Charlie Norwood

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. The marketplace comes into this. The marketplace is going to bring these costs down.

Mr. NORWOOD. Go back to what they have got right now.

Mr. NORWOOD. Every 30 days.

Mr. NORWOOD. The networks may be just a group of physicians who are offering part B. It may be a group just of hospitals that are offering part A. Or it may be a combination of physicians and hospitals who get together and achieve the efficiencies that medicine could have done for years had it not been for the Justice Department up here. It is going to be a great move in the right direction, cut the middle man, lower the costs, and let people be involved in their health care with their doctor, not with HCFA.

Mr. NORWOOD. Yes.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, we need to talk a little bit about the specifics. I think that, if there is anything good that has come out of the Committee on Commerce markup over the last 2 days, at least we have the Democrats admitting that part A of the trust fund is in fact going bankrupt in 7 years. That is the best we can get out of them. They will admit that the hospital part of the fund, that paid for by payroll taxes, is doing broke in the year 2002. They say to us, however: Well, you do not need to save $270 billion because part B, which is the part paid basically for physician services, is just great. It is fine. It is doing super. Well, patients today pay 31.5 percent of their part of the premium in part B. Guess who pays the 68.5 percent? The Treasury, the American people. That is subsidized. We are glad to do that as long as we can. We want to help people as much as the other side does. But, my colleagues, I will have to tell you, the part that comes out of the Federal Treasury, that 68.5 percent, is growing unbelievably out of control. And think of this: That Treasury that they never considered that this country can ever run out of money, that is the Treasury that owes $5 trillion. This is the Treasury that borrows a trillion dollars every 4 years, if we do not change what they are doing. We are going to be borrowing a trillion dollars every 3 years when we hit the 21st century. The price of medicine is going to continue to go up as long as we do not go into this program and we rework it, as we have. So it is not fair to say that the part B part of the trust fund does not have just as serious a problem as the part A part of the trust fund. Now, I think if I could only have one message go out of here tonight, it would be this: We are going to offer senior citizens many choices and we want to hit all those choices. But the think I would like for my mother-in- [[Page H 10044]] law to hear and remember more than anything else is that, if you like Medicare as it is today, part A, part B, Medigap, messing with HCFA, if you like all of that, you can stay with it. You do not have to do one thing to change that. Is the co-payment going up? No. Is the deductible going up? No. It is going to be exactly next year like it was last year, if you make that choice. Now, I believe many seniors will look at the different great options that we are going to give them, and some are going to take different choices. But any senior citizen who wants to stay on Medicare precisely as it is today can do so without any increase in cost. Let me conclude one thought about that. I think that it is wrong for us to stand here and not say to senior citizens, that 31 percent that you pay for your premium in part B, it is going up. It is going to increase. It has doubled over the last 7 years under the present Medicare plan. It has gone from around 20 bucks up to 46 bucks a month. I will stay here right now and tell anybody who wants to know, it is probably going to go up in the neighborhood of about $90 a month by the year 2002. But that has nothing to do with our reforms. That increase in the part B premium is going to occur whether we reform Medicare or whether we leave it exactly as it is today. So in general, and I know it is someone else's time, but in general, anybody who wants to keep Medicare as they have it today with no increased cost in part A and an increase in your premium cost in part B because of inflation, then you can stay right there.

Mr. NORWOOD. That is correct. It is not going to increase.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, the lobbyists that organized this, did the gentleman tell me earlier that this lobbyist is the public relations person for the seniors coalition?

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

Mr. NORWOOD. We have tried very hard, Mr. Tiahrt, to hear from all people involved in health care. That means the patient, that means groups represented by AARP, that means the hospital and the hospital administrators. They are involved in health care. They should be involved. They should have some input into this great bill. It certainly means the providers of health care, meaning the physicians. They are involved. This bill affects their lives tremendously. We brought in people and experts to hear what they felt about it. In addition, we also had senior citizens, who are on Medicare, come into the hearings and speak to us. The other side talks about special interest groups. A special interest group is when President Clinton puts 500 people in a room who will do exactly what he wants to try to determine the health care of this Nation. Mr. Speaker, I think we have done this right. We have talked to as many people as we possibly could to have their input. The AMA? Sure. They have had input into this. Of course, they should have had input into this, just as AARP should have had input. We have been very fair with this. We have met with many, many people, and I think that we have come up with a solution to one of the most difficult problems we have to face in the 104th Congress.

Mr. NORWOOD. No, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the gentleman for asking, many of those hearings lasted all day. What I noticed most of all was that the loyal opposition failed to come. We have had all summer to discuss this bill, and we have done that. I know what my other colleague from Georgia has been doing. I am from Georgia, too. We have been going home and talking to our senior citizens, having time after time town hall meetings.

Mr. NORWOOD. Seven dollars per month.

Mr. NORWOOD. Our proposal increases that $7 a month.

Mr. NORWOOD. Per month.

Mr. NORWOOD. Exactly as we do it today.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I come to the well today for a very pleasant task, to honor a friend of mine, but I cannot even come and do that without correcting the comments of the previous speaker. I, too, am on the Committee on Commerce. We held so many Medicaid hearings, I am not sure of the number, but I think it was 8 to 10, somewhere in that area. The gentleman talked of cuts in Medicaid. Let me tell the Members something. The State of Georgia is going to get a 7.2-percent increase next year in Medicaid spending, and in 1997 a 9- percent increase in Medicaid spending, so I apologize that I have to bring that up, but I would like for the American people to hear the truth. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to talk about a great American. Next week, Dr. Don Johnson will end his reign as president of the International College of Dentistry. It is the crowning achievement of one man's tremendous career, a man I am very proud to call my friend. Don is a Georgian through and through. He was born and raised in Atlanta. He graduated from the Emory University School of Dentistry in 1961 and has been a practicing dentist ever since. He continued to contribute to his alma mater as a member of Emory's Board of Visitors. There are two things that have always amazed me about Don. He has been a visionary in the dental field, and he has a boundless energy to contribute to his profession. I recently had the opportunity to go back and read an interview with Don that appeared in the Georgia Dental Association's Newsletter. I was astounded at how insightful his comments were. Don was able to see in 1986 where the dental profession needed to be in 1996. He foresaw the problems in dentistry today that were only smoldering 10 years ago. Don is a man with tremendous energy. He has run a successful dental practice for many years, yet he has still found the time to volunteer in service to his profession. He is a former president of the Georgia Dental Association, a former president of the Northern District Dental Society, and a former president of the Hinman Dental Society. He is a fellow of the American College of Dentists, the International College of Dentists, and a member of the eminent Pierre Fauchard Academy. In 1988, he was named the ``Man of the Year in Dentistry'' by the Northern District Dental Society. He has published numerous scholarly articles and presented many technical papers at dental conferences. He has done all this while running his practice and raising two daughters, serving in his church, and on top of all that he is an accomplished airplane pilot. Mr. Speaker, It is my pleasure today to bring before you the accomplishments of Dr. Don Johnson of Atlanta, GA, president of the International College of Dentists, and a great American.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, the Markey cable amendment embodies all that is wrong with Government regulation. It sets prices for a private industry, cable television. It lowers the threshold for price controls to systems with 10,000 or fewer subscribers. It lowers the complaint threshold from 5 percent of subscribers to 10--yes 10, individual subsbribers--to which the FCC can respond with a rate review. Mr. Chairman, I have seen the amount of paperwork a cable operator can be asked to provide the FCC in response to a complaint. It is absolutely unbelievable. And this amendment would make it more likely that cable operators would have to fill out these massive forms for the FCC. H.R. 1555 promotes deregulation and competition in all telecommunications industries, including cable. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this effort at price control and regulation of the cable industry.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. I am pleased today to support H.R. 1555, the Communications Act of 1995. I know this has been a long, tedious process with a wide range of industries taking keen interest in every jot and title of this bill. But Mr. Chairman, as the Titans of industry have waged their battle over this piece of legislation, it is important to note that the primary beneficiary will be and ought to be the American consumer of telephone, cable and all communications services. As the markets open up in these areas and real competition is realized, just as we've seen in the video and computer industry, we will have better technology at lower prices. Mr. Chairman, I can't let this moment pass without commenting on the battle between the Bells and long distance that is raging still. As the gentlemen from Texas and Virginia have done, I had representatives from both interests in my office at the same time to talk with each other and try to resolve their differences. Perhaps at the end of this process we will finally see an agreeable solution. I realize that one party wants free access to all markets--which eventually I believe will happen--and the other is asking for a reasonable transition period of regulation so their markets are not taken away by the companies that own the phone lines. This bill, however imperfectly, does establish this balance. As my friend from Washington, Mr. White, has graciously reminded me throughout the process--I thank him for his advice and help--the Congress is the one entity that is trying to strike the most fair balance. The other parties own huge interests in getting their way, or at least getting a ``fair advantage,'' to borrow a phrase from the chairman from Virginia. I would also like to thank Mr. Bliley and Mr. Fields for their hard work on this bill and many long hours and still more frequent meetings and hearings that made this legislation possible. I appreciate their concern for the smaller rural phone companies that could have been severely hurt by much bigger companies during the transition period to deregulation. The chairmen also know my concern about the Federal Communications Commission's regulatory underbrush that still exists for common carriers. I appreciate the adoption of Mr. Boucher's amendment in the Commerce Committee that did lighten the load by removing regulations created for another era. Perhaps we can work on further regulatory relief in the future that would unburden common carriers even more. I am particularly concerned about the smaller carriers that may not have the resources or the legal staff to push the amount of paper that the FCC demands. Mr. Chairman, I support this bill. A bill this large cannot be perfect. But it does get us way down the road to competition, free markets, better technology and lower prices for the consumer. I urge its passage.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Markey V-chip amendment. I realize the authors of this amendment are well-meaning. They see the importance of providing family viewing for American children. My gosh, we all would agree with that. We all share in that goal. That is the one vote that could get 435 votes for that. We do not want any more violence on television. The debate is about the solution. I disagree with the solution of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey]. A censorship commission run by Federal bureaucrats is a horrendous idea. The V-chip will only block programs rated as violent or indecent by the rating commission. Read the Senate language. We will replace parental choice with a Federal bureaucrat, and I do not trust a bureaucrat in this town to make a sensible decision where ratings are concerned. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Markey V-chip amendment and vote for the Coburn amendment.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Sanders amendment, because I believe it would restrict drug companies from producing the very medicines that save life prolong life, and improve life. We have the greatest biotech industry in the world, an industry that already spends $7 billion each year on its own research. Yes, drug prices are high, but they are high for a variety of reasons, one of which is the cost of research is very high, and drug companies have to put up with so much interference from the Federal Government. If we try to regulate drug prices, as in this amendment, we will only make the critical voyage to discovery of new medicines more difficult. Some people think that the Government should set prices for all drugs. I think that is wrong, and I am certain it is wrong for patients who ultimately benefit from the new medicines. It would also hurt the taxpayers, since the Government spends so much of our tax dollars on health care. The dollars spent by the taxpayers for basic research at NIH ultimately benefit the Government through lower medical costs, and more importantly, it benefits all patients. We should not do anything to obstruct the research drug companies are carrying out today. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will hurt research and ultimately it will hurt patients. We cannot let this Government set any prices, but most certainly, not drug prices. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Speaker, I have come to the floor to correct a few things ABC's report on ergonomics last night would have led the American people to believe. Madam Speaker, ABC says that 60 percent of workplace illness occurs from repetitive motion. Why would they give out that number? Why would they not say that the Bureau of Labor Statistics says that only 7 percent of the workplace illnesses occur because of repetitive strain? Why would ABC not have said, The National Safety Council does not agree with either one? They say that only 4 percent of the workplace illnesses come from repetitive strain. It is a perfect example of what is wrong in this town. Where did ABC get 60 percent? They got it from Joe Dear. Why did Joe Dear say 60 percent? So he could do what they have been doing for 40 years: Run down to this Congress and say, ``Look at all these problems. I need more money. I need more people. I need to grow my agency.''

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly, strongly oppose this amendment on many grounds, but for the point of this debate, let us just talk about his language that strikes the provision to control OSHA and ergonomics. Now, what is ergonomics? Ergonomics is simply repetitive motion. It might occur from playing tennis, it might occur from skiing, it might occur from fly fishing, perhaps it even can occur from using a computer too long. If we have ergonomics, what really does it do? Well, they call it repetitive strain injury. I think we can all agree that there is such a thing. All of us over 50 know that there is repetitive strain injury. But how pervasive is it? Well, do not bother to find out. There is no correct answer. Mr. Chairman, OSHA estimates that such injuries account for 60 percent of all workplace illnesses. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says that that figure is 7 percent. The National Safety Council thinks, well, maybe it is 4 percent. Well, that is the problem, the reason repetitive strain injury is the workplace's most complicated and controversial problem. Now, beyond the fact that we know that there is such a thing, there is little agreement on this subject. One problem is that no one can determine the scope of the phenomena. Remember, these divergent statistics are offered by OSHA and the National Safety Council, but another involves the question of cause and effect, a science that is very muddled at best when it involves RSI, repetitive strain injury. For instance, two secretaries work the same hours every day. One develops stiffness in her fingers and the other does not. An assembly line worker suffers from crippling backaches. His colleague who works right beside him and does the same thing whistles all through the day. Now, did the employer's work cause the pain, or something else? What should an employer reasonably be expected to do about this? The way OSHA looked at the issue, every job would become a disorder waiting to happen. In its zeal to protect workers' health, the agency drafted a report identifying risk factors on the job from heavy lifting to working in cramped spaces. The 4-inch thick, 600-page document offers guidance to companies in reducing those risks. OSAH's regulations would have affected everyone who moves or works on the job. Mr. Chairman, medical science cannot yet determine the cause. It affects everyone, and medical science cannot pinpoint the cause. This will not change the basic fact that there are not always clear causes or remedies for RSI. You cannot mandate a fix if the fix is not out there. However, we have an agency today who would mandate a fix. We have an agency today, and people in that agency, that we cannot allow to write ergonomic standards. We all want health and safety in the workplace, but this particular OSHA should not be allowed to do such a dangerous thing to the economy of this country and the consumers of every one of our districts.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger] yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment on the same grounds that I opposed the Obey amendment 10 minutes ago. We must not allow OSHA to write an ergonomic standard about a medical condition they know nothing about. We do not even know for sure how many repetitive-strain injuries occur in this country. How can we say that it costs $20 billion when we are not sure exactly who has a repetitive-strain injury? How is it two employess can do the exact same thing, and one of them has a strain injury, and one does not? Mr. Chairman, OSHA cannot write this standard yet. They do not have the ability, medical science does not have the ability, to determine when a person has a repetitive-strain injury. I ask, ``Is your sore elbow sore from tennis, or is it sore from work? Is your sore ankle from skiing, or is it sore from work?'' Mr. Chairman, we do not have the ability yet to understand this. Vote against this amendment.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Secretary of Labor issued a so-called analysis that supposedly showed that Republican OSHA reforms would lead to more workplace injuries. This is outrageous fearmongering. Instead of playing politics, the Secretary should be finding an answer for the question we have asked: Why, after spending over $4 billion, is there so little evidence that OSHA has made a real impact on reducing injuries and deaths? The Secretary is fond of noting that injury rates have been declining since OSHA's birth in 1970, but he rarely mentions that those rates have been dropping, indeed, since 1946. Perhaps the Secretary just does not want to consider the real world. Maybe he is just too busy trying to figure out that government can run our lives to think that OSHA really is a failure. It is time the American taxpayer insisted that OSHA spend at least half of its funds on health and safety in the workplace, rather than hiring dictators to fine small businesses.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, by now it is no secret that I want to change the way OSHA does business. I have come to the floor many times to talk about the excesses of OSHA. But our OSHA reform bill is not simply about curbing the regulatory excesses of OSHA; our bill seeks to restore the freedoms OSHA has taken away. Mr. Speaker, allow me to quote from the sixth amendment to the Constitution. ``the accused shall enjoy the right * * * to be confronted with the witnesses against him.'' Mr. Speaker, under current OSHA policy that right does not exist. If OSHA shows up on your doorstep today to investigate an alleged violation, you as an employer have no right to know who reported a violation. That policy encourages OSHA to be used as a tool of disgruntled employees and labor negotiators. Our bill will require that employees work with employers to correct safety problems. I have heard critics complain that employees will be afraid to question workplace safety for fear that an employer may take action against them. Maybe these people have forgotten about bureaucracies like the National Labor Relations Board or the labor lawyers salivating over a case like that. Anyone who believes that an employee does not have recourse against an employer probably thinks Medicare isn't going bankrupt. Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of testifying before the Small Business Committee last week on OSHA reform. It reminded me why OSHA reform is so important. OSHA regulations strangle small businesses. OSHA threatens the livelihood of small business men and women all over America. It is just that simple. When OSHA sends out a 6-inch thick document on Air Quality, a small business owner doesn't say to himself ``Wow! Here's a way for me to make my workplace safer for my employees.'' Instead, he says ``How am I ever going to figure out what is in here? Will I have to hire someone just to figure it out? Is it going to force me to lay-off a worker or raise my prices?'' Mr. Speaker, I ask you, is it any wonder that small business are terrified of OSHA? In my opinion, here lies OSHA's basic flaw * * * OSHA acts as though the only people who care about workplace safety live here in Washington, DC. Nothing could be further from the truth. Small business men and women throughout America are deeply concerned about workplace safety. Their employees are often family. Employers want safe workplaces. They need help from OSHA. A 6-inch stack of regulations and the threat of a costly fine do little to improve workplace safety. A new improved OSHA will work with employees to teach them how to make the workplaces safer. We must have a carrot to go with the stick OSHA has grown so addicted to. OSHA should spend as much of the taxpayers money trying to educate employers as they do trying to collect fines. Mr. Speaker, I am not convinced that OSHA can ever be reformed. However, if it is ever to be reformed, the steps taken in H.R. 1834, the OSHA Reform Act, will make a real difference. I strongly encourage my colleagues to stand up for workplace safety and co-sponsor H.R. 1834, the OSHA Reform Act.