of the United States ever lied to the American people, he should resign.'' Mr. Clinton was more than willing to apply these standards to a Republican President in 1974, as was the Democratic majority on a substantial portion of the then Republican minority. Mr. Clinton was correct in 1974. Why was he correct? Consider the questions and answers of recent months: The question, ``Did you have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky?'' And the answer, and I quote: ``You are free to infer that my testimony is that I did not have sexual relations, as I understood this term to be defined.'' We now know the truth, but only because of a blue dress that says he lied. Consider the question and the answer: ``Did you authorize the transfer of missile technology to the Red Chinese Army in exchange for campaign contributions?'' The answer: ``No one can prove there was a quid pro quo.'' Consider this question and the answer: ``Did you order air strikes against Iraq to influence these impeachment hearings?'' And the answer, and I quote: ``I don't believe any serious person would believe that Secretary Cohen, General Shelton and the whole rest of the national security team would participate in such an action.'' Do we have answers here that we or the world can trust? We cannot tell when the President is telling the truth, and unfortunately, he cannot tell when he is lying. And that leads to a tremendous loss of trust. And when that person involved in that is the most powerful person in the world, it is dangerous. Mr. Speaker, let us today bequeath to future generations that the laws of this land apply equally to all, rich and poor, regardless of party affiliation or ideology. Let this House today hold Mr. Clinton to his own standards, the ones that he said that if you lie to the American people, a President should resign. Mr. President, please do what is right. Do not do this to America. Do not do this to your fellow countrymen. Do not do this to Congress, because as sure as the world, we are going to have a trial in the Senate. Resign today for a very good reason, because it is the right thing to do. Mr. Speaker, today we debate that which the Framers of the Constitution failed to define--the nature of impeachable offenses. Some argue against the precedent established during Watergate. They claim that impeachable offenses must include a direct violation of the Constitution itself. However, the Founders did not state that position. They instead left the definition up to future Congresses, based on the particulars of the case. Only the most partisan supporters of the President still deny that Mr. Clinton lied under oath. The majority of the Members of this House, and the American public at large, believe that Mr. Clinton lied under oath to a grand jury in a Federal civil rights lawsuit, lied under oath to the Independent Counsel, lied under oath to the House Judiciary Committee, and lied on national television to the American people. The only question left is: should that be an impeachable offense, and why? Let us address the issue. If the President had initially, and without qualification, simply denied his improper relationship with a government employee; then later confessed his perjury when physical evidence revealed the deception, we might not be having this debate. Many people can show mercy to someone who made a horrible mistake in judgment, and didn't want it plastered across the front page of every newspaper in the country, and then made a second horrible mistake by lying to cover up the first. But what deeply troubles so many people around the country is the nature and degree of the President's deception. He continues to deny not only the specifics of this case, but the very nature of truth itself. He has said he misled us all, yet he says he wasn't lying. At other times, he has said he lied, but he didn't commit perjury. He admits he had sexual relations, but insists he was telling the truth when he said he didn't. There has been speculation among members of this body in recent days that if the President would just confess to perjury, that we should drop these impeachment proceedings, issue a formal censure, and let the matter drop. While I disagree with this proposal, I fully empathize with the sentiments behind it. Members of this body, myself included, do not want to impeach Mr. Clinton or any President. We are grasping for plausible reasons to vote against impeachment--and we aren't finding any. For what really troubles the majority of this House is that the President doesn't recognize the truth. For many members, if they were only assured that Mr. Clinton was capable of knowing when he was or wasn't lying, they would be willing to let him off the hook. They beg him: admit to perjury, perjury that even a child can recognize. We'll forgive your indiscretion, and give you a second chance to earn the trust of the nation. They do that because we must have assurances as to whether we can reasonably expect the President to tell the truth after this is over. For he remains incapable of recognizing that he lied under oath to begin with. The President has established a principle in his mind that the truth is a technicality, dependent on wording. He has held throughout his testimony that if he convinces himself that he is telling the truth, it doesn't matter if he lies. If he carefully couches his statement in semantic deceptions, and then buries the issue with the White House ``spin machine'', the truth has been served. Consider the questions and answers of recent months: Did you have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky? Answer: Not yes or no, but ``You are free to infer that my testimony is that I did not have sexual relations, as I understood this term to be defined.'' We now know the truth, but only because of a blue dress that says he lied. He still doesn't recognize that he lied under oath. Why is it essential for a President to recognize the truth? Consider this question and answer, also from recent months: Did you authorize the transfer of missile technology to the Red Chinese Army in exchange for campaign contributions? Answer: Once again, not yes or no, but ``No one can prove there was a quid pro quo of missile technology for cash.'' Why not a simple yes or no? Could it be for the same reasons as in this case before us today? How can we know? Is the President lying through semantic contortions again, with life-and-death consequences for millions of Americans, and perhaps even the continued survival of our Nation at stake? The truth is, we don't know, and we can't know, because there is no blue dress. Consider this question and answer, from just yesterday: Did you order air strikes against Iraq to influence these impeachment hearings? Answer: ``I don't believe any serious person would believe that Secretary Cohen, General Shelton, and the whole rest of the national security team would participate in such an action.'' We're not concerned with the motives of the national security team; we're concerned with the motives of the President, and once again, do we have an answer that we, or the world, can trust? These are the reasons the Founders left it to us to define impeachable offenses. Is perjury in a civil lawsuit grounds for impeachment? It depends on the particulars of the case. This case clearly exhibits that this President cannot be entrusted with the security or well-being of the United States, evidenced by his inherent inability to acknowledge the existence of truth, even under oath in a federal court. Would we allow a person with this proven inability to serve as Chief of Staff to our Armed Forces? Absolutely not. Then how can we tolerate it in a Commander-in-Chief? If we cannot trust Mr. Clinton as Commander-in-Chief, he can no longer perform the duties necessary as President. Mr. Speaker, fellow Members of the House, we need to forget parties and loyalties, and vote for the future and safety of the Republic. The Founders left us this discretion for the very reasons we face today. In conclusion let me quote the President once more, but this time from 1974, when the nation was last going through this agony. ``There is no question that an admission of making false statements to government officials and interfering with the FBI is an impeachable offense. If a President of the United States ever lied to the American people, HE SHOULD RESIGN.'' Mr. President, do not put America through this, do not put your countrymen through this, do not put this Congress through this ordeal. Heed your own words and resign, because it is the right thing to do. My fellow members, we must do the right thing as well, because it is our duty. We must ensure that this ordeal is never repeated by a future President who is led to believe by our actions that they can repeat these offenses and get away with it. Vote for a full trial in the Senate. Do your duty.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. There was another bill before us in Congress, those from the left had a managed care reform bill, too. Did they have a threshold in their bill?

Mr. NORWOOD. Do you know what that threshold was?

Mr. NORWOOD. If the gentleman will yield further, would Mrs. Cochran have been able to go into court immediately?

Mr. NORWOOD. If the gentleman will yield further, I am not an attorney and I know that the gentleman is, but explain to us as an attorney how attorneys would be able to take cases today where benefits are denied and patients can sue their HMOs today for benefits, but what if the benefit was only $1,000? Can an attorney afford to take a case like that, that is $1,000, not knowing whether they will ever be paid for their services that may run up $20,000, their fees. Now, the change in our bill, how does that help that?

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I, too, enjoyed the 300 hours we spent on our task force trying to hammer out a patient protections bill. I thought in the few minutes I have to talk, I would like to talk about the history and how we got to really where we are at the end of the 105th Congress. Much of this started many years ago, 1973 when Congress passed an HMO act, 1974, when Congress passed an ERISA act. And then we come up to 1995, and it was Republicans that dropped the health care bill. It was the Republicans who dropped a bill to bring to the attention of the 104th and 105th Congress that there were problems in managed care. People were being denied treatment, people were being rationed treatment, people were not being able to choose their own doctors. And, over the last three years, it has been Republicans who have said we have to deal with some of these issues. Now I would like to just focus in on maybe two things. It is the two things I think about health care reform right now that are most important, and it has to do with principles like freedom, freedom to choose your own doctor. It has to do with principles, such as being responsible for the decisions you make. When I go home in my district, I see a lot of political ads out there about HMOs that simply are not correct. They are being played, in my view, by people who do not quite understand what is going on. But one of those issues and the one that probably has been the most contentious is about liability. I think everybody in America should know today, even though the Federal law, ERISA, preempts any state law, in other words, public policy at the state level no longer takes effect, and even though Federal law through ERISA is very solid on public policy regarding health care, it does at least say this: A patient has the right today, without us passing any legislation, to sue their insurance company or their HMO if their benefits are denied. You can do that today. Now, the beauty of what this bill does, this task force bill, is it improves that so that it works. This is all under contract law. It allows people to actually be able to sue for their benefits, because if you win that benefit after going through an external review, then you cannot only win the cost of the benefit, but you can win the cost of going to Federal Court. That is extremely important, because that has denied people their due process because of the $25,000 or $30,000 it took to go to court to win the value of a $2,000 benefit. Basically nobody could go. We corrected that in the House task force bill. In addition to that, if you have been denied care in a very untimely manner, then you have the possibility of winning up to $250,000 appointed by the judge. Now, this is very, very important, because all of these court cases are before bodily harm or death occurs. That is when you need the health care. A mother wants their child treated. A mother does not want to go to court necessarily and win $1 million in punitive damages because their child died. Now, that is the beauty of the health task force bill. I had a bill known as Patient Access to Responsible Care, PARC, and in that bill we were trying to give the patients the right to sue their HMO at the state level through tort law, through malpractice. I still believe that is a very good way to go, because what it does for these health care accountants, it makes them think twice before they turn to the mother and say, ``I know your pediatrician wants to have your child hospitalized, but I am the accountant and I say no.'' Then should bodily harm or death occur, that accountant should be held responsible for that decision in a state court of law. Now, unfortunately, I could not win that debate. In January of this year, as I was pushing my bill, I was the only one willing to say that. I pleaded with the White House to add that kind of language in their Patients' Bill of Rights. I pleaded with the White House to add that to the State of the Union. I actually found out that the Democrat leadership was against that. The original Kennedy-Dingell bill didn't have that in it. In fact, one of my good friends in Congress on the other side of the aisle would not cosponsor my bill because it had it in it. I find it very curious that today, that is the very thing that the Democrats decided to fall on their sword about and keep those in the Senate from putting out a good piece of legislation. The other part of our bill, the task force bill, and my bill, PARC, that is extremely important, in my opinion, is to allow people to choose their own doctor. This is America, is it not? Why should we not have as much freedom as they do in England? Now, our bill, for the first time, had what is known as a point of service provision in it that opened the door to allow the American people to choose their own doctor. But maybe even more importantly in this task force bill, that was not in mine, I wish it had been, was improving on medical savings accounts. That is the greatest freedom there is in health care. I am very proud to be part of a task force that made possible medical savings accounts for those all over the country. In conclusion, let me just say that what we hear today in the political ads is exactly what has killed health care reform in the 105th Congress. It is people who were more willing and more wishful of having votes than they were of protecting patients. That is exactly what the Democratic Senate did. They wanted to win votes on this issue, rather than opening the door and for the first time having some national public policy regarding health care. I am going to join with my friend the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Fawell), who will not be here, but the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and others, and we are going to start again and keep on, and we are going to keep on and keep on until we give the patients of this country what they deserve, and that is the right to choose their own doctor and ask people who make decisions about your health care and tell people that you have to be responsible.