Charlie Norwood

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 531, expressing support for Lebanon's democratic institutions and condemning the recent terrorist assassination of Lebanese parliamentarian and Industry Minister Pierre Amine Gemayel, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 530, relating to consideration of the bill H.R. 6111 to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the Tax Court may review claims for equitable innocent spouse relief and to suspend the running on the period of limitations while such claims are pending, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 529, Waiving all points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 5682 and against its consideration, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 526; Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 525, Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act, had I been present, I would have voted ``Yea.''

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 524; Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Members of the House should actively engage with employers and the American public at large to encourage the hiring of members and former members of the Armed Forces who are wounded in service and are facing a transition to civilian life. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 527; condemning the decision of St. Denis, France, to name a street in honor of Mumia Abu- Jamal, the convicted murderer of Philadelphia Police Officer Danny Faulkner. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 523, H. Res. 1078, congratulating the St. Louis Cardinals on winning the 2006 World Series, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 522, H.R. 5585, the Financial Netting Improvements Act, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, on roll call No. 517, H.R. 3085, To amend the National Trails System Act to update the feasibility and suitability study originally prepared for the Trail of Tears National Historic Trail and provide for the inclusion of new trail segments, land components, and campgrounds associated with that trail, and for other purposes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 518, S. 819, The Pactola Reservoir Reallocation Authorization Act, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 519, H.R. 5602, To Authorize the Extension of Nondiscrimatory Treatment (Normal Trade Relations Treatment) to the Products of Vietnam. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring your attention to a very important issue relating to medical reimbursement by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement Act and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) created new reimbursement mechanisms for IVIG therapies. CMS's implementation of the MMA has resulted in reduced access to life-saving therapies for Medicare beneficiaries. CMS potentially closed the door to medical treatment when they issued the CY 2007 proposed rules for the physician fee schedule and the hospital outpatient prospective payment system, which, if implemented, would effectively limit IVIG treatment by not properly reimbursing providers. IVIG is a vital medical service. It is a plasma-derived therapy tailored to the individual's diseases and treatment options to achieve optimal results. Nearly 10,000 Medicare beneficiaries are afflicted with primary immune deficiency (PID) which only responds to IVIG therapy. For many Americans there is no substitute for IVIG treatment. More to the point, this treatment allows individuals to carry on normal daily-life activities. PID requires IVIG therapy every 3 to 4 weeks for the duration of an individual's life, but without such treatment the individual not only imposes additional medical costs on an already overburdened system, they cease to be active members of our society. Such an outcome is simply not acceptable. IVIG therapy is cost-effective and beneficial for the patient. As far as I am concerned, that should be enough to get CMS to rethink implementing any reimbursement change that has the potential to harm access and reduce medical outcomes. In May of this year, thirty-five members of Congress, including myself, sent a letter to Secretary Leavitt of the Department of Health and Human Services expressing our concern over this matter and encouraged Secretary Leavitt to consider a payment adjustment, combined with product specific reimbursement. We also made clear that we would be open to any other mechanism he may have deemed suitable in order to resolve this patient access dilemma. Secretary Leavitt's response was, quite simply, inadequate. He failed to address our specific concerns or pose alterative remedies that would allow patients continued access to IVIG treatment. I urge CMS to reconsider its actions in this case to ensure patient access to a necessary and legitimate medical treatment.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise very much in support of this bill. Is it exactly like I want? No. Obviously, it is not like what Mr. Berman wants either. And if you don't like the bill, just vote ``no,'' as you have on many immigration bills. But this is what we have today, and the American people want to see us proceed. This bill reasserts that State and law enforcement can and should help Federal officers on immigration law whenever they reasonably can and if they choose to. What a weird thought. We might get help from our local law enforcement as they do in drug enforcement. It is a policy that our law enforcement community has conducted successfully for decades in helping this government, the Federal Government, enforce Federal drug and racketeering laws. This is not new. Why then the outrage and the mass lobbying against it by the pro- illegal immigration crowd, or should I say open border crowd? Because this bill goes to the heart of our enforcement problem, that is, simply a lack of enforcement. That has been our problem. Across the board, from the borders to the workplace to illegal immigrant crime, we have allowed the odds to become hopelessly stacked against enforcement. In regards to rounding up criminal illegal aliens, we currently have roughly 5,000 Federal agents trying to apprehend 500,000 illegal aliens with court orders against them. Eighty thousand of them are serious felons, such as murderers, drug dealers, child molesters, and rapists. Vote against this bill if you want those people to stay out on the street. That is all right. These odds, obviously, are impossible. There is no way we are going to have 5,000 Feds catch 500,000 violent criminals. But if we allow our 700,000 State and local police to volunteer to help, and they are American citizens too, the odds get a lot better. That might start an epidemic of looking at other ways to improve our odds, Mr. Speaker, in fighting overall illegal immigration. And that undermines the illegal immigration lobby's theme song, which is the lie that we cannot stop illegal immigration. So, well, let's just give up. Let's just give in. Well, we can stop all these problems if we only have the will. This body needs to have the will. The Senate has to do what it has to do, but we are the people's House. We need to show the gumption to get this done. This legislation proves how using commonsense partnerships between State and Federal authorities to multiply manpower will get the job done. We are not talking about going after illegal aliens who are otherwise obeying our laws and are just here to work. This bill is targeted only on criminal aliens. Ironically, most of their fellow victims are their fellow immigrants. Let's make one point absolutely clear. There is nothing in this bill that prevents local police from granting immunity from being reported for deportation to any illegal immigrant crime victim who comes to them for help. Mr. Speaker, this short bill is the key component in the CLEAR Act that I introduced 3 years ago. It has already passed this House twice as a part of larger legislation. I think my friend from California didn't vote for it, but it did pass this House. Let's send this over to the Senate as a clean, short bill and see what they have got to say about that. I thank the chairman for yielding me the time.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank very much the chairman for the time. I appreciate that. Mr. Speaker, we deal with an issue today that could likely determine the long-term fate of our Republic. As Mr. Hyde just pointed out, voting is the bedrock of our Republic, and today we deal with voter fraud. The U.S. Constitution and the constituents of several States clearly define the legal requirements to vote. A voter must be of minimum age. They must be a citizen of the United States, and each voter must vote only once. I do not think anybody in this body would disagree with that. What we discuss today or debate is over how do we enforce the voter laws we have on the books. A tamper-proof photo ID is the only practical way to prevent the mass input of fraudulent voters into our system. Some say, oh, we do not have any. How the heck do we know we do not have any? We do not check anybody to see if they are fraudulent or not. That was the recommendation of the nonpartisan Federal Election Reform Commission, headed by former Democratic President Jimmy Carter and former Republican Secretary of State James Baker. It is also the opinion, by the way, if anybody is interested, of 80 to 90 percent of the American public. It happens in every poll that is taken on this issue. My State of Georgia, in fact, has already passed such a requirement. They have even gone back and amended the law to include free State-issued photo IDs for anyone who needs one. But that is not good enough for some. Yesterday, the State Superior Court Judge T. Jackson Bedford, Jr., legislated on the court and ruled that requiring a photo ID, in his opinion, is unconstitutional because it imposes a duty on the voter not specifically required in our State constitution. I feel very certain our Supreme Court will satisfy this problem within the next couple of weeks. He did not address, however, Legislator Judge Jackson Bedford, Jr., the fact that, without the photo ID, the legal votes of hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens could negate the legal ballots of hundreds of thousands of our citizens around the country. He did not address the fact that, without a photo ID, tens of thousands of partisans could fraudulently vote in another person's name and cast multiple ballots, negating the legal ballots of our citizens. He did not address the fact that legal voters of Georgia have spoken loud and clear over and over through their lawfully elected representatives that this measure is needed, and it is desired. He did not, meaning the legislative judge, address that the Constitution of the United States guarantees to each State a republican form of government, and this ruling directly conflicts with the perfect right of the citizens of Georgia. Our Governor and State legislature must fight this tyrant in Georgia. But we can speak loud and clear against those who show their contempt against the right of the American voters across our Nation. We can stop election fraud today by voting for this magnificent restoration of our constitutional rights by my friend and my colleague Chairman Hyde. Defend the Republic. Support this bill.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize Ed Templeton, the President of SRP Federal Credit Union, on his recent election to the Board of Directors of the National Association of Federal Credit Unions, NAFCU. For the past 34 years, Ed has dedicated his life on behalf of improving financial institutions in America and currently serves on the South Carolina Credit Union League Board of Directors. His illustrious experience further includes service as President of the Columbia Chapter of Credit Unions, member of NAFCU's Education Committee, and member of the Better Business Bureau of Augusta, Georgia. As the President of SRP Federal Credit Union, Ed has focused on ensuring his members receive helpful, personal service. Through his credit union, Ed is continuously educating his members on how to prevent identity theft. He also understands that today's youth must be armed with the knowledge to be financially savvy. SRP Federal Credit Union established the ``Teaching Kids How to Handle Money Responsibly'' program which was designed to help children at an early age develop the decision making skills for sound future financial decisions. Ed's involvement to improve the lives of others can be further illustrated through his involvement as a Member of the Board of Directors for the Shepard Blood Center in Augusta, and in his past service as Elected Commissioner for the City of Hephzibah. It is because of the good work of Ed and others like him that the credit union movement enjoys the success it has today. Such service is the hallmark of the credit union movement and I wish Ed the best of luck in his new role as a member of the NAFCU Board of Directors.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time. I find this sort of interesting, Mr. Chairman. It seems like you are concerned about the bail-out provisions and the cost to the Justice Department if they actually do their job, which they are not; but no one seems to be at all concerned about the cost of bilingual ballots or counties or States having to print 35, 37 different ballots on the box. Nobody cares about that unfunded mandate, only that the Justice Department could not possibly afford to do what it is supposed to do. Actually, I hope that you are the one that argues the case when this goes to the Supreme Court, Mr. Chairman, and use that very same argument you just put on us about Mr. Westmoreland's amendment. This amendment has the support of some of the strongest supporters of section 5 renewal, and it is there for a very practical reason. The Supreme Court would likely throw out a 25-year extension of section 5 if no attempts have been made to update the rules that determine whether counties remain under Federal oversight. The court allowed section 5 to stand for one reason. Even a nonlawyer can read it in there. It was to be a temporary remedial tool. There was not a thing in that law that says past discrimination puts you under section 5. There is nothing written in the bill that says that. You say that because of the findings, but it is not in the bill. But the rubber-stamp renewal of section 5 for another 25 years would mean the original 837 counties would be under Federal oversight for 65 years, affecting people that had absolutely nothing to do with any of this. It does not take a legal scholar. Even I can determine 65 years is not temporary. There must be a more realistic method for counties to win release from the penalty box than under the current law, which is almost impossible, if they have truly ended discriminatory practices or if they have followed the rules under section 4. This amendment allows the Justice Department to help section 5 counties simply determine if they are eligible for bailout. What is the Justice Department for if not for that? It provides an expedited means for counties to regain their constitutional rights if they have met the bailout standards according to DOJ and no one else objects to their petition. This is not only fair. It gives many counties in compliance with the act a realistic chance to win release from section 5 for the first time. It is hard work being fair, Mr. Chairman. It requires a lot of effort for everybody to be equal under the eyes of the law. And that is what basically Mr. Westmoreland's amendment is asking for. I actually think further amendments to the bail-out section are needed as well, though we are not doing it today. But the Westmoreland amendment will help justify allowing section 5 to withstand court challenges, while providing long-needed equity for counties that have indeed remedied past discrimination. I am going to be honest with you. There is hardly any way to get out of the bail-out provisions. In 25 years, 11 counties have been able to do so. Don't you think more counties would have if they could possibly have done it? Those 11 counties that got out have minority populations of under 5 percent. They live right across the Potomac River. This nonsense about it costing $5,000, you cannot hire a lawyer to come uptown for $5,000. It costs big dollars for small cities and rural counties to get out from under this whether they are guilty or not, but nobody seems to care whether they are guilty or not. It does not concern anybody about fairness here. Partisans, and there are plenty of them and you all know it, at DOJ try to make sure that there are objections to submissions. A very perfect example: all you have got to do is have one submission objected to by the Department of Justice. In the last 5, 6 years, we have had six objections in Georgia. One of them comes from a small little town in south Georgia where the city council is majority/minority. They had a change they wanted to make in their voting laws, and they submitted it to the Justice Department. The Justice Department says, oh, no, you can't do that, we object. It is not as if they are always right. It is just that they get the last word until the Supreme Court gets ahold of them. That one objection puts my State back in the penalty box for 10 years. That is an unfair circumstance. That keeps us there for another 10 years. It does not matter what is right. It does not matter what is fair. It does not matter what is legal. It means you just cannot get out of it. It is designed to be that way. It is people in the civil rights division in the Justice Department that are very bias, very partisan; and they work darn hard at making sure we cannot get out of the penalty box. I have heard over and over today people talk about a bill passed in Georgia. They are simply trying to make sure only American citizens vote. That is all it was all about. It is so easy to vote in Georgia. We have illegal alien citizens of other countries trying to vote all the time. A simple voter ID, it was precleared by the Justice Department that, Mr. Chairman, you think so much of. We were told it was all right. Then it goes to court. Well, you know how you do that? You venue shop. You go around and wait until you can find a judge that will say what you want to say, and that is exactly what they did in this particular case. So that is an objection; so now we get to stay in for another 10 years. My last observation on this subject is all four of these amendments are commonsense amendments. They do not, in my opinion, have anything to do with bringing down section 5 or the Voting Rights Act, which I do not want them to do. They add some sensible changes to it. It has been 41 years since this was written. Mr. Chairman, in 1982 you voted against section 203. Today you are promoting section 203. You are against the King amendment. What happened? Did you change your mind in 25 years? Probably so. That is legal. That is fair. That is okay if you have changed your mind concerning how you feel about that in 25 years. A lot has changed in 25 years. A lot in our State and our country has changed. Vote for these amendments and make this thing fair, and everybody will have equal protection under the law

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

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to Mr. Conyers, I am not on the Justice Committee, the fair Justice Committee. I don't have any right to testify before the committee, nor am I asked to testify before the committee, nor would I, I doubt, be allowed to testify before the committee simply because I don't agree with H.R. 9 as it presently is written. What we are asking here basically is that everybody be treated equal under the law. Section 4, I didn't write. Section 4 clearly says what the formula is. In fact, section 4's formula is why my State is under section 5. Why in the world shouldn't we look at everybody in the country today, in the 21st century? In 1964, my son was 2 years old. He was part of the 30 percent of Georgians that are still in Georgia today. I don't think he had anything to do with 1965. I was 23 years old. I didn't have a clue what was going on in 1965. Half of the 30 percent of the people in Georgia who were in Georgia in 1965 had nothing to do with this. You are finding my grandchild guilty for something my grandchild didn't do, is not doing and doesn't want to see happen. Yet you will not take this and apply it to other States who deserve to have the same equal protections under the law that we do in Georgia.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), and then I will do my close, and the chairman says he will then close.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, of course our amendment does not do that. It simply applies to every jurisdiction in the country equally, equal protection under the law. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal).

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I would like to simply point out that most of what the chairman said I certainly don't agree with, and I fully expect the Supreme Court not to agree with it either. I didn't write section 4, but I can read even though I am not a lawyer. It is very clear what the mechanism in section 4 says and means to put you under section 5, and there is no reason, I think, on earth, that every jurisdiction in this country shouldn't have to live under the same rule. The scattered counties we are talking about over there that would go under section 5 end up being 200 or 300 more that aren't under there now. And, Mr. Chairman, if you think they have problems in Montana in discriminating, you ought to do something about it. All I can do is have them follow section 4 of the original VRA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, when the original Voting Rights Act passed this House, it was to correct voting discrimination evident in the 1964 Presidential election. The legal protections and enforcement scheme in the new law were all designed around that challenge. The specific challenges of 1964 have long ago been rectified, yet the specific enforcement scheme contained in sections 4 and 5 remain based on 1964, 1968, and 1972 Presidential elections. Here are the current rules on the VRA: To fall under section 5 Federal oversight, a voting jurisdiction has to have committed both of the following offenses: One, they must have maintained discriminatory tests or devices to discourage voting in 1964, 1968, and 1972 Presidential elections. Two, they had to have fallen below 50 percent voter registration or turnout in 1964, 1968, and 1972 Presidential elections. Note that an area must have committed both offenses back then to fall under section 5. We have a rare opportunity today to update the Voting Rights Act and bring it back into compliance with the original intent of the bill to safeguard voting rights all across the country, not just in the current 16 States. Instead of continuing to face legal protections on 1964 conditions, this amendment will update them to modern results and toughen the standard, and, indeed, add more jurisdictions under the Voting Rights Act. First, instead of requiring a jurisdiction to violate both of the standards to fall under section 5 oversight, a jurisdiction is placed in the penalty box for violating either one of the two triggers. Second, the Presidential election years used to determine violations are updated to the most recent three elections, 1996, 2000, 2004. They would be automatically updated in the future to ensure that the act stays current. Third, the penalty period for new violations is increased from the current 10-year bailout rule to 12 years, by requiring an area demonstrate three clean Presidential elections in a row in order to get out of the penalty box. Under this amendment, the Justice Department is ordered to automatically review nationwide results and add noncomplying areas to the section 4 list or section 5 oversight after each 4-year cycle. Any jurisdiction that does not violate either trigger for three Presidential election years in a row will be automatically removed from section 5. That is a real incentive for State and local governments to move aggressively into compliance with the Voting Rights Act. It guarantees the terms for getting off the list, without bankrupting local governments with legal bills as do the current arbitrary 10-year bailout requirements, which in many cases are impossible to meet. And it is certain that a partisan Justice Department wants to make sure you stay under there for 10 years, and with enough time we will explain how they do that. The Justice Department will therefore determine whether specific jurisdictions need to be added or deleted from Federal oversight list based on their performance in 1996, 2000, and 2004 rather than 1964, with automatic rolling updates to future election cycles. The end result of this amendment would be expanded Federal oversight in areas with current violations, and section 5 oversight relief for areas with long-standing historic Voting Rights Act compliance. My State of Georgia, under my amendment, will unfortunately, remain on the list since we fell below the 50 percent trigger in 1996. There are currently 837 jurisdictions under section 5 oversight. That would be on the chart to the right. Under this amendment, there would be a minimum, with my new amendment there would be a minimum of 1,010 covered jurisdictions all across the country in 39 States. That is indicated by the chart on my left. The white areas are people not under 5; under my amendment the colored areas are people who would be under 5 because they broke the same rule under section 4 as we did in Georgia. In fact, there would be substantially more than that. Our researchers could only find areas out of compliance in 2000 and 2004, without spending a great deal of money in 1996, but we will know 1996. So all these areas that failed to comply in 1996 would also be added to section 5 oversight as well. We just can't tell you for sure right now how many more that might be. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will significantly improve voting rights protections by eliminating default amnesty for modern violations. It will provide understandable and clearly defined goals for areas not in compliance with either original trigger, and thereby encourage vigorous remedial action by those governments, and actually strengthening and updating the Voting Rights Act to go after current violations. I do not understand why it is not important about violators in 2004, but we seem to not take that up in H.R. 9. Our amendment provides long-overdue equity to the areas of our country that unjustly remain under penalty for 40-year-old violations that have long been remedied. And do not kid yourself, just because a partisan Justice Department objects to a submittal does not necessarily mean they are right. The Supreme Court has said on occasion that they are wrong. Nor does it mean that there has been any discrimination. I urge Members to support updating the Voting Rights Act for the 21st century with this amendment Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.