Charlie Norwood

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, in spite of what the liberal media would have us believe, the semiautomatic weapons outlawed by the 1994 assault weapons ban are seldom used in crimes. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, for every 4000 violent crimes reported in this country, there was only one of these weapons involved. In fact, we would accomplish more by banning kitchen knives. What the bill we debate today accomplishes is real crime control--by cracking down on criminals who use guns, instead of law-abiding gunowners. The sheriffs and district attorneys in my district tell me they don't need more gun control, they need the ability to take gun-carrying criminals off the street, and that's what H.R. 125 does. For any criminal in possession of a gun while committing a crime, this bill provides for a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years in prison. For pulling that gun during a crime, 10 years. For firing it, 20 years. And if the weapon used is a sawed-off rifle or shotgun, they automatically get an extra 10 years in prison added to these sentences. Furthermore, subsequent violent or drug-related crimes are punished by 20 years for having a gun, 25 years for pulling it, and 30 years for firing it. And if that gun is a machinegun, or has a silencer or flash suppressor, the sentence is life in prison. Compare this to the 1994 crime bill's 10-year sentence for crimes involving semiautomatic assault weapons, and it's easy for both sides of the aisle to determine that this bill does for gun-crime prevention what the assault-weapons ban will never do. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of H.R. 125 to put real teeth into gun control against criminals, instead of using the issue of crime as an excuse to attack the Bill of Rights.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, today we will make a great step forward, in my opinion, in making health care available to all Americans. The Health Care Coverage Availability and Affordability Act will give Americans the two things they need most: increased access to health care and decreased cost. We will give hardworking Americans increased access by addressing the issues of preexisting conditions and portability. We will decrease the cost by tax deductibility for the self-employed, authorizing small employers' purchasing pools, and allowing Americans to have medical savings accounts. We are going to accomplish this without increasing government bureaucracy or writing thousands of pages of new regulations. Mr. Speaker, we are increasing access while lowering costs. Should that not be the goal of any health care legislation? We are doing it with as little government influence as possible, or interference. I urge my colleagues to support 3103, and I would remind them that when we talk in this body about rich and wealthy, the liberal Democrats define that as anybody with a job.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Speaker, not so long ago, the President stood before us in this very Chamber and declared that ``the era of big Government is over.'' His latest budget tells a different story, particularly with taxes. The President wants to raise taxes immediately and phase in a tax cut--that can be yanked if deficit targets are not met. In other words, the President wants a permanent tax increase and a temporary tax cut. Madam Speaker, will liberal Democrats ever learn that smaller Government means less taxes? It is not enough to say you want to end big Government, you have to back it up with actions. If the President really wants to end the era of big Government, he needs to stop feeding the beasts. Raising taxes is simply the wrong way to go. We need to reduce our spending and reduce the tax burden on the American people-- only then will the era of big Government truly be over.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has a vital role to play in protecting our environment. If we are to preserve and build on the tremendous gains we have made in the last two decades in cleaning up our land, air, and water, we must have Federal guidelines enforced by an active and revitalized Environmental Protection Agency working in close cooperation with our States and local governments. Now that I have shattered your opinion of conservative Republican views on the environment, we can get down to nuts and bolts of how we accomplish the goals on which I think we all agree--for we are all environmentalists. Thirty years ago many of our rivers were horribly polluted, our air quality in parts of the country was so bad that people with even minor health problems were confined to their homes, and soil and building contamination was to an extent that our children showed elevated levels of lead poisoning in nationwide blood tests. These problems led Republican President Richard Nixon to create the Environmental Protection Agency to clean up the country. We have done a good job in getting started--but we still have a long way to go, and we can do better. That's what this new Congress should be about. In the three decades since the creation of our environmental laws, we have seen what began as strong measures to protect our natural resources turn into a tidal wave of regulations and lawsuits that stifle our economy, usurp local and State autonomy, and infringe on the constitutional rights of property owners, while accomplishing very little in the way of real protection or cleanup. This is generally what happens with every Federal agency or endeavor, given enough time. Because when we create laws and agencies to address a nationwide problem, we at the same time create a new industry comprised of Government bureaucrats; private sector consultants, experts, and contractors; specialized trial attorneys; and consumer activist groups. All these groups have a powerful vested interest in seeing that the original nationwide problem is not only not solved, but continues to be an ever-growing problem, expanding their industry, careers, and incomes into perpetuity. With groups like Ralph Nader's Citizen Action, the Energy Research Foundation, Greenpeace, and the like, we have created a cottage industry raising millions of dollars a year, that would be put out of business if we ever really solved our environmental problems. The trial attorneys that have become emeshed in our cleanup efforts are costing us $900 million a year--money that could be used on actually cleaning up waste sites, but is instead siphoned away without a single shovelful of waste being touched in return. The principles behind environmental legislation are good--the problem is how they are enforced and carried out. But to even suggest reform or change in the status quo is to invite the wrath of these special interests, and that is where we find ourselves today in searching for better ways to clean up our environment. There is probably no better example of this than the ongoing effort to reform the Superfund Clean-Up Program. This program came into existence in 1980 with the noble goal of identifying and cleaning up the worse cases of site pollution and contamination in the country, called National Priorities List Sites, or NPL's. In addition, secondary pollution sites were identified as ``brownfield sites'' that also badly needed cleaning up, but were not as critical to overall public health as the NPL sites. A small amount of the funds to accomplish this mammoth task come from the taxpayer, and most comes from a special tax on industries and products that tend to create pollution. We take in around $1.5 billion a year from this combination of taxes on oil and chemicals, and the overall corporate environmental tax. In addition, individual companies that played an original role in creating one of these NPL sites pay as large a portion of the total clean-up costs as can be extracted. There are 1,300 NPL sites in the country, and another 450,000 brownfield sites. How are we doing in achieving this mission? Ninety-one sites have been cleaned up in the 16 years the Superfund has been in existence; 91 out of 1,300. The average cleanup has taken 12 to 15 years to complete, and cost more than $30 million a site. Of those 12 to 15 years spent on each site, 10 years are spent in the courts, in negotiations, and on bureaucratic studies and redtape. It takes only 2 years to actually get the job done. Of the $30 million spent on each site, half of the money goes to trial lawyers and Federal bureaucrats. Of the $25 billion spent since 1980, that's nearly $12 billion going to trial attorneys, salaries at the EPA, and studies on how to clean up instead of just getting the job done--for that we were only left around $13 billion. So while we spend our Superfund money and time on courts, bureaucrats, studies, and lawyers, 10 million children under the age of 12 continue to live within 4 miles of a waste site--breathing the air, and drinking the water. At today's pace, these children will be in their midtwenties before the sites are cleaned. That's why we introduced the Reform of Superfund Act, or H.R. 2500 this past year to reform the way we clean up these sites. So far, we have held 17 congressional hearings, heard testimony from 159 witnesses on ways to improve and speed up the process, and have conducted over 50 bipartisan meetings on the effort. In return for these efforts, we are attacked by the special interests whose cash-flow would be cut if we succeed. The Ralph Nader faction under the guise of Citizen Action has mounted an all-out campaign to stop the efforts. Why? One of their main backers is the Trial Lawyers Association, which would stand to lose millions if the Superfund were used to clean up pollution instead of paying lawyers. There is no better example of this than in my own district. The area surrounding the now-closed Southern Wood Piedmont Plant in Augusta has been under study and court action for years now. Yet the Hyde Park neighborhood most affected by the arsenic contamination remains just as it was before the efforts began. The children in the neighborhood continue to play on their public school playgrounds next to arsenic- contaminated drainage ditches. But the court costs have run in the millions in the on-going litigation, and EPA experts and consultants have justified their salaried positions at taxpayer expense by the dozens of studies undertaken as the project drags on, year after year. We don't need to talk about it any longer, we need to clean it up. Our need to revitalize our efforts to protect the environment are certainly not limited to just Superfund. Should Washington bureaucrats be allowed to tell you the same water treatment regulations that apply to Anchorage, AK, should also apply to Augusta, GA? What works most effectively to return clean water to our waterways in one geographic location may not be as effective from an environmental or cost standpoint in another, yet we continue with the Federal concept of one size fits all, to the detriment of our environment. Do we follow the latest special-interest fad to pass new restrictions on chlorine levels in municipal water supplies based on suspect findings by EPA researchers? This is exactly the direction we are heading, and that is not good science. We cannot base massive expenditures of Federal money based on a researcher's ``best guess'' about a possibility of a risk--we have too many real environmental threats that we have put off dealing with for years. And if we do allow environmental scare tactics push us into ``bad science'' decisions on chlorine reductions, we greatly increase the risk of fecal coliform bacterial infections in both humans and wildlife as a result. That is a known factor, and a guaranteed result. There are a pair of bald eagles that nest on an island in the Savannah River across from my house. I love those eagles, am very personally protective of them, and feel that our laws need to do the same. But what about the cotton farmer that has a pair of nesting eagles on his farm? The farmer has lived on his land all his life. He feeds his family by growing cotton. But then the bureaucrats tell him that he can keep his land, but he can't grow cotton because the pesticides to keep away the boll weevil may interfere with the eagles' nesting. That farmer knows his land. He knows about the nesting eagles. His neighbor that grows cotton was just put out of business because he too had nesting eagles. The farmer kills the eagles so the bureaucrats can't stop him from growing cotton and feeding his family. He buries the eagles, no one ever knows, and we all lose a valuable and irreplaceable natural resource. Shouldn't we have regulations that protect the eagles and the homo sapiens--the man and his family? We all want environmental policy where Americans will be healthier, safer, and cleaner. We all want to protect our natural resources and wildlife. But we must start doing it better, with an eye on concrete results. That means cleaning up every one of the Superfund sites in the country, saving as much money as we can based on good science. The regulators must be accountable and responsible for their actions. The regulations must be changed to embrace State and local control, and take into effect not just the letter of the law, but the intent. My friend Sam Booher in Augusta, one of the most knowledgeable and dedicated environmentalists in the country, knows far more about what is needed to protect our natural resources in East Central Georgia than any bureaucrat in Washington, and we need to start letting people like Sam have a larger voice in this fight. What we attempt to do by cutting funding for the EPA is get the Washington bureaucrats' attention. We want fewer Federal agents that, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, ``swarm across our land to eat our sustenance.'' We want our tax dollars used to cleanup our environment, not pay the 1,000 lawyers that work for the EPA, not pay the bureaucrats to do one redundant study after another. We want our environment cleaned up now. And what do we get for trying to add common sense to our environmental laws, for trying to use our fewer and fewer Federal dollars more wisely? We are attacked by the President and his liberal allies in Congress for their political gain. We are attacked by the trial lawyers for their monetary gain. We are attacked by the bureaucrats to save their jobs. And we are attacked by Ralph Nader for if we succeed he loses most of his funding. We need to increase our Federal efforts to preserve and protect our environment, but it must be done more wisely and effectively. Our enemy is not industry, farmers, the EPA, or even regulations themselves--it is the Washington bureaucracy that continues to expand from our efforts to save our natural resources, while our children continue to live with pollution, and real protection takes a back seat to funding special interests. Mr. Speaker, I have never run for political office before, and I am a freshman and new to this field. As most people who are willing to come to Washington and serve, each of us have priorities. I was very interested and am interested and will stay interested in us balancing our budget. It is not hard to understand why. I would like for my children and my grandchildren to live the American dream, and move into the 21st century, have a decent job, and be able to keep enough of their own income so they can be responsible for themselves, and so they can live in an America that is better than my America when I grew up. That is our responsibility. I am very interested in that. I want to make sure my children and grandchildren do not have to go to war. There is only one way to keep that from happening, and that is to have a very, very strong defense. That is our best bet to keep our children out of war. Following that, it only makes sense, one could only conclude that if you are interested in the 21st century for your children economically, so they can have a good job, have a good standard of living, you could not possibly not be interested in them having clean water. You could not possibly not be interested in them having clean air. What good will it do for them to have a good job and pay only reasonable taxes if they cannot drink their water or breathe their air? Mr. Speaker, I know that there is a lot that has been said about this Republican Congress in terms of the environment, but I believe that if we can get past those who wish to reach political gain, those who wish to make money out of this argument, we can in this Congress pass environmental laws that will clean up this country and keep it cleaned up, as opposed to continuing to sink millions and millions and millions of dollars into bureaucratic redtape and into the pockets of our trial lawyers. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having the opportunity this afternoon to get this off my chest.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, this legislation would allow five historically black graduate schools to continue to compete for Federal grant funds under section 326 of title III of the Higher Education Act. Morehouse School of Medicine, Meharry Medical College, Clark-Atlanta University, Charles R. Drew Postgraduate Medical School, and Tuskegee University School of Medicine are all in danger of becoming ineligible for grant funds. These funds support the purchase of laboratory equipment, improvements to classrooms, libraries and laboratories, faculty development, and academic instruction. It is important that this Congress reaffirm its commitment to high quality graduate level education for young African-Americans in this country. This amendment allows us to continue that tradition. Historically black graduate schools train half of this country's African-American physicians, pharmacists, and dentists, as well as three quarters of all African-American veterinarians. For the most part, these individuals practice in poor urban and rural areas, where they serve large portions of disadvantaged Americans. These schools and individuals are providing a valuable service to this country by meeting one of the major challenges currently facing our health care system. They deserve our appreciation and our support whenever possible. This piece of legislation will continue these schools' grant eligibility, without any fiscal implications for the Federal Government. Passage of this legislation allows these fine graduate institutions to continue to provide top quality education and training to their students. The other 11 historically black graduate programs have no opposition to the continued eligibility of these 5 schools, and the decision to fund this particular section remains in the hands of the Appropriations Committee. There is no reason to restrict access to these funds.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, we continue to hear how Wisconsin dairy farmers got a raw deal back in the 1985 farm bill, and how dairy farmers in other parts of the country are doing better at their expense. Well, we need to take a look at the facts. The Department of Agriculture statistics on dairy farmers take-home pay show that Wisconsin farmers are doing better than the majority of farmers in the rest of the country. Now we are being asked to take the income of those other dairy farmers across America and transfer it to dairy farmers in Wisconsin through pooling profits in fluid milk. That's not only wrong, but it would be disaster for many small family farms. The amount of income-transfer called for in the House dairy title is larger than the total profit margins of many of those small farmers, and would flat put them out of business. Mr. Chairman, this issue points out far too well what happens when the Federal Government starts tampering with the economy. We end up with Americans pitted against each other in the fight over who benefits most from the largesse and special advantages granted by Washington. We cannot change these systems overnite, but it is high time we got started. We need to stop playing Big Brother by taking money out of one farmer's pocket and putting it in another's. Karl Marx would have been mighty proud of that concept. There is a reasonable alternative to this problem of fluid milk profits, that has the support of Members on both sides of the aisle. The Solomon-Dooley dairy substitute amendment addresses the fluid milk issues in the dairy title in a way that is fair to the whole country. I urge you to support fair play for dairy farmers in all 50 States by voting for the Solomon-Dooley amendment.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring to your attention the distinguished career of Dr. Ronald Frost Galloway. Dr. Galloway is retiring today from University Hospital in Augusta, GA. He has practiced at University Hospital since 1963, where he established the first cardiac surgical program at the hospital in 1974. He has served on the Richmond County Hospital Authority for 7 years helping shape what University Hospital is today. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Galloway has enhanced the quality of life for the people of the Augusta community for many years. He is a man of uncompromising integrity, a truly remarkable physician, and a gentleman. I am pleased to honor him today before the House of Representatives.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize two events which have helped to keep America smiling over the years. The year 1996 marks the 55th year of annual recognition of the importance of children's dental health. It also marks the 100th anniversary of Johnson & Johnson's dental floss product. The annual observance of children's dental health began as a 1-day event in Cleveland, OH, on February 3, 1941. On February 8, 1949, the American Dental Association held the first national observance of Children's Dental Health Day. This single day observance became a week- long event in 1995. By 1981, the program was extended to a month-long celebration known today as National Children's Dental Health Month. As far back as 1850 dental references recommended the use of ``waxen silken floss.'' In 1896, Johnson & Johnson introduced its dental floss by advertising in dental journals. It was a welcome alternative to the popular method of treating gum disease at the time--live leeches. The product was originally made out of silk--the same silk that was used in the company's surgical sutures. During World War II, with silk in great demand for parachutes, Johnson & Johnson began manufacturing its floss using nylon. Today, its floss is available in a wide variety of forms and flavors. Flossing removes plaque, a sticky colorless substance that forms on your teeth, from places that cannot be reached by a toothbrush. If plaque isn't removes, especially from below the gum line, the bacteria in the plaque can attack the surrounding gums and supporting bone. Flossing is an integral part of proper tooth and gum care, and is considered by organizations such as the American Dental Association and American Dental Hygienists' Association to be a major preventative measure against gum disease and tooth decay. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the House and as a dentist, let me stress that flossing is as important for children as it is for adults. Pediatric dentists have found that during the cavity prone years of childhood, flossing morning and night can actually reverse the earliest stages of tooth decay by allowing the tooth enamel to reharden. Attitudes and habits established at an early age are critical in maintaining good oral health throughout life. During National Children's Dental Health Month, I urge parents to make sure their children are following a good oral healthcare program that includes regular brushing and flossing. I also urge everyone to visit their oral healthcare professional to learn how to properly care for their teeth and gums. I ask my colleagues to join me as I salute the American Dental Association for their continued responsibility and dedication to the health and well-being of America's children, and to congratulate Johnson & Johnson for a century of giving Americans a healthy smile.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring to your attention three Georgia high school championship football teams from my district. T.W. Josey High School won the group AAA championship. The Eagles were undefeated, going 15-0 under Coach John Starr. Elbert County High School won the group AA championship. The Blue Devils finished the year 14-1 under Coach Tom McFerrin. Lincoln County High School won the group A championship. The Red Devils were undefeated, going 15-0 under Coach Larry Campbell. I am very proud of the efforts of these young men, there coaches, teachers, and the communities that supported them. They are a credit to the State of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure to herald the accomplishments of these three champions.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight with a troubled heart. I rise tonight to ask my colleagues to support our troops. Support them by bringing the 150 home. Bring them home now, before we get into a mess like I personally had to live through 30 years ago. Mr. Speaker, I served one ``Mission Impossible'' in Vietnam where we waged political war and no one really knew who the enemy was, and we had no political will to flight. Let us stop this madness. Is it not better we embarrass the President than to lose one American life?

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I feel strongly that we should pass H.R. 2336. The 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta is a great event for both my State and this Nation, but with this legislation I want to also acknowledge the original author of this act, one of my predecessors from Georgia's 10th District, Representative Doug Barnard. My friend Doug Barnard was first elected in 1978 and served until 1992 and was a consistent voice for fiscal restraint. He was a boll weevil Democrat who served his district and his country well. He supports the action that I hope the House will take today in passing this legislation. All of us in Georgia look forward to hosting the world in 1996 and are pleased that there will be U.S.-minted coins to commemorate this historic event. I thank my friend Mr. Barr for his diligent work on this legislation and I urge its adoption.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, we have passed a budget that will be in balance in 7 years using honest numbers. Medicare spending will increase by 62 percent. Medicaid spending will increase by 43 percent. Student loan spending will increase by 48.5 percent. School lunch spending will increase by 37 percent. Mr. Speaker, we are $5 trillion in debt. We are allowing programs to continue to grow. We are making a responsible effort to balance our budget for the sake of our children and grandchildren's future. What do we have from the President and other liberal Democrats? Nothing. Distortions. Misrepresentations. We have a plan to balance the budget; all they have is talk. Mr. Speaker, some people would rather talk about balancing the budget. Some people don't want to make the hard choices. Some people just don't want to balance the budget. Meanwhile, we are working to protect the future for our children, to give them a chance for the American dream. That is what we were elected to do.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. No, we are increasing the spending. If the gentleman will yield, we are increasing the spending in education considerably. What they are talking about is this imaginary made-up number that is placed out there 7 years from now that nobody knows what is. We are in fact, going to balance our budget by spending less than they project, but we are increasing the spending from 1995 considerably.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham]. I wanted to join with the gentleman for just a minute, because I, too, serve on the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities. Mr. Speaker, it is rather amazing that Mr. Cunningham and I serve on the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, and then we have the gentleman from California, Mr. Miller, and the gentlewoman from Hawaii, Mrs. Mink, on the other side of the aisle, and we go to the same meetings and we do not seem to hear the same things at all. Basically, my recommendation is that if education is our friend's top priority, running for State Senate might be a thought, because education is the priority of the State. The State, the folks at home, the parents, the teachers at home should run education, yet we send 10 percent of the money from the Federal Government to our States and we insist on making all the rules. Well, we are, indeed, trying to cut back our costs. We are trying to balance our budget. If students want to be unhappy, I think they should be very unhappy that we only reduced the cost in education by $4 billion. Our committee started out trying to reduce it by $10 billion over 7 years. We ended up, after the Senate, only reducing it $4 billion. This had nothing to do with the students or harming the students or harming education, this was simply a mechanism.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield for just a second.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, my good friend Virgil Aryers is in the hospital back home, and I have him on my mind today. He is in my thoughts and in my prayers, but I am excited about today for him, because we are going to be able to give him a little present. I know that Virgil is on Medicare, and I know that he wants us to save that program, and he wants us to improve it and make it better, and today we do just that. For 2 years Virgil has been asking me to balance the budget. Well, today we are going to do that in a 7-year time period with no gimmicks, no tricks, plain balance this budget. Mr. Speaker, Virgil wants to do that because of his children. He realizes those children must have a good 21st century in which to live and one in which they do not have $6 trillion worth of debt. I know how hard Virgil's children work, and they are very pleased that we are going to allow them to keep some of their own money. Mr. Speaker, we are going to do what we said and balance this budget over 7 years, for our children.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, today we will ask only one thing of the President. We will ask that he agree to work with us to balance the budget in 7 years using the numbers of a nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. It is a basic, simple request, but for some reason he seems very afraid of this commitment. Mr. Speaker, the President said last night he thinks it will hurt America. Fortunately, some of us know better than that. The hundreds of people calling my office certainly know better than that. They know that the best thing we can do for this country is to make an unmistakable commitment to balance this budget. That is what we will do. No matter what the President says, no matter how long it takes, we are going to balance this budget in 7 years, and we will do it by controlling spending, saving Medicare, and giving the hard-working people of America back some of the money that was stolen from them by the 103d Congress. The people of the 10th District have my word on this.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, the liberal Democrats would rather scare seniors than make good public policy. The evidence of pure political gamesmanship is clear and convincing. Listen to what the liberal Democrats are calling for today. They want to lower Medicare premiums. Have they lost their minds? Mr. Speaker, Medicare is going bankrupt, and they want to increase the cost of the Medicare trust fund. The Federal Government is almost $5 trillion in debt, Medicare is going bankrupt, and liberal Democrats want to increase the spending of the Federal Government. It is little wonder we owe $5 trillion. Mr. Speaker, we will save Medicare from bankruptcy. We are making the hard choices we were elected to make, and ladies and gentlemen, we will stand our ground. We will stand our ground and fight for the future of our children and our grandchildren.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 1 minute to me, and wish it were 1 hour. I rise tonight to ask all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to please vote for this bill, this CR. I think it is not that complicated. We are trying to put our Federal workers back to work. We are simply saying that we need to balance our budget, and Members all know that. My colleagues have all said they wanted to do that in a 7-year period. I am asking my colleagues to help us balance this budget for my children and my grandchildren, for the 80 percent of the American people who believe we need to balance it, for the 66 percent of the people in my district who voted for me who sent me here to balance it, but maybe most of all for one Federal employee who left a note in my office the other night. I would like to read it to my colleagues and share it with them and ask them to consider voting for us. The note read, Congressman Norwood, please don't give an inch to Clinton. I work in the AC shop and I met you the other night. I have a wife and 5 children and stand to lose $531 this week from furlough days. I support Newt and yourself and all others for the current balanced budget. The only Christmas we may have is this bill, but I can't think of a better Christmas. Please support this bill.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Speaker, today the Federal Government will shut down, and later this week, the Federal Government will reach its debt limit. Congress has passed bills to continue spending and to raise the debt limit, but the President has vetoed them. So here we are at an impasse. Madam Speaker, I am not at all happy it has come to this. I am concerned for the people who will be inconvenienced by the Government shutdown. I am very concerned that some Americans may lose faith in the way we do business here in Washington. I sincerely wish it had not come to this. But, Madam Speaker, we have no choice. The Federal Government is $4.9 trillion in debt. It is immoral for us to continue to borrow from the future of our children. We must take the steps necessary to balance the budget. We Republicans have laid out a plan to reach a balanced budget by the year 2002. We have done so by cutting spending. We have done so while cutting taxes, not raising them. We have done so while making the hard choices necessary to save Medicare from bankruptcy. We have done so with no help whatsoever from the liberal Democrats in Congress or the President. Yet here we are Madam Speaker, out of money and at the limit of our debt. Why has the President vetoed both of our efforts to avoid this crisis? I have been listening to his remarks with great interest. The President said he vetoed the debt limit extension because he did not want to be constrained by our budget priorities. For those of you who do not understand political gobbledygook that means the President does not want to balance the budget in 7 years using CBO scoring. The President vetoed the continuing resolution because he does not want to raise Medicare part B premiums; he wants to see them lowered. Perhaps the President has forgotten his trustees report. Medicare is going bankrupt. Lowering part B premiums does not make Medicare more solvent. Arguing over Medicare premiums is simply political posturing; it has nothing to do with governing. If you really want to save Medicare, you have to be prepared to make hard choices. The President is apparently not ready. Madam Speaker, I have heard the network newscast constantly refer to this budget crisis as some form of game. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are fighting to save the future of this country. This is no game. We Republicans simply refuse to proceed any further with politics as usual. We will not continue the mindless spending and borrowing that is bankrupting our children's future and destroying any hope they have of achieving the American Dream. We will not vote to extend the debt limit or continue the spending of the Federal Government with a commitment from the President to balance the budget. Madam Speaker as of today, we have no such commitment from the President. He continues to play politics with Medicare while the system goes bankrupt. He refuses to accept CBO scoring, even though CBO scoring was good enough for him when the Democrats controlled Congress. He refuses to discuss specific cuts he will consider, instead he just snipes at Congress for being to harsh on education and the environment. What is it we are doing that he refuses to accept? Is the President against risk-assessment to make regulations more reasonable? Is the President against habeas corpus reforms that will halt the endless death row appeals? It is time for the President to quit campaigning and start governing. Madam Speaker, I take no joy in seeing the Government closed down today. But this is a step we must take if we are to reach a balanced budget and save our children's future. [[Page H 12197]]

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. As a nation, we are almost $5 trillion in debt. The share of the national debt held by the people of the 10th District of Georgia is $11 billion. The share of the national debt my 2-year-old grandson owes is 19 thousand dollars. I do not care whose fault it is; this mindless borrowing from our children's future must stop. Mr. Speaker, as the duly elected representative of the people of the 10th District of Georgia, I cannot and will not vote to increase the debt limit of the United States without a clear commitment to balance the budget in 7 years. I cannot and will not vote to continue the spending of the U.S. Government without a clear commitment to balance the budget in 7 years or less. The people of the 10th District of Georgia have my word on it.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has to slow down just a little bit. We have a lot of my folks from Georgia watching. We tend to talk a little slower.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and let us first say that I am delighted to join the freshman class Republican Party truth squad that has come to the floor tonight. If my colleagues want me to be perfectly honest, I have a markup tomorrow on Superfund and I need to be back in my office reading it, but I am here instead because we have an obligation to come in behind those that would tell half-truths, mistruths, and not tell the American people the facts, so that we can correct that. We have to do this every night; come tell the truth. It must be very confusing for people back home to hear one thing from one side and another thing from another side. Who do they believe? Earlier tonight, not 45 minutes ago, we had a Member here who stood up and said that the mean old Republicans wanted to have a tax cut for the wealthy. Well, I have tried to ask the question, I tried to interrupt. I am ready for somebody in this body to define for me what is wealthy? Who is rich? Mr. Speaker, what I think we are doing is exactly what the people in the 10th District of Georgia said do. They said in 1993, when this very Democratic Congress and President Clinton decided to have the largest tax increase in history, and a retroactive tax, they said, ``We really do not like that. We do not like this government taking another $260 billion out of our pockets.'' What I am trying to do is what they asked me to do: Return it to them. Some people call it a tax cut. I call it a tax return. We are giving them their money back. They said go up there and balance that budget. Go up there and stop borrowing money. Go up there and have a business plan to pay off that $5 trillion worth of debt, but do it by cutting spending. So, what are we doing? We are sending back $245 billion over the next 7 years to working people. Now, I want to make it very clear that I do not consider everybody who has a job in this country wealthy. I know the President thinks in those terms and, certainly, this Democratic Congress thinks in those terms. But 90 percent of the tax credits that we are going send back to families at home go to families with income levels below $75,000 a year. That is families with mom and pop both working with two children. I do not believe they will come up here and tell us that they are wealthy. Mr. Speaker, 75 percent of the capital gains tax that we are going to send back to people at home goes to people with incomes less than $50,000 a year. Tell me if my colleagues think that is wealthy; if they think that is rich. We are returning their $245 billion tax increase that the Democrats put on us in 1993. Now we are going to balance this budget. We are going to balance it over a 7-year period and we are going to do it by reducing spending. I do not even think we are cutting spending. We are capping our expenses at the 1995 level and allowing that to grow by 3 percent. That is going to fuel the economy at home. It is going to do great things, in my personal view. The 21st century looks bright to me for the first time in a long, long time.

Mr. NORWOOD. If the gentleman would yield, go ahead and use the word. It is a lie. We are increasing Medicare by 54 percent over the next 7 years.