Charlie Norwood

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, today's vote to lift the arms embargo on Bosnia is undeniably an important one. But I would ask my colleagues to take a long, hard look at the bigger picture. Lifting the arms embargo is an important step and a step that I will support, but I believe we should not miss this opportunity to stand up for what we believe in and state clearly what we think America's role should be in the Balkans. Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that at the current time we have no useful role in Bosnia. The fighting is escalating between the various parties. The relative calm in eastern Bosnia has now become a war zone. The so-called safe havens have proven to be no such thing, and only serve to embarrass the United Nations. Leadership has been completely vacant during this crisis. Machiavelli said that it is better for a leader to be feared than loved. The United Nations has been an utter failure every step of the way trying to get the parties to love each other. NATO, including the United States, has failed in trying to threaten the parties into behaving. And now we want the Bosnian Serbs to believe we will bomb them if they do not behave. We have given them no reason to believe that we will back up any threat with action. It is time for us to pull out before we sacrifice American lives to show we mean business. How can we let the carnage continue? How can we sit idly by and let the ethnic cleansing continue? I hear those concerns over and over again, but I must ask in response: What can we do to truly stop the fighting? I will make one suggestion, if we, along with our European allies, land 500,000 to 750,000 troops in Bosnia and threaten to shoot anyone who gives someone a dirty look or uses harsh language we might be able to stop the fighting. Is anyone in this Chamber ready to support that action? Neither am I, but I do believe anything short of massive action is doomed to failure. With that in mind, I would make one further recommendation to my colleagues, if a U.N. pullout can be accomplished with the use of only 25,000 American troops then it can be accomplished without any American troops. No mother or father or wife or husband should be forced to grieve for a loved one who died because the United Nations was an utter and complete failure. In my view, we must lift the arms embargo and encourage the United Nations to leave Bosnia. We should take every action to limit the fighting in the former Yugoslavia. The United Nations, NATO, the European Community, and yes, the United States, must provide the warring parties every opportunity to reach a negotiated peace. I would like to see the fighting stopped, but I do not feel it can be stopped without massive intervention. Mr. Speaker, I received my foreign policy training in Vietnam in 1968 and 1969. I know how costly a limited American commitment can mean in terms of the lives of young men and women. I know the cost of doing things halfway. We have the opportunity to do just that in Bosnia. We can take limited actions here and there, and that will be a tragic mistake. I would encourage my colleagues to act today and in the future to prevent American soldiers from dying because we decided to do something halfway.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, this truly is an amazing 20 minutes, and surely must be very confusing to those people who are listening. Perhaps if we simplify this a little and do a little of the things that we might have done in the fourth grade, and use some repetition. The average spending per Medicare beneficiary today is $4,800. Under the Republican plan, Medicare spending per beneficiary in the year 2002 will be $6,700. Under this plan, Medicare spending increases by $1,900 per beneficiary. That is a 40-percent increase. Let us try again, Mr. Speaker. The average spending per Medicare beneficiary today is $4,800. Under the Republican plan, Medicare spending per beneficiary in the year 2002 will be $6,700. Under this plan Medicare spending will increase by $1,900. Mr. Speaker, that is a 40-percent increase.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, once again, one more time we hear the liberal Democrats whining and crying. They go to great lengths to convince senior citizens that Republicans are going to hurt them. But instead of the overheated rhetoric, let us talk about the facts. It is a fact that in the last Congress, liberal Democrats voted to increase taxes on seniors. Not one Republican voted for that tax increase. Earlier this year, the Republicans voted to give seniors a tax cut to allow the seniors to keep more of the money that they earn. What did the liberal Democrats do? They voted against the tax cut for seniors. When the trustees of Medicare, including three members of Mr. Clinton's administration, reports that Medicare is going bankrupt, Republicans are stepping up, stepping up to the plate trying to fix Medicare and preserve this system for the next century. [[Page H 7562]] What is the liberal Democratic plan for Medicare? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to spend some time with my grandchildren this past weekend, and like any good grandfather I read them fairy tales before bedtime. It made me think about the problems we have here in Washington. Some people have a hard time separating facts from fairy tales. It is simply a matter of fact that Medicare will go bankrupt in 7 years. It is a fact documented in a report put out by the Medicare Trustees, three of whom are members of the Mr. Clinton's administration. Anyone who tells you differently, well that is a fairy tale. The Republicans have made a decision to fix Medicare. We will strengthen Medicare so that it may survive well into the next century. That is a fact. We must act to save the system now. That is also a fact. Anyone who would tell you that Medicare is doing just fine, and that the Republicans are trying to fix a system that isn't broken, well, that is someone who has been reading way too much of Alice in Wonderland lately.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor this morning with the people back home in mind. For me, home is Augusta, GA, and the 10th District of Georgia. I must tell you how wonderful it was for me to be home this past weekend. Spending time with the hard-working people of the 10th district serves to strengthen my resolve, that what we are doing here in the next few months is what is right for America. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the people of America to consider the facts of our situation. We are 5 trillion dollars in debt. Fifteen cents of every dollar we spend goes to interest on the debt. The problem of the debt continues to grow out of control. Consider this: On February the 6th, I came to the floor in support of the line-item veto. In my remarks, I noted that the students in Sallie Bullock's calculus class at Madison County High in Danielsville, GA, already collectively owe $310,760. I noted that Mary Mills' 5th grade class at Oconee County Intermediate School in Watkinsville, GA, already owes $365,600. I noted that Martha Scroggs' kindergarten class at Episcopal Day School in Augusta already owes $457,000. Since I gave that speech 5 short months ago, Sallie Bullock's students owe an additional $7,600; Mary Mills' students owe an additional $8,940; and Martha Scroggs' students owe an additional $11,175. Mr. Speaker, what did those children do to earn that additional debt? How can we so thoughtless saddle children just out of kindergarten with more and more debt? It is immoral and we must bring that to an end by balancing our budget. Mr. Speaker, it is simply a matter of fact that Medicare will go bankrupt in 7 years. It is a documented fact in a report put out by the Medicare trustees--three of whom are members of the Clinton administration. The solvency of Medicare is not a partisan issue. Medicare is going bankrupt. The Republicans have made a decision to fix Medicare. We will strengthen Medicare so that it may survive well into the next century. We must act to save the system now. Pretending that everything is all right is simply fantasizing. Mr. Speaker, on this day many centuries ago, Emperor Nero Played his fiddle while the great city of Rome burned to the ground. It appears that all these centuries later, some of my colleagues on the other side have decided to take up Emperor Nero's mantle. Some of my colleagues want to play games. Last week the other side issued the proclamation that if the we, the Republicans, don't speed up the reconciliation process then they will slow the business of the House down. Yes, America--that's right. If we don't speed up; they will slow things down. Mr. Speaker, let me be the first to say that I will stay here morning, noon, and night to balance our budget and to save Medicare from bankruptcy. I will stay here through the weekends to balance our budget and to save Medicare from bankruptcy. I will be here until the cows come home--if that's what it takes to balance our budget and to save Medicare from bankruptcy. The future of our Nation is at stake-- and I would urge my colleagues to rise above the political games others may want to play. The business we are doing for America is too important to be sidetracked by those who would rather fiddle.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I suppose quickly we need to correct a couple of things. The gentlewoman from Hawaii should know that the Savannah River site is in South Carolina. This is not a discussion about where we will build tritium but how. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts in recognizing that we in fact do need to build tritium, and we are going to do it, need to be doing it by 2001, not 2017. Mr. Chairman, for many years the Department of Energy has commenced many projects, spent huge amounts of money and often has little, if anything, to show for it in many cases. A perfectly good example of that, a recent example includes the high level waste repository in Nevada. Mr. Chairman, as some of my colleagues stated in a news conference last week in regards to a proposal of the elimination of DOE, the Department suffers from problems of communication and contracting and management and mission. Their latest effort to determine the future tritium production technology [[Page H5994]] and siting has many of the same problems. This is a very complicated technical issue, but let us try to simplify it just a little bit. We know how to make a reactor. We have been doing that now for 30 years. The technology is there. If we go with a triple play reactor, we know we can privatize the construction of it. In a country that has 5 trillion dollars' worth of cash flow problems, that is important. We know for a fact that this reactor will burn plutonium and help get rid of waste. We also know it will produce electricity, which will help, indeed, cut the cots. What we absolutely must consider here is that the cost of using an accelerator, technology that we do not know for sure will work, will be considerably more expensive, to the tune of about $10 billion. We talk about $50 million, and this is a $10 billion project, if we do not go with the triple play reactor. Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to vote against the Markey amendment. Mr. Chairman, for many years the Department of Energy has commenced many projects, spent huge amounts of money and has little, if anything, to show for it in many cases. A recent example of this includes the high level waste repository in Nevada. As some of my colleagues stated in a news conference last week regarding the proposed elimination of the DOE: The Department suffers from problems of communication, contracting, management, and mission. Their latest effort to determine the future tritium production technology and siting has many of the same problems. I believe the action taken by the House National Security Committee to authorize funding for a privatized multipurpose reactor technology is the only logical approach for the success of the next tritium production mission. This reactor would consume our excess plutonium, produce tritium and generate electricity. The resale of this electricity would generate revenues that would directly reduce the total cost to the taxpayer. The logical siting of such a reactor is the Savannah River site in South Carolina. The site has been the leader in tritium production and other related missions for more than 30 years. The taxpayer has payed billions of dollars over these 30 years building the tritium infrastructure I speak of. Mr. Chairman, it would not be prudent to rebuild a new tritium infrastructure elsewhere at an even higher cost to the taxpayer, just to satisfy the political motives of DOE. The action by the committee represents, Mr. Chairman, it represents sound judgment to reverse the poor decisions DOE has been making for years and to ensure we continue to maintain our nuclear weapons stockpile. It is imperative that we continue to produce tritium no later than the year 2011. If we do not, our nuclear weapons stockpile will not be maintained at the level necessary to maintain our nuclear deterrence. Mr. Chairman, the committee's decision also represents one that will cost the American taxpayer far less money, and ensure we start producing tritium no later than the year 2011. There is a general concern by many that disposing of excess weapons grade plutonium in this reactor is a proliferation concern. This concern is unwarranted. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty contains specific provisions which allow the use of this material in nuclear reactors for peaceful purposes. Ridding ourselves of excess plutonium is definitely a peaceful purpose. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, if we allow the DOE to select an accelerator to produce this tritium; a decision I believe they have already made, we run a high degree of risk of not having a nuclear capability in the year 2011. Assuming it did work, and there is no evidence that an accelerator of the magnitude required will work, the lifecycle costs would amount to billions of dollars more than a multipurpose reactor. I am not prepared, and I am sure many of my colleagues are not prepared to take that risk. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the Markey amendment.

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

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to say that this authorization defense bill does not earmark where we produce tritium. It does imply how we should produce tritium, and that is because the Department of Energy has made up their mind that they want to use a faulty process in the accelerator that may not let us have the tritium we need to have a nuclear proliferation.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand a petition signed by 137 hard-working men and women from the R&R Manufacturing Co. in Auburn, GA. They signed their names to this paper asking me to vote for a balanced budget. They understand the cost of not balancing our budget. They understand why we must make a shared sacrifice in order to save our children's future. Republicans in the House and Senate understand-- we voted to balance the budget. Even the President said he would finally submit a balanced budget--of course he then changed his mind. Maybe he just doesn't understand. But to my friends and neighbors back home like Mr. Jean Withers at R&R Manufacturing, I say this--we listened to what you said in November--we are making the hard choices, and we will balance the budget. It's all about keeping your word. And to my 137 friends back in Auburn, GA, I am keeping my word to you.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I particularly thank the chairman because he knows, as I know, I am not on the Committee on Rules nor am I on the Committee on National Security, but I am also interested in defense. I do not think you have to be a rocket scientist to know that over the last few years this country has weakened our defenses considerably, and I would like to see us strengthen them. In addition to strengthening them, I wanted to make sure that we do so and keep ourselves out of war. I have participated in one war, and a strong national defense is the certain way to make certain that my children and grandchildren do not have to participate in that. Now, Mr. Speaker, this rule is more than fair to all sides. With the scope and breadth of this bill, I think it would be impossible for us to move forward in shoring up our weakened defenses and the low level of readiness without such a structured rule and debate. In reviewing the rule, it is obvious that all points of view from hawk to dove will be represented and will be given ample time and opportunity to be heard. And once they are heard we will vote, and then we are going to move forward. This bill is too important to bog down in petty disagreements. We need this bill to better protect our soldiers in the field and to keep our technological edge in a very dangerous world. Yes, we have won the cold war. Now, because we have won that war, we are given a much more unstable world, which requires us to be just as vigilant, just as prepared, and just as willing to be the world's leader. Later in debate on this bill, I will outline the importance of resuming tritium production to our Nation's defense and the upkeep of our nuclear arsenal that has helped keep the world in peace over the last 50 years. This defense authorization is a step in the right direction that takes into account our more than $5 trillion worth of debt. Do I wish we could go further? Yes, I do. Do I wish we could go further? Indeed, I certainly do. Do I think this rule is fair? Yes, I do. Am I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the following committees and their subcommittees be permitted to sit today while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole under the 5-minute rule: Committee on Agriculture; Committee on Banking and Financial Services; Committee on Commerce; Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities; Committee on Government Reform and Oversight; Committee on International Relations; Committee on the Judiciary; Committee on Resources; and Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. It is my understanding that the minority has been consulted and that there is no objection to these requests.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I ran for this office because I saw a government out of control, I see a Congress who clearly did not understand, and this morning I see additional Members of Congress who do not understand. Like the people of the 10th District of Georgia, I want a government to protect our borders and help maintain order, but otherwise I want government out of my life, out of my business and, most especially out of my pocket. Mr. Speaker, in these first 100 days, we have made significant steps forward. We have cut Government regulation and cut taxes to return more of the fruits of labor back to workers who earn them. I can tell we are making progress because the liberal Democrats are whining loud and the bureaucrats are running scared. There is still a long way to go. Balancing the budget will not be easy. But to the people back home, I say we can take back this great Nation of ours from the people who think that government knows best; stay involved; stay with us; we will take this country back.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I suppose it would be in order for me to say briefly, about the speech you heard 10 minutes ago about OSHA, that all of those horror stories that you heard were true. Having practiced dentistry for 25 years, I was one of the people under the gun when I would try to give back my children their baby teeth, and that is, in fact, a true story. It is also additionally nice to hear the people on the other side of the aisle be for the tax deduction for business people, for self- employed people for their health care insurance, but it does make one wonder whey we did not pass that last year when they were in charge of Congress. But, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Tax Fairness Act because it will benefit average, hard-working Americans. I am particularly in support of the capital gains tax cut because when you strip away the rhetoric, reducing the capital gains tax is simply a good idea. Mr. Speaker, when we move beyond the nonsensical class-warfare arguments against cutting the capital gains tax, the economic reality is clear. All Americans will benefit from cutting the capital gains tax. It will encourage investment and create jobs. The capital gains tax penalizes investment and risk taking. Investors are discouraged from investing in startup ventures because they might actually make money. In turn, this makes it more difficult for entrepenuers trying to start a business to find investors. If they cannot start a business, they cannot create jobs. By penalizing successful investments through the capital gains tax, the Federal Government costs the economy jobs. The Democrats will argue that cutting the capital gains tax is only a tax break for the rich. Of course, that is simply not true. If you own an asset like a house or a farm or a small business or any stocks or bonds, you will be subject to the capital gains tax if you sell that asset for more than you paid for it. Millions of Americans own assets that are subject to the capital gains tax, and that is why 70 percent of the people who will benefit from a cut in the capital gains tax will have incomes of less than $50,000. Maybe the Democrats think that is a tax break for the rich, but I call that commonsense help for hard- working Americans. Mr. Speaker, the current high capital gains tax rate has been an utter failure as a tax policy. The economic forecasts the Democrats cite in attacking the capital gains tax cut have been thoroughly discredited by history. When Ronald Reagan cut the capital gains rate in the early 1980's, the amount collected from capital gains taxes soared. When the tax rate was raised in 1986, the revenues collected from capital gains taxes dropped like a rock. That the CBO's forecast for 1987 and beyond missed by a mile speaks volumes about the misconceptions that surround capital gains. Like the Democrats, the CBO believed that you could raise revenue by raising the capital gains tax. In reality, potential investors worked so hard to avoid the tax increase that revenues fell. The CBO's error in predicting capital gains tax revenue cost the Treasury $170 billion. Annual capital gains tax collections have been declining rapidly since 1986. The current capital gains tax rate is just not good economic policy. Mr. Speaker, a good friend of mine named Bartow Morgan encouraged me long and hard to support the capital gains tax cut. He knew how much the capital gains tax hurt the economy and the potential investments that were suppressed by the capital gains tax. That Bartow Morgan did not live to see us cut the capital gains tax is terribly disappointing to me. Mr. Speaker, when we pass the Tax Fairness Act Thursday, I for one will be thinking of people like Bartow Morgan, who believed that cutting the capital gains tax would help all Americans, and never allowed themselves to be swayed by the class warfare that we so often hear from the Democrats. Mr. Speaker, cutting the capital gains tax is the right thing to do for all Americans and I strongly urge my colleagues to remember that when we vote on Thursday.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Tax Relief Act because it is the right thing to do for America. We will put money into the hands of hard-working people who need their own money to make ends meet. We will provide tax relief for working seniors. But more than anything else we will do this week, we will draw a line between the two parties. We will make it crystal clear to the American people which party fights over big government and big spending and which party wants you to have more of your own money. Mr. Speaker, that we are doing the right thing for America should be obvious--we will pass a $500 tax credit. Families with children earning less than $25,000 will have their entire Federal income tax liability eliminated by the tax credit. We will lower the burden on married couples struggling to get by, by passing a tax credit for married couples. We will pass the American dream savings account which will allow hard-working families to save money for college, or a home, or health care tax free. them to hold a job without facing an outrageous tax bill. Under current tax law, a senior who makes over $11,000 will face a marginal tax rate of 56 percent, that is more than the tax rate for millionaires. We will send the right message to working seniors--that it is good to work at any age, unlike the current negative message that says the Federal Government will penalize you for working. Mr. Speaker, the Tax Relief Act will provide tax incentives for people who purchase long-term health care. We will also provide a tax credit for people who provide long-term care at home for an elderly relative. We will increase saving in this country by encouraging IRA investment. Simply put, we will provide tax relief for millions of average Americans who will greatly benefit from the opportunity to keep more of their hard-earned money. And that is what separates us from the Democrats. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats will argue that we are giving tax breaks to the rich. Of course they defined rich. That the Democrats hate the rich is a given. We could talk about why for hours, but there is a far more troubling aspect to the Democrats argument. Time and time again, we hear the Democrats arguing for bigger government and more of your money. During the unfunded mandates debate, the Democrats argued that the Federal Government knew best and the States should follow our orders regardless of the cost. During the regulatory reform debate, the Democrats argued that Federal regulators needed their dictatorial power. When we argued for greater local government control during the crime bill debate, the Democrats argued that the faceless bureaucrat knows best. And when we took power away from the Federal bureaucrats who run the welfare system, the Democrats screamed from the roof tops that we were starving children, which could not have been any further from the truth. Mr. Speaker, this debate over the Tax Relief Act is not about rich or poor, it is about control. When we vote for you to have more of your money, for you to spend your money on your children or your home or your retirement, you control more of your money, and government should do less. There will be fewer unfunded mandates, less regulation, less control over crime and welfare spending by the Federal Government. Less of all the things Democrats hold dear. The Democrats want your money to fund big government programs. When we give money back to you, they lose control. They want to keep your money. We want you to have more of the money you worked hard for, it is just that simple.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, over and over, we hear the Democrats wailing that the capital gains tax cut will benefit the rich. Of course, they have obscured the facts again. The capital gains relief in the Tax Fairness Act will go to benefit all income groups. Seventy percent of the taxpayers benefiting from the capital gains cut will have incomes of less than $50,000. The capital gains tax cut will put money into the economy which will lead to more investment and create more jobs. This will help all hard-working Americans. Mr. Speaker, this is a debate over the role of Government. The Democrats will fight for more government and more spending; we want the people back home to keep more of their hard-earned money. I want that roofing contractor in Martinez, GA to have a $500 tax credit for each of his children. The Democrats want his $500 for Federal bureaucrats. It is just that simple.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I bring today a new story from what is now getting to be a very old textbook. Mr. Speaker, it is a common misconception among people that OSHA's regulatory excesses only hurt big businesses. I have spoken on this floor many times about the pain OSHA has caused small businesses. However, today, Mr. Speaker, I bring to you the nightmare OSHA has caused a non-profit charity organization. A good friend of mine, Merle Temple, headed a charity group that worked to produce health care for the disadvantaged. They worked very hard to give the elderly, the shut-ins, and the disabled health care services they so badly needed. They worked to help get these people to become self-sufficient, particularly in their own homes. They set up a food bank to try to get food to people who needed help toward the end of the month. Merle's group did the types of things, Mr. Speaker, we should champion in this Nation. As is the case with many non-profit organizations, Merle's group was heavily dependent upon contributions to make ends meet, and they were barely scraping by. In an effort to keep their costs low, they ran their services out of a basically run-down office. They did not spend money on extravagant office furniture and machines. That would have taken away money from those people who really needed the help. Soon after moving into their low-rent office, Merle discovered that the attic had a problem with squirrels. Again, always thinking about cost, Mr. Temple chose to take care of the squirrels himself. He could have spent money on an exterminator, but that would have taken money away from the needy. However, this turned out to be a very large mistake. In trying to get rid of the squirrels, he put mothballs in the attic. The mothballs ran off the squirrels but it attracted the skunks. Someone complained to the local OSHA office about the smell of these mothballs, and in a sweep, the OSHA storm troopers rushed in. OSHA fined a non-profit organization, an organization dedicated to bringing health care to the needy, $700, $700. Merle appealed the fine, and the sweethearts over at OSHA relented. They reduced the fine to a mere $350. They could not possibly let Merle's group off the hook completely. After all, they didn't have the standard OSHA workplace poster; $350 for a poster from a non-profit group trying to take care and help people. Mr. Speaker, that $350 would have stocked their food bank for a month. Of course, Mr. Speaker, my friend Merle paid the $350 out of his pocket, but OSHA really did not care where they got the money from, only that they got the money. To those of you on the other side who complained long and loud about Republicans taking food from people, to those of you who think that Government is always the answer, I would suggest that you take a look at how Government regulation can take food from the needy right now. Mr. Speaker, OSHA just doesn't hurt big business. OSHA just doesn't hurt its claws on a non-profit organization. OSHA is one agency that has turned a reasonable and an important mission into a bureaucratic nightmare for the American economy and the American people. Common sense was long ago shown the door at OSHA. OSHA is one agency that needs to be restructured or reinvented or, Mr. Speaker, just maybe plain removed.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that I bow to the will of this body, my term-limits badge inside my coat, not on the outside. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to consider the words of George Mason, a man whose vision was critical to our Bill of Rights. Mason said; In order to restrain public officials from oppression, they should at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station and return into the body from which they were originally taken * * * where they might feel and participate in the burdens of the people. Mr. Speaker, that means people here should be responsible for the payroll, their production should warrant what their income is, and people who have lived under the oppressive rules and regulations of the Federal Government. permanent representative. Mason knew that this Nation would be best served by having individuals who have lived as private citizens representing them in Congress. I urge my colleagues to vote for term limits.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, recently the Subcommittee on Workforce Protection heard testimony from Assistant Secretary for Occupational Dear told the subcommittee, he said this: ``Every year, work-related accidents and illnesses cost an estimated 56,000 American lives * * * At the time I was not certain if Mr. Dear and his friends over at OSHA were afraid of real OSHA reform. But for them to be using scare tactic statistics like these in an effort to puff up a supposed need for OSHA, well they must be utterly terrified of OSHA reform. Using incomplete and speculative statistics makes for incomplete and poor policy decisions. As we look to make real reforms in the way OSHA does business, we need to insure that any legislative action is based on sound and scientific information. We must use peer review to determine the effectiveness of a regulation. But when you consider how loose OSHA is willing to play with the facts, it makes you wonder whether OSHA can possibly be reformed. Mr. Speaker, the problem with Mr. Dear's statement is that he has stated with certainty about statistics where there is considerable uncertainty. There is great disagreement and dispute about the number of fatalities from workplace illnesses. But there is a consensus about fatalities resulting from workrelated accidents, although this was not always the case. Several years ago, the Bureau of Labor Statistics initiated a new program called the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries. This program obtains an actual count, rather than an estimate, of the number of workplace fatalities. That count for 1993, the latest year for which we have numbers is 6,271. The census is intended to pick up deaths caused by workplace exposures to toxic substances. Although the Bureau of Labor Statistics acknowledges that it probably does not produce a complete count of fatal illnesses. In fact, at this point in time, no one has a completely accurate count of workplace-related fatal illnesses. But the best numbers we do have are those produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. We pay the Bureau of Labor Statistics quite a bit of money to compile these statistics. I would think that the good Secretary of OSHA would use his own department's numbers rather than using the disputed, speculative numbers of others. If Mr. Dear is right, and I doubt that he is, if there are really 56,000 workplace fatalities instead of the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported number of 6,271, if the Bureau of Labor Statistics are wrong by that much, if they are only counting 7 percent of all workplace fatalities, someone down there needs to be fired, if Joe Dear is right. Mr. Speaker, two other points about the number of fatalities should be highlighted. First, the number and rate of workplace fatalities have been declining steadily since the 1930's. This is significant when one considers that OSHA did not come into existence until the 1970's. Consequently, it is a matter of debate as to how effective OSHA has been in reducing workplace fatalities. Second, most workplace fatalities are not caused by factors which one would normally consider workplace hazards. For example, according to Census on Workplace Fatalities, in 1993 there were 6,271 workplace fatalities. However, over 60 percent of these fatalities were due to transportation accidents, homicides, suicides, and drownings. As one of my colleagues once said ``unless OSHA teaches employees how to drive, fly, swim, and cope better, it's not going to have any impact on these deaths.'' I believe the American people are frustrated by burdensome regulations. Every day small business people are pulling their hair out and fretting about regulatory mandates they can't possibly comply with. I know that many of my liberal colleagues scoff at this assertion. But I suggest that if they got out of their cloistered existence for just a short time and experience what small business people all over this country have to put up with, they would change their tune soon enough. OSHA is one agency that has turned a reasonable and important mission into a bureaucratic nightmare for the American economy. Common sense was long ago shown the door at OSHA. OSHA is one agency that needs to be restructured, reinvented, or just plain removed.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I hear the other side wail and whine that we are hurting the children. Perhaps they are so busy defending the status quo that they fail to see the dismal failure our system has become. Perhaps they think it is compassionate for our system to encourage illegitimacy. Perhaps they think that it is OK for 1 in 3 babies in this Nation to be born out of wedlock. Perhaps they think it is OK that the average length of stay on welfare today is 13 years. But it is not OK, Mr. Speaker. It is unbelievable that we ever allowed the Federal Government to become the caretakers for so many people. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, the American people know better. They realize that we can do nothing worse than to keep the current system. It is just sad to see that the other side is so wedded to big government, nanny-State programs that they fail to see what is right. * * * What is right is voting to end the current welfare system today.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to speak about fathers. In our debate on this critical welfare reform bill, it seems to me that in all our talk of mothers and children, we have forgotten the role of fathers. Now I know that our welfare reform bill includes tough legislation to make deadbeat dads pay for the children they have fathered. But I would ask my colleagues to consider the much larger issue of why we have such a problem with absentees fathers. The tragedy of the present welfare system is that it has lead to in increase in illegitimacy. Could the welfare system be any more destructive to the family than it is? It has made fathers trivial. The illegitimacy rate in this Nation has risen from 7 percent in 1965 to 32 percent in 1992. The more I think about it the more I struck by one simple question--where have the fathers of these illegitimate children gone? The answer is terrifying. Fathers have been replaced by the Federal Government through the welfare system. What a ridiculous idea. The Federal Government is nobody's father. The Federal Government should never try to serve as anyone's father. It is disgraceful that so many people have become dependent upon the Federal Government Mr. Speaker, when I was growing up in Valdosta, Georgia, my father Charles Norwood was there for me. He was a simple man, a printer, and he was there for me, to teach me right from wrong, to let me know in no uncertain terms when I behaved unacceptably. My father put bread on our table, clothes on our backs, and a roof over our head. All I learned about respect and responsibility, I learned from my Democratic father. From him, I learned that I needed to be responsible for myself, not ever once considering that government would take care of me. Mr. Speaker, an entire generation of young people are being born today without fathers. Why do children need fathers in today's America? The food on their table comes from food stamps. The roof over their head comes from public housing. When you need a doctor, there's always Medicaid. And of course the clothes on their backs come by way of a welfare check. We are replacing the financial importance of fathers with the power of the Federal Government to take from one man's labor and give to others. But what of the moral importance of fathers? That role has simply been abandoned by the welfare system. The social fabric of our society is being torn apart by the disappearance of the family unit. Mr. Speaker, our welfare reforms are an important step forward in trying to restore the value of fatherhood in this Nation, because we say to those people who would seek the assistance of government * * * you must be responsible in having children; you cannot continue to expect an additional payment simply for having an additional child. We say to welfare mothers, you must name the father of your child * * * and we say to those fathers, you must be responsible for your actions. Our reforms force people to consider the responsibility of their behavior in parenting. Mr. Speaker, I know the debate has tended to focus on welfare mothers, but I'm deeply concerned about the fathers of the 1 in 3 babies born out of wedlock. I want to say to them, be a man and accept your responsibilities. Parenting is not a game; it means tremendous obligation that you must uphold. It is not just a financial responsibility, it is being there for your children, it is teaching them right from wrong, it is teaching them values and making sure they know what it means to be a productive member of our society. It is being sure that your children learn to take care of themselves. It is making sure that your children live a better and more productive life than their parents. It is making sure that you leave your children a better America. To my colleagues on the other side, I would ask you to step back and consider what has happened to our society. This bill is not simply about welfare mothers and their children. This bill is about the destruction of families. You cannot possibly defend what the welfare system has done to families. It is deplorable; it is immoral; it is undeniably wrong. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to drop the nasty rhetoric we have used the past few days, and do what is so clearly right to reestablish the sanctity of the American family.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to my friend, Mr. HOKE.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk for a moment about some children in my district. I would like to talk about the 20 students in Mary Mills' 5th grade class at Oconee County Intermediate in Watkinsville, GA. When I was sworn in, the share of the national debt owed by Mary Mills' class was $365,000. Since I have been here, a total of 80 days, they have incurred another $2,500 of debt. Mr. Speaker, everyday we are spending away the future of those children. Our welfare reform package does significantly reduce the budget deficit. My colleagues on the other side continue to whine and wail that we are hurting children. Some of my more irresponsible colleagues continue to compare our welfare reforms to Nazi Germany. Mr. Speaker, someone has to speak up for the children of the next generation. I would ask my colleagues on the other side one simple question, how will we be able to do anything for our children when we bankrupt this Nation? We can do nothing worse than to keep our current system.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Personal Responsibility Act. With this act, we will make tremendous strides in changing the incentive structure to make people more responsible for their actions. We will bring an end to the failed welfare system that has done so much more harm than good over the past 30 years. And we will do so over the objections of those who refuse to see the disaster that the system has become. Mr. Speaker, can anyone seriously argue that the welfare system has been a success? The welfare system was supposed to be a safety net. Instead it has become quicksand that few people ever return from. Of familiar now on AFDC, 65 percent will remain on welfare for at least 8 years. The average length of stay for people on the rolls at any given time is 13 years, 13 years. And what do we as a nation expect in return for supporting people for years and years? Nothing. We have no real work requirement, job-training requirement, or education requirement for people receiving welfare. Mr. Speaker, the welfare system has caused the disintegration of the family. Fathers have become irrelevant, replaced by a welfare check as the family provider. In 1965, 7 percent of children in this Nation were born out of wedlock. In 1990, 32 percent of children in this Nation were born out of wedlock. Could welfare have possibly been more destructive to the family? Mr. Speaker, as we study the welfare system, I am absolutely certain of one thing--we could do nothing worse than to preserve the current welfare system. Mr. Speaker, the Personal Responsibility Act is about changing incentives. It is about forcing people to take responsibility for their actions. Unlike the current system, after 2 years on welfare, you will go to work. Unlike the current system, if you are under 18, you will not automatically receive a check for having a child. Unlike the current system, if you are on welfare, having an additional child will not automatically mean another check. Unlike the current system, if you father a child, we will find you, and you will take financial responsibility for your child. The Personal Responsibility Act will give the States the ability to deal with these issues, and it will remove power from the hands of Federal bureaucrats. Contrary to the Democratic myth, in the area of child nutrition, we are increasing funding by eliminating the costly ransom taken by Federal bureaucrats. We will give the States the opportunity to make real change, as in Wisconsin where welfare payments were reduced for those who left school, and high school drop-outs returned to school to finish their degrees. We will give the States opportunity to get tough as in Michigan, where a serious work requirement for welfare recipients met with harsh criticism from liberals, and now the welfare rolls have fallen to their lowest level in 7 years. Mr. Speaker, I challenge the other side to join us in an honest debate about the failed welfare system. I ask you to join the debate about changing incentives and forcing people to take responsibility for their actions. But I realize some of you cannot accept my challenge; I know that some of you are too dependent on the protecting the role of Government; to you I say this: If you can do nothing more than defend this morally bankrupt system, if you can do nothing more than obscure the facts in a desperate attempt to protect the status quo, well then I would have to say I feel sorry for you. Because the American people are calling out for change, and they expect more than weak and spurious defenses of a failed welfare system. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, to defeat the forces of the failed status quo, to confront those who will distort the truth, and to do what is right and long overdue for America.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Personal Responsibility Act, because the current welfare system has been an utter and complete failure. The welfare system encourages people toward three extremely harmful actions. First: Don't get a job. Second: Don't get married. Third: Have children out of wedlock--repeatedly. The current system subsidizes each of these behaviors with a check from the Federal Government. Only the Federal Government could have designed such a destructive system. Mr. Speaker, this bill will make real change in the system. It will change the incentives to encourage people to get a job, get married, and be responsible in having children. All the while, we will hear the cries from Democrats who are so wrapped up in defending the morally bankrupt welfare system that they fail to see its destructive nature.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise very proudly to support the amendment of gentleman from Texas, [Mr. DeLay]. I do so for two reasons: The first reason that I support this amendment is I find it absolutely unbelievable that we allow a federal agency to absolutely disregard what this House wants done. When they sit over there and laugh at us when we say that we want a moratorium on their rules and regulations and they are just going to figure out a way to get around it, I think we need to speak to them. Ergonomics is a fancy term for designing jobs and tools to fit the physical and psychological limits of people. In general, that is a good idea. But if you look at what OSHA does, assuming they pass the new ergonomic rules and they can be adopted simply by issuing a public comment period without the messiness of having congressional approval, employers will be required to continuously survey and fix jobs deemed risky by OSHA. The list of jobs is virtually unlimited in this country. These activities can cause or aggravate more than 160 musculoskeletal and nervous system disorders from a back pain to joint pain to a neck pain to tendinitis. Joe Dear, the assistant labor secretary who heads OSHA, tries to rationalize the upcoming ergonomics rule this way. He says, ``We clearly intend to propose a regulation whose benefits justify the cost.'' In other words, OSHA claims that its rules will result in huge savings from reduced injuries and increased productivity. Mr. Chairman, that is a wishful claim at the very best and one more time they are not using good science at OSHA. Too little is known about preventing neuromuscular conditions to justify mandates. Mr. Chairman, the answer for us today is very simple. If OSHA couldn't hear us when we voted for a regulatory moratorium, maybe we need to speak a little louder. If OSHA couldn't hear us when voted for cost-benefit and risk assessment legislation, maybe we need to shout. Mr. Chairman, perhaps OSHA will hear us when cut back on their funding; maybe then they will pay attention to the direction we are taking federal regulators. I sincerely doubt they will listen, but this is a first step we need to take. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the DeLay amendment.