Charlie Norwood

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. That is right. As my colleagues know, a family of four that is making $25,000 a year, a couple of children at home, $25,000 a year, they are going to have their tax liability reduced to zero. Now who is rich and who is wealthy in that group? A family of four that is [[Page H 11675]] making $30,000 a year is going to have their tax liability cut in half. Are we helping the rich? Are we helping the wealthy. I think perhaps that has been misrepresented. I have a constituent at home, a single parent with two children, and this lady makes $17,500 a year, and under our present system she gets returned to her $939 under our current tax rate, and that includes the earned income tax credit. Under our plan for next year, the Republican House plan, she is going to get back $2,214. That is $1,275 more for a low-income working person. Is that a tax cut for the rich? I think not. Even Mr. Clinton's plan would only return to this young lady who is struggling, for pity's sake, $763. So I think maybe the mean old Republicans really are not trying to have a tax cut for the wealthy. I think we are trying to return to the hard-working American people some of their money, particularly some of that $260 billion that was passed in this Democratic Congress, in the 103d Congress, and then, SAXBY, we are going to stay here until we make sure your unborn grandchild and my 2- year-old grandson no longer owe that 187----

Mr. NORWOOD. I was particularly pleased to hear Mr. Shays say how excited he is about the Medicare plan because I am, too. I have been involved in providing health care for 25 years. I think that if we can ever get past the distortions and the half-truths that we have to put up with here, the American public and the senior citizens are going to be absolutely delighted with that plan. I will just conclude, if I could, by saying that it is a real pleasure for me to join with the truth squad. I think you know we are here every night trying to offset the misinformation, and I still cannot get over the speaker earlier tonight who keeps talking about that the money that we want to return to the American people in the form of what they call a tax cut; I say we are giving folks back their money. It is for the wealthy, and I would just like to make a couple of points. I want to talk about one constituent at home.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I know we are coming to the end of our time. Do we have time for each of us to wrap up a minute?

Mr. NORWOOD

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

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I have one simple question. I am curious if you would tell me, over the next several years, will the amount of money that we are going to spend on Medicare increase?

Mr. NORWOOD. Well, I know you do, and those of us on this side really believe it is very adequate. For the first time, we are going to give providers of health care the opportunities to help bring down that inflation rate, and I think we will see that happen.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. In closing, I will make three quick little points. No. 1, I would like to thank the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] on behalf of my 29-year-old son and two of the most beautiful children you have ever seen for the $500 tax credit. I know that it is going to the right place for the right people. I think it is very important that we say to the American people, because I know it drives me crazy when they talk about tax cuts for the wealthy, when 90 percent of these tax returns that we are going to give people back are for families with incomes of $75,000 or less, and 75 percent of the capital gains that we are going to return to people go to families with $50,000 or less. In conclusion, I want to talk about a lady back in my district. I will not talk about her name, but I think it points out what this tax cut, tax return bill does as much as anything. She is a single parent with two children, and she makes $17,500 a year. Under our present system, she gets back each year $939, under the current tax rate, and the earned income tax credit. Under our plan that we passed today, that family will get back $2,214. That is $1,275 more for a low-income working single mom than she would get under the current law.

Mr. NORWOOD. They do not pay any taxes.

Mr. NORWOOD. It depends on who defines rich. I notice some on the other side say anybody who has a job is rich. A family of four making $25,000 a year is not rich. You mean to tell me they will not have to pay any? All of their tax liability goes away?

Mr. NORWOOD. What a great move.

Mr. NORWOOD. Just for a second, you mentioned the earned income tax credit, and you know and I know we have heard so much unbelievable rhetoric about that. Do you know that this 7-year reconciliation balanced budget bill increases that by 35 percent? ``Increase'' in Georgia, that means going up, you know, 35 percent more for the earned income tax credit.

Mr. NORWOOD. I thank my friend from California for yielding, and let me say to the gentlemen, Mr. Hutchinson from Arkansas, and Mr. Tiahrt from Kansas, that I am very pleased to share this hour with them. I think it is fortunate that we represent the whole southern end of the United States so that people can know that this is not just a Georgia thing and this is not just an Arkansas thing, this is a movement that we see in our country. Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate for us to recognize how fortunate we are to have such a wonderful speaker pro tempore tonight, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Latham]. We are privileged to be here with you, sir. I also want to point out that I would rather be watching the Braves game, the Atlanta Braves are going to finish that series tonight, and I am sorry I will not be there, but today is such an historic day that I wanted us to have a little time tonight to talk about the truth again, because, generally, we have to come in an hour early to hear the misrepresentations and the half truths so we know really what to say to the American people in order to correct their misinformation. It was interesting to me tonight, Mr. Riggs, to watch the minority leader, Mr. Gephardt, and the fact that he was actually stunned that this body was going to balance the budget. He seemed in disbelief that after 25 years we were actually going to balance the budget. I think for me tonight I was a little stunned, too. I cannot imagine this body having an hour debate where the debate is what is the best way to balance the budget. Do Members know we actually did that tonight? We had another group that thought we should do it a little different way, but the idea was that we have to balance our budget for our children and our grandchildren. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to speak a little bit to why we are dealing with the problem.What really caused this reconciliation package for a balanced budget over 7 years. We in this country, maybe not us, maybe our children and maybe our grandchildren, are in debt $5 trillion. That is a fact. My 2-year-old grandson owes $187,000 on his portion of the interest on the debt. If we continue to follow the lead of Mr. Gephardt, we would borrow another trillion over the next 4 years, get into the 21st century and start borrowing a trillion every 3 years, and next year we would pay more for the interest on the debt than we actually spend on defense and where would it end? I think it is pretty clear if we continue to follow the Gephardt plan that we are going to end up bankrupt. We are going to end up a mess in this country with a standard of living that none of us want for our children. Mr. Speaker, there is another option. We can follow the lead of the great South American economies and we can start printing a lot of money. Well, we all know what happens there. Our economy goes to ruin. A third option for us might have been to follow the President's lead and continue to do what we are doing and spend whatever we want to spend with no prioritizing, just spend it if we like it, and we could get into the 21st century and our children would be paying 85 cents out of every dollar they earn just for taxes, just to keep this country afloat. Now, it is my personal opinion, my children are doing enough. My father paid $1 out of every $50 he earned in Federal taxes. My son is paying $1 out of every $4 he earns. They are doing enough. Our only alternative, then, was to do what the people I know in the 10th District of Georgia said do. They said for us to balance this budget by cutting spending. And in addition to that, they said, we do not like the 103d Congress' and Mr. Clinton's $260 billion tax increase. And if my colleagues do not believe they did not like it, look around this body sometime and look at all the new faces. The American people said we do not want the tax increase. Now, what I think we are trying to do is exactly what my people at home said do. First, give them their money back. I do not think of this as a tax cut; I think of this as a tax return. We are giving $245 billion back out of the $260 billion. Now, we start doing what they told me to do. Start by cutting the spending. That is precisely what this reconciliation has done. As we talk about more details of our tax return and details of this great Medicare Program, Mr. Tiahrt and I talked about it the other night. I cannot wait for us to get home and start talking to our seniors and give them the details. Mr. RIGGS, I will yield back in hopes that we will come back and talk more about Medicare.

Mr. NORWOOD. First of all, I do not think any American would disagree with us on the point that Medicare part A was going bankrupt. If my mother-in-law was to have Medicare in the year 2002, we had to act. We could not hide behind a rock; we could not wait until the next election; we needed to deal with the problem today. That is exactly what we have done, and I am very, very pleased with the outcome. I think we have managed to do some very good things for the patients, if you will. That is how I tend to think about people. But the patients in Medicare are going to be much better off. First thing, we are going to increase the spending greatly. I know, 40 percent; I get new numbers saying up to 50 percent. But the spending over 7 years is going to increase greatly. Mr. Speaker, I will use the same tired numbers. We are now spending $4,800 per recipient. In the year 2002, we are going to be spending $6,700 per recipient. I know in Washington that is a cut, but in the 10th District of Georgia, that is a $1,900 increase.

Mr. NORWOOD. If I could, I want to hurry and bring this up. My mother-in-law may be watching. One of the things that is so great about the Medicare plan is the options. The patients are going to have the same options that we have as Congressmen. They are not going to have to have one-size-fits-all. They are going to look at a number of alternatives and they are going to pick the option that is best for that family. A 65-year-old is going to take a different option than an 85-year-old, but the point is, they will have options. Quickly, let me say, Medicare recipients do not have to do anything. If they want to stay in Medicare exactly as it is today, all they have to do is stay there. They do not even have to make a phone call. If they like part A and part B and Medigap and that suits them and they are happy with their doc, they can stay put, There is no increase in the copayments; there is no increase in the deductibles. It is exactly like it is. We are not changing anything for anybody. Now, having said that, Mother-in-law, I want to look at some of the other great options, because there are new ways to have health care. We are going to have provider service networks. Listen, I have been in health care. That is going to be great. The doctors are going to come together. The hospitals are going to come together. They are going to have efficiencies. They are going to work at getting the costs down and not have to worry about the Federal Trade Commission putting them in jail. Mr. Speaker, that is what has been holding the price up, partly, in health care. The Federal Trade Commission would not dare let two of our hospitals come together and share a CAT scan. Lord knows, that is cheating.

Mr. NORWOOD. Antitrust reforms are very important in that bill. Another option for patients will be to try managed care. That is going to be the right thing for certain people. It might not be right for everybody, but recipients can get into these programs for the first 2 years and if they do not like it in 30 days, go back. Try them all. Try even one of them. See what is best for your family. Medical savings accounts will be terrific. Not for every patient. Not for every person. But they are going to be very good for many families to choose the medical savings account where they simply get a cash rebate from the Government. Rather than them paying a recipient's Medicare bills, the recipient will put that money in the bank and draw interest on it and no tax on it. They will have a catastrophic insurance plan and they even choose the amount of their deductible; $3,000, $5,000. It is a terrific bill.

Mr. NORWOOD. Let me ask a question about that. Had we not changed things, I can expect that the likely solution would well have been to raise taxes until we get up to the President's number of 85 cents out of every dollar, leaving our children to live on 15 cents of every dollar.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, in deference to our last speaker, everybody knows that it was not the Civil War, it was the War between the States. Mr. Speaker, today we will pass a 7-year budget reconciliation that is a huge step forward for this great Nation. In the reconciliation, we will do the things the voters asked us to do when they swept the liberal Democrats of out office. We will balance the budget in 7 years, something that has not been done in a generation. Where the liberal Democrats of the 103d Congress raised taxes, we will refund taxes back to the hard working men and women in this Nation. We will fix a Medicare system that was going bankrupt. We will reform the morally bankrupt welfare system. In short, Mr. Speaker, today we will do the things we promised the American peopled we would do. I have listened to the Chicken Little Democrats whine ``this is too much, too fast, too hard''. But what do they offer? Nothing. Mr. Speaker, every day we ignore the problems of the Nation, they become worse. Now is the time for great action, and today will be remembered as a great day.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with today.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, in 1993, the liberal Democrats of the 103d Congress battled long and hard to raise taxes. They were successful to the tune of $260 billion. The American people didn't like that at all. So we had us a revolution at the ballot box. A lot of the Members of the 103d Congress didn't get reelected because of the tax increase. The 104th Congress has a lot of new faces, including mine. The American people asked us to balance the budget; they asked us to return some of the money they send to Washington. So Mr. Speaker, what will we do for the people this week? In the budget reconciliation, we will pass a balanced budget; we will cut Federal spending; and we will give back $245 billion to the working men and women of this country. That's less than the 103d Congress took out, but it will go to help families, seniors, and the middle class. It is simply a matter of keeping our word to the American people and doing as they wish.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I am here to tell you something that the people back home in Georgia thought they'd never hear me say. I am here to tell you that I agree with the President. Mr. President, I do believe you raised taxes too much. And that's why this week we are going to pass a budget reconciliation that lowers taxes. We will allow seniors to keep more of the money they earn. We will lower the capital gains rate; 77 percent of those benefiting from a lower capital gains rate will have an income of less than $75,000 a year. And we will pass a $500 per child tax credit, which will eliminate the tax burden for families making less than $25,000 and will cut the tax liability of those making between $25,000 and $30,000 in half. We are cutting taxes to benefit seniors, families, and the middle class. That's exactly what we were elected to do. Mr. President, 2 years ago, you took away $260 billion; and this week, we're going to refund that money.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I know this debate must be very difficult on our seniors trying to determine what is fact and what is not. It is particularly difficult with so much misinformation coming out on this floor. But before the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown] has an opportunity to talk about the hospitals in the 10th District of Georgia, I want the gentleman to know that those hospitals are having increased funding each year over the next 7 years. I would like for the gentleman to also know that for the first time in history of this government, we are giving the hospitals the opportunity to lower their cots by repealing very, very difficult and expensive rules and regulations, tort reform, and antitrust legislation. Mr. Chairman, giving senior Americans the option to choose from among the many new health care plans is the absolute key to saving Medicare. I want to talk just about one of those options: Provider Sponsored Networks, PSN's. Mr. Chairman, I have a message to my mother-in-law: If you like traditional Medicare, you can continue to choose it just like you have it today. Part A, part B, Medigap; can you keep it just like you have got it, if you would like to do that. But, I would like for you to consider one of these excellent choices known as Provider Sponsored Networks. Mr. Chairman, they are locally organized care networks formed by doctors and hospitals. They will provide coordinated care that allow the providers to achieve the efficiencies and cost controls that have been forbidden by laws in years past.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Well, Mr. Speaker, I indeed thank my friend from Georgia, and I congratulate him on a new grandchild coming, the first I have heard of that tonight. That will be the most important thing in your life over the next few years. I know that for a fact. I know the gentleman is probably already thinking about the fact that that child arrives in this great country owing $187,000 just for his or her part of the interest on the debt. So, yes, do we need to deal with these problems? Of course we do. I am pleased to join the gentleman. I know that this is really what would be called a discussion rather than a debate. I hate to use any of my time talking about anything but the details of this new Medicare plan, but I feel forced or I am compelled to say a little bit about myself. I am new to this. I have been in this town 9 months. I have been in this body 9 months. I have never been in politics in my life. I come from what I think is one of the professions that may be one of the most respected professions in the country, and I am saddened to say that I have moved into one of the professions that is least respected in the country, but then I understand more why today than I did a year ago. Mr. Speaker, I think probably our first vote in this great body should not be for Speaker of the House. We should take an oath here to tell the truth. Having been on the Committee on Commerce, having been on the Subcommittee for Health and the Environment, I have heard more distortion, more mistruths in the last 2 days than I have heard, I believe, in my entire lifetime. It is unfortunate that the America people will find it so difficult to find the truth when we have one group, the liberal Democrats, who really do not want to solve the problem of Medicare. They want to make darn sure we do not solve it. That is not what we should be about. We should be working together to solve one of the great problems at the end of this century. Mr. Speaker, I was sitting in the Committee on Commerce meeting room yesterday morning, and we were informed that there were a group of citizens in the lobby that wanted to come in and be heard, wanted to come in and disrupt our committee meeting, the people's business, and would in no way consider leaving unless they were handcuffed. They did come into the committee, and they were very disruptive, there is no question about it. The lady came right up to the podium. I was standing right there, and she was yelling and screaming. Not interested in what she was saying, only interested in being disruptive as we tried to do the people's business. Our chairman was very kind, Mr. Speaker, and was very gentle with this lady. He tried every way he knew how to ask them to leave, because that was not the point in time of the government to be disrupted, because we were going through this bill line by line. Finally, they would not leave and the Capitol Police were brought in and very, very, very gently escorted away. Mr. Speaker, what is so absolutely distressful about this is there was only one point in that, and that was to be disruptive, to get on television, and show blown-up pictures like we saw in this body tonight in order to misrepresent actually what happened. This was a senior citizens coalition. This was led by a paid lobbyist. This lobbyist is being paid by American citizens tax dollars. The liberal Democrats have funded them for years. Ninety-six percent of their income comes from tax dollars. Their purpose for being there was to be disruptive, to get on television, and allow people to bring in big pictures here tonight to mislead the public about the facts. Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, I heard tonight, I do not know how many times, that we have had no hearings; that all we have talked about is to special interest groups. Well, this bill is being marked up by the Committee on Commerce and by the Committee on Ways and Means. We have had over 10 hearings in the Committee on Commerce, of the subcommittee. I was there. I know we had those hearings. It is true, not many of our liberal Democrat friends bothered to come, but we had the hearings and that was their opportunity to be heard. Ways and Means has had over 30. I think 36 hearings. A lot. And, by the way, Mr. Speaker, I will be delighted to be corrected tonight if I misspeak or have anything wrong, because I am trying to tell the American people the truth as best I know it. So if I misspeak on anything, I hope my colleagues will jump right in and correct me, because we need the truth to come out.

Mr. NORWOOD. I would very much like to respond to that. Earlier this spring, we had a tax reform tax bill. In my view, what that was, it was a tax rebate. The 103d Congress raised the largest amount of taxes ever raised in the history of the United States, $260 billion. What we have said, as the 104th Congress, because the people at home said it to us, ``We do not like that tax increase. We think you should cut spending to manage your affairs up there, [[Page H 10046]] not keeping taxing us.'' Our tax reform bill puts $245 billion back into the hands of families for them to keep. None of this discussion yet has anything to do with Medicare. What we are basically saying is that young families who have an income of $25,000 and they have a couple of children at home, their tax liability goes to zero. We are saying to families that have an income of $30,000 a year, a couple of children at home their tax liability is cut by 50 percent. Now I am not sure when I am going to get to the rich, you stop me when I get to the rich, but I do not believe I have gotten to the rich yet. The whole tax reform thing is giving people back their money from the tax increase from the 103rd Congress. This money that we are saving, particularly from Part B, is going back into a lockbox. It is going back into the Federal Treasury. That is where the money came from to start with. We are putting it back into the Treasury.

Mr. NORWOOD. I think they are going to have to tell people what they are spending money for so the patient can have some input into areas that are wrong. Maybe they are honest errors. It does not matter. It is still part of that $20 billion. We have got to root that right out of this system.

Mr. NORWOOD. I do not know if once and for all is correct. A crook is a crook and is going to continue to be a crook. But in general, we are tightening that up tremendously. It was very interesting to me in the markup yesterday that we were talking about that in the Medicare program, 10 percent of that goes to waste, fraud and abuse, and the number is debatable about how much money is lost every year, but is between $18 billion and $20 billion a year, and to me it appears that the operators of HCFA are incompetent. It just set the other side on fire for us to say how dare we call them incompetent. They have for years let waste, fraud and abuse go ahead at about a 10 percent level. And when asking the director of HCFA, ``Well, when are you going to solve this problem,'' he said, ``Well, maybe in another year to two we will come up with a plan.'' Well, we have come up with a pretty darn good plan now. The gentleman and I will do this together, but we have got a task force being set up that is basically funded by those who abuse the system, and the penalties go back into the system to fund this task force. I think probably most of all, we are going to involve the patient with their bill. We do not even do that very well. A lot of times they may be charged for that second lab test, but the poor patient does not know it. They do not receive the bill. We are going to insist that HCFA and that crowd send patients a copy of their bill as they pay them. Can you imagine? I cannot understand why in the world we would never have done that before.