Charlie Norwood

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I strongly rise to support the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). I think the gentleman is precisely right. It is time this country did something about drugs. If we think the border patrol is doing it, then let us ask ourselves why do we have 20,000 young people a year dying from drug overdoses? It is time to use our best, but any method we need to stop drugs in this country. I cannot tell the gentleman how strongly I feel that he is exactly right. Put the 82nd Airborne on maneuvers down there if you want to stop drugs. You have the safeguards in the bill to take care of the terrible tragedy we had before, but the tragedy is you cannot stop it in my hometown, and you cannot stop it in the State. We have got to stop it on the borders, and our military can do the job.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Watts amendment because I feel it is imperative that Congress do its best to rectify the injustice done to military retirees who were promised, but have not received, the guarantee of lifetime medical care. Uncle Sam misled America's finest when he recruited them to the military. Therefore, while this amendment does not restore the entire promise, it does provide military retirees over the age of 65 with affordable, accessible, high-quality health care by allowing them to join the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program. Congress has access to FEHBP, Mr. Chairman, so why shouldn't our nation's military retirees? The Watts amendment is a step in the right direction--a move toward partially restoring the quality of healthcare at an affordable price that these retirees were promised upon entering the military. We owe them no less!

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, the national security of the United States has been damaged, in my opinion, by the action of Hughes Electronic Corporation and Loral Space and Communications. They have transferred sensitive missile technology to the Chinese in violation of our laws. The President of the United States is supposed to protect and defend the interest of the United States. But it seems that when it comes to our foreign policies and trade policies, this administration's attitude is that it has been elected to defend the interests of multinational companies who promise big campaign contributions. Instead of pursuing legal actions against these companies, our President has, instead, tried to help them cover their tracks on this issue. He needs to be more concerned about the national security of the United States than he is with the security of a friend who happens to raise a lot of campaign contributions for the President's party. I do not know if there is a quid pro quo. I do not care. I do not know if $100,000 is involved or not, but it is wrong to transfer missile technology to China.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) for yielding me this time. I appreciate the time and effort to discuss something that I find myself in agreement with. And I congratulate the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) on his good works in this, and it is a pleasure for me to follow the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), my friend. It is not often that we agree, and it is great to hear the gentleman have discussions about Adam Smith. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to ask all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1872, a long overdue piece of legislation. The law we seek to amend here today is about as outdated as rotary dial telephones, and as obsolete as rabbit ears on a television set. When the Satellite Act was written, a government-run consortium made sense. Today it simply does not. Private companies across the globe can now offer competitive, high-quality international satellite service, but only if we empower them to do so by passing this legislation, H.R. 1872, and eliminating the competitive advantages enjoyed by INTELSAT and Inmarsat. A recent study prepared by the Satellite Users Coalition documented that passage of H.R. 1872 would produce cost savings reaching as high as $2.9 billion for the American consumers over the next 10 years. Additionally, this study went on to say and calculated that through the expected competition brought about by meaningful reform, consumers around the world could expect savings of $6.9 billion over that same period. The most important consumer benefit, though, Mr. Chairman, however may not be the savings but rather the wealth of new innovation that competition will invariably bring to the satellite industry. More than 30 years ago, governments around the world had the best intentions when they took a risk and created an international satellite system. Back then, the goal was to push technology forward and expand the reach of the communication industry. Today it is clear that INTELSAT and Inmarsat have served their purpose. Therefore, I urge my friends and colleagues to support H.R. 1872 and help us bring real competition to the market for satellite communications as soon as possible.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, when millions of older Americans decided to begin their military careers, one of the primary selling points used by the recruiters back then was the Federal Government's promise of retirement benefits. Those benefits included free lifetime health care. The sales pitch went sort of like this: ``The pay is not very good, your family will have to move every couple of years, and there is a distinct possibility that you might be killed or crippled. But if you can live through it for the 20 years, you will have the satisfaction of having served your country along with a decent retirement. And you will not have to worry about health care costs eating up that retirement check because you will have free health care for life at military hospitals, as long as they have room for you.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, today 400,000 American veterans are dying prematurely. Many of these veterans are military retirees and now have no medical care option left but Medicare. Some do not even have Medicare coverage. They counted on the lifetime military health care promise, the promise that they were given upon entering the military, and did not sign up for Medicare Part B, not ever considering that the Federal Government might go back on its word. Now these men and women do not even have health coverage this Congress provides for draft dodgers. While numerous good bills have been introduced in the 105th Congress to address this problem, there is one that I believe deserves some special attention, H.R. 1356, introduced by my very good friend the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. J. C. Watts). H.R. 1356 offers the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, or FEHBP, as an alternative for those beneficiaries who have lost access to the Department of Defense- sponsored health care. This legislation has been cosponsored by 66 Members of this House. If it is modified with cost control caps, it would provide a cost- effective quick fix for those military folks and their families that are truly hurting today. It will go a long way towards solving the problems of all 8.2 million military retirees. H.R. 1356 would require the Department of Defense to restore the current CHAMPUS/TRICARE Standard program to the quality benefit intended when the CHAMPUS program was enacted in 1966. It would allow Medicare-eligible retirees the option to enroll in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Those under the age of 65 would be provided with the plan option if the restored benefit is not available. This legislation is very similar to the Military Health Care Justice plan proposed by the National Association of the Uniformed Services to provide care to all military beneficiaries without harming readiness. FEHBP, the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan, is a wonderful example of the Federal Government providing great health care at a reasonable cost, a Federal program that has actually been working for the past 37 years. In fact, according to the Heritage Foundation, it is the most efficient health care system of its kind in the country. I, as well as my staff, know this because we are currently enrolled. As a veteran, I feel it is essential that the Federal Government honor the commitment it made to provide quality health care to those veterans who have served a minimum of 20 years of active Federal service. These are the men and women who have defended our Nation and protected our freedom. If the military health care crisis is not corrected through legislation that provides a solution in the next couple of years, these men and women could be denied the promise, the promise, from the Federal Government of lifetime medical care that was made to them when they first enlisted. Nine million Federal civilian employees, including DOD civilian personnel, and 1.6 million DOD and other Federal civilian retirees and their dependents have the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan. Let us honor our promise to the men and women who have protected us and let us pass H.R. 1356.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, before the larger issues of election year politics and balancing the federal budget eclipse this short legislative cycle, there is an urgent need for Congress to solve the nation's nuclear waste problem. For 16 years, we have witnessed the Department of Energy's (DOE) hesitation to move this project forward, despite a clear statutory obligation established in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. As we are aware, January 31 marked the deadline for DOE to begin accepting used nuclear fuel from nuclear power plants and defense facilities in 41 states and storing it in a single, federally monitored location. This failure by DOE to act is simply irresponsible. I can find no reason that the department has disregarded the deadline other than a slate of serious consequences or the miscarriage of its fiscal duty and unconscionable behavior. For one, DOE had a clear obligation to accept used nuclear fuel, not only according to a federal statute, but also according to federal court. In two rulings since 1996, a federal appellate court reaffirmed DOE's legal obligation to take nuclear fuel under a contract with electric utilities. As if those rulings were not enough, DOE's offense could land it in court again--this time to defend challenges that utilities and electricity consumers are entitled to a full refund, plus damages for financing a disposal program that never materialized. Those damages could amount to $56 million by some estimates. Where will that money come from? Taxpayers, no doubt. Whatever the source, one thing's for certain--any refund or damages owed to utility customers undermine this Congress's efforts to balance the federal budget. It also puts all taxpayers at risk of paying a hefty lawsuit for capricious delays. For these reasons, it is essential that the House and the Senate leaders appoint conferees to negotiate minor differences in the nuclear waste reform bills passed overwhelmingly by both chambers last year. I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation as early as possible, so that it is not obscured by other weighty matters that await us this session. Let us solve the nuclear waste problem swiftly, for the sake of taxpayers--our constituents--who have already sent $14 billion to the Nuclear Waste fund without getting anything in return.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, there are critics of Congress and the Communications Act of 1996 who say our efforts to bring competition to the American people have failed. Now, Mr. Speaker, we know that Rome was not built in one day. We also know, thanks to this act, we are seeing competition in this industry sprout like a budding flower on a spring morning. This act is working, Mr. Speaker. Almost 300 companies have been certified as local carriers in the territory just covered by Bell South. What we need now is for industry to completely honor the intent of the act and for the regulators, both Federal and as well as local regulators, to move as quickly as possible to implement this act the way Congress intended it to be. Mr. Speaker, let us bring real choice, cheaper prices, and one-stop shopping to all consumers as soon as possible.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], for his kind words. Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure and actually an honor for me to be here presenting this bill to the House of Representatives on behalf of one of my constituents, Dr. J. Roy Rowland. Dr. Rowland was very instrumental, while in Washington, on health care issues and one of the most, I think, outstanding examples of bipartisanship that I know of in this Congress in recent years. In 1993 and 1994, in the 103d Congress, he put together a coalition of five Republicans and five Democrats to try to help solve some of the serious problems that we have in this country with health care. It was later known as the Rowland-Democrat-Bilirakis-Republican health care bill and it sort of set the stage for how we work together with our colleagues. Dr. Rowland is a good man. Dr. Rowland is a great American, and I am so very pleased that we are today in the process of renaming the U.S. Federal courthouse in Dublin, GA, after him as a token of all of our esteem here and as a token of the esteem that his constituents back in Georgia still hold him. This is a great pleasure and I hope all Members, and I know they will, because he made friends readily on both sides of the aisle, I hope all of our friends will vote for him today.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves in a period of great debate as to what constitutes bipartisanship. I believe that true bipartisanship is honorable compromise for the good of the country. If we search for real live models of honorable compromise, we can find no better example than the former Democratic member from my home State of Georgia. Congressman Roy Rowland of Dublin, GA, began a lifetime of public service long before coming to the House of Representatives. Roy Rowland spent his youth developing a keen sense of duty and honor as an Eagle Scout. Fresh out of high school, Roy entered the U.S. Army to fight in World War II as a sergeant in command of a machine gun crew in the European theater. He was a member of U.S. forces that liberated German concentration camps, where he learned firsthand the horrifying final results of intolerance. Roy left the Army at the end of the war with a Bronze Star for service in combat, and returned to educational pursuits. He graduated from the Medical College of Georgia in 1952 and continued what was to become a lifetime of public service, by providing health care to the people of Dublin, GA, as a family practice physician. Roy not only provided health care to Georgia families, he served them in the State legislature from 1976 until 1982, and in the year of 1983, Roy's dedication to serving his country brought him to the U.S. House of Representatives. In his freshman year, Congressman Rowland introduced and succeeded in passing legislation that stopped the illegal use of Quaaludes through the fraudulent prescription sales. In the early 1980's, the abuse of Quaaludes had reached epidemic proportions, and the drug was fast on its way to becoming the illegal drug of choice on the streets. Roy, I was in practice back in that period of time in the 1980's, and recognized then what a tremendous problem it was for our patients and the country, and I appreciate your efforts in removing Quaaludes. Today, though, the good news is that problem is history, because of the work of Roy Rowland. Congressman Rowland's efforts were not Democratic or Republican in nature. They addressed a pressing concern for all Americans and garnered true bipartisan support. When debate over the AIDS crisis was still locked in a state of misinformation and confusion and fragmentation, Roy Rowland stepped forward with his experience as a medical professional to provide the leadership this body needed to move forward. Congressman Rowland introduced and passed into law legislation that created the National Commission on AIDS, which provided America with the plain, scientific facts so necessary to establish sound public health policy to combat this killer disease. When the battle over health care reform was at its peak in the 103d Congress, Roy Rowland once again led the way in finding solutions to America's problems that were outside the realm of partisanship. He succeeded in drafting health care reform legislation through a group of five Republicans and five Democrats that provided coverage for 92 percent of the American public. The Rowland bill did not pass during that time of heated debate and multiple proposals, but the blueprint Roy left us is one that should be carefully examined when we face contentious issues in the future. In his 12 years of service here in the House, Roy Rowland set a standard for standing firm on conviction without resorting to partisan attacks. He fought like a tiger on this floor, but never had an enemy on either side of the aisle. In his reelection campaigns, he was frequently personally attacked, but never responded in kind. Today, I ask for your vote on legislation that will honor and preserve the legacy of service that Dr. and Congressman Roy Rowland has left for us to follow. This bill will redesignate the Dublin Federal Courthouse in Dublin, GA, as the J. Roy Rowland Federal Courthouse, in order that the example Roy Rowland set through a lifetime of service should not be forgotten. In the spirit of true bipartisanship that our former colleague exemplified, I ask for your support today of this legislation.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. Guaranteeing that 90 percent of Federal funds for elementary and secondary schools is spent directly in the classroom is just plain good sense. I cannot imagine why anybody could be against that. While there is not complete certainty as to the actual percentage of Federal education dollars that reach the classroom, we do have available to us several studies which suggest that well over 30 percent of these funds are eaten up by the Federal and State bureaucracy. I have been part of the hearings all around the country on the Crossroads to Education. Everywhere we go, we hear from local people that these funds are eaten up by the bureaucracy. I do not think this should be so, Mr. Speaker. I believe that too much of Federal education funding is spent on bureaucracy and not enough on teaching our children. I believe that we should support this resolution in a bipartisan way, and even the Democrats on our committee may vote against it. I believe most Democrats in this Congress will support this in a bipartisan way, because they know that the people who actually know our children at home should be the people in charge. I urge support of H.R. 139.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of the Hoekstra amendment, but, frankly, I believe the $20 million that was spent on the Teamsters election in 1996 should be paid back. Talk about general welfare. They represent one-half of 1 percent of the population, yet the taxpayers of this country had to foot the bill for almost $20 million to pay for their election. That makes no sense. So in this amendment we simply say since that election in 1996 was fraudulent, certainly the taxpayers will not have to pay again. The gentleman pointed out that there is no money authorized or appropriated for a rerun of their election, but I would point out there was no money appropriated in 1996 for the election either. It was a transfer of funds in the Justice Department. Those who do say that the 1989 consent decree, which is right here, said that the taxpayers should pay for the 1996 election have not read the consent decree real well. It said clearly that the taxpayer will pay to supervise an election, not pay to run the entire election, printing ballots, et cetera. We need to make sure at least on this amendment that we do not fall into the trap again of having the American taxpayer foot a $20 million bill. On August 22, 1997, the election officer issued a 134-page decision that she would not certify the election and requested a rerun of the election as the result of finding illegal campaign contributions to the Carey campaign as well as a very complex scheme of money laundering to fund the Carey campaign with funds from the Teamsters' treasury. This money laundering scheme involved Citizen Action and the National Council of Senior Citizens, front groups for the unions, and it involved a complex scheme to put money into congressional campaigns. In the last election, labor unions tried to buy this Congress with their illegal activities, distortions, and misrepresentations of the facts with their whatever it takes plan. This laundering scheme was part of all of that. Every one of you in this Congress who have been attacked by the unions unfairly and untruthfully should vote for this amendment. Every one of you in this Congress who do not want the taxpayers to pay another $20 million to benefit one-half of 1 percent of the taxpayers should vote for this amendment. Every one of you that represent the 49 percent of the Teamsters that voted for Jimmy Hoffa, Jr., for president of the Teamsters should vote for this amendment. Every one of you that say we should fund special education to its legal amount of 40 percent should vote for this amendment. Every one of you who want more inspectors at OSHA should vote for this amendment. This is what is meant by prioritizing your spending. We cannot afford to waste another $20 million of the taxpayers' money to have an election for one-half of 1 percent of the people. Vote for the Hoekstra amendment, and do not cheat the taxpayers out of another $20 million.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], our chairman, for offering this amendment, and I rise to strongly support it, and I am particularly pleased to immediately follow behind my friend from California, Mr. Farr. I would point out that the California Republicans did a great job out there. It is their job, you know, to manage education in their State. It is a State function, and if they wanted testing in California, more power to them. I want to mention just a minute about what the Goodling amendment is all about, because I do not want anybody at the end of this vote to be unclear on it. This amendment simply prohibits spending of any money under the fiscal year 1998 Labor-HHS-Labor appropriations bill to develop, plan, implement or administer new national tests in the fourth grade reading and eighth grade math. I can rather understand why our chairman would be so concerned to have this amendment, since none of this has been authorized in his committee or appropriated. So I think it is appropriate that he do stand up about this. Now, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] does make exceptions, and the exceptions are made for the National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP; also the Third International Math and Science Study, TIMSS, both of which would be allowed to continue. NAEP, also known as the Nation's report card, involves random sample testing of students throughout the country in reading, math, science, history and other subjects every 2 years at the 4th, 8th and 12th grade levels, to obtain a snapshot of the academic achievement of students in our country. TIMSS involves random sample testing of students in this country and other nations in math and science to obtain international comparisons of student achievement. I remind Members that this amendment allows this testing to continue. Earlier it was said that we do not test our children. The administration would have us believe that there is a real need for standardized tests to determine how our kids are doing in reading and in math, as if we are not testing them now. So let us look at one of my former constituents, who is also a former constituent of my colleague the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Bishop] and is currently a constituent of my colleague the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf]. Rebecca Stone of Warrenton, VA, just finished the eighth grade last June. Now, here is the list of standardized tests that she has taken in a country where earlier it was stated we do not test our children. In Mitchell County, GA, kindergarten through the first grade, Rebecca had the Georgia Test for Kindergartners, the Otis Lennon Mental Abilities Test and the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. Then in Richmond County, GA, in the second grade, she retook the Iowa Test of Basic Skills again. Then in Columbia County, GA, in the third through sixth grades, she had the Iowa Basic Skill Test twice more and the Duke University Talent Test. Finally, in Fauquier County, VA, in the seventh and eighth grades, this young lady was tested with the Virginia Literacy Passport Test and the Stanford Achievement Test. I think, as readily can be seen by most of our colleagues, a real live public school student we are standard testing across this country. What this debate is really about is not testing, but it is about curriculum. Testing is just the next step in a liberal agenda for Washington to seize control of our local schools. My folks at home do not want that. They do not think that the Department of Education should run their local schools. If the Federal Government establishes testing on which all of our school systems are judged, the next step will be for the Federal Government to establish a national curriculum to match the test. We say this is voluntary, but I find that humorous. It is not, and we all know it. Mr. Chairman, we already have standardized tests in use in our public schools today. They are tests freely chosen by State and local educators and recognized nationally. What the administration seems to want is to overrule the testing decisions of local educators and replace them with the decision of inside-the-Beltway bureaucrats. Let us put a stop to that. Support the Goodling amendment. It is very important.

Mr. NORWOOD

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

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to state very simply that I support the amendment of the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Coburn]. It is a very easy thing to do. We are dealing with an area here of people's lives, and it is a simple matter of a ``yes'' on this vote saves 6,000 American lives, and a ``no'' on this vote will not allow these people to be treated. I am very disappointed and disheartened that we cannot have an honest debate on a simple amendment without politicizing it when people are particularly trying to do good for the American people from the bottom of their heart. So I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle simply to help save these 6,000 lives and vote ``yes'' on this amendment. I do not take argument particularly with the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] about where the money comes from. I spent a year of my life in the Central Highlands and I knew a lot of Montagnards, and I can assure Members that I would want them to be treated with the greatest respect and care. But I am also fairly certain that it has been many years since the Montagnards tried to come back into the United States.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would ask the gentleman, how many thousands came into the country last year?

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

Mr. NORWOOD

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

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

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, if you look at numbers over the last 5 or 6 years in terms of what the funding level was versus how many deaths we had in the workplace, you clearly can conclude pretty quickly we do not know that we will improve the situation at all by increased funding.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I want to congratulate him and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] for increasing funding in IDEA. I want to point out to the gentleman that it is only at 12 percent level. We are funding at 100 percent from home, from the districts and counties. The law that was passed in this Congress said that we would fund it at 40 percent. So that is what we are trying to ask to be done, is fund it at the level the law requires. Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I am curious about the increased funding for OSHA this year, the $11.25 million. Does the gentleman know that that will save one life?

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

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I just want to reply to the gentlewoman who just spoke. In 1997, we spent $325.7 million, and if our amendment passes, in 1998 we will spend $325.7 million. I would just like to point out that is not a cut of anything, that is just not giving them a raise.

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

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, let me point out to my friend from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] that I am absolutely sure the gentleman does not know why I am doing this. I know the gentleman just told the Members why I am doing this, but I am confident that the gentleman does not know. Second, let me point out that, yes, I voted against special education, but that was before the Republican Congress came in and helped straighten that bill out. At the time, a considerable amount of that money was going to the attorneys, and until we could stop that particular bleeding problem, then it did not make sense to put taxpayer dollars in it.