Charlie Norwood

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the American people are frustrated by regulatory process that creates impossible standards. Every day, small businessmen and women are pulling their hair out trying to keep up with unrealistic and overreaching regulatory mandates they cannot possible comply with. I know that the guardians of the old status quo will scoff at this, but I need only to point to a proposed OSHA rule to make my point. Mr. Speaker, allow us to consider for a moment OSHA's proposed revision to its confined spaces standard. This applies to people who work in sewers or air ducts or in similarly tight quarters. In the abstract, this is a very reasonable subject for OSHA to be concerned with and employers have a responsibility to workers working in such confined spaces to make sure that their work spaces are as safe as possible. However, OSHA has taken this a step further. Now OSHA wants to regulate what happens after an accident. If the revised standard is implemented, employers who rely on rescue squads and other outside rescue services to respond to emergencies would have to, and I quote, ``ensure that the outside rescuers can effectively respond in a timely manner to a rescue summons,'' end quote. Since most employers do not have an entire team of emergency medical technicians standing on guard at their worksites, it is reasonable to assume that these employers will be dependent upon the performance of professional rescue squads to meet OSHA's standards. Mr. Speaker, accidents do happen. We funded OSHA to try to cut down the chances that a workplace accident would occur. Now OSHA wants an employer to ensure the rescue of a worker after an accident. What bothers me is OSHA's use of the word ``ensure.'' The word ``ensure'' places an unrealistic burden on the employer, given OSHA's past behavior. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the bureaucrats over at OSHA have doubts about an employer's desire to ensure a worker's rescue in case of an accident. I have little doubt that employers, often in family businesses, care about their employees, but given OSHA's history, I have serious doubts about allowing OSHA to define when an employer has done enough. I can just see OSHA slapping the employer with a huge fine if a rescue squad gets stuck in traffic. provide rescue services, he or she could still be hit with a prohibitive fine if it does not meet with OSHA's ambitious standard. Mr. Speaker, now OSHA claims that the employers' compliance with this proposed revision will not be based solely upon a rescue service's actual performance during any single incidence, but rather upon the employer's total effort to ensure that the prospective rescue service is indeed capable in terms of timeliness and training and equipment of performing an effective rescue, but what we have seen in the past is that OSHA implements a rule or a standard that sounds very reasonable in the Federal Register or before a congressional hearing; however, when a rule is enforced out in the field, it is used as a big stick to harass hard-working Americans. Is this just another way for OSHA to fine hard-working Americans and collect more money for the Federal Treasury? Not until a great outcry is heard does OSHA consider providing a clarification of its standards or rules in order to ensure that it is not used to harass hard-working Americans. OSHA has shown again and again that regulatory excess is an addiction and they just cannot seem to kick the habit. Mr. Speaker, I hope that in this case, OSHA's enforcement of its rules does not cause more problems than it is intended to prevent. You can be sure that I will be watching and listening just in case this is not true. OSHA is one agency that has turned a reasonable and an important mission into a bureaucratic nightmare for the American economy. Common sense was long ago shown the door over at OSHA. OSHA is one agency that needs to be restructured, reinvented, or just plain removed.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, the veil of obfuscation must be lowered in this House, if you are to ever hear the truth. I sat here last night in great pain and had to listen to lawyer after lawyer come down in this well and champion the virtues of the trial lawyers against the evil doctors of this Nation. They railed against us for wanting to limit noneconomic damages and from these evil malpracticing doctors of our Nation. Mr. Speaker, I am struck with how hypocritical that argument is when the other side voted against limiting contingency fees. When as much as two-thirds of the noneconomic damage awards go to pay the legal fees of trial attorneys, would you not think they would want to limit these costs as well, if they really wanted to make the patient whole? Or maybe they are not interested in the pain and suffering of the victims of the evil doctors. Maybe they are more interested in the pain and suffering of the trial lawyers and the millions of dollars that they give to Democratic campaigns. I am proud we took that step last night to limit noneconomic damages.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, we have gone too far in the area of non- economic damages. No other country in the world awards non-economic damages at or even near the levels of awards in the United States. It is almost impossible for anyone to put a dollar figure on such non- economic terms as pain and suffering; yet, our legal system continues to allow unlimited awards for pain and suffering. No other nation in the world comes close to placing economic burdens on society through non-economic damages the way we do in this country. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is particularly important to our constituents. It is a major factor in the cost of health care today. This amendment will provide one of the best weapons possible in reducing the cost of health care. Forty percent of all MD's will find themselves party to a lawsuit, 50 percent of all surgeons will be party to a lawsuit, and 75 percent of all obstetricians will be party to a lawsuit. The problems of our tort system are not insignificant in the medical profession--they threaten the health of this nation by tying the hands of doctors. Doctors should not be forced to practice defensive medicine because they are terrified of $30 million lawsuits. The practice of medicine is not perfect. It is the science and art of the practice of medicine. No matter how good a doctor you are, when dealing with the human body, things do not always turn out perfect--as we would like. Of course, neither is the legal profession perfect. In fact, writing laws is not perfect. Each law we write hurts some people--but the goal should be to pass laws that help the most people possible. This amendment is not perfect, but it will greatly help the majority of people in this country by reducing the cost of health. Our physicians are being forced to practice defensive medicine. To perfect their own families. We have taken away one of the most important things you want in your doctor--to use good judgment in the practice of medicine. But when every decision is being watched over by suit-minded lawyers just waiting for the less than perfect outcome so they can get rich, it forces the doctor to make his or her first decision ``How can I not be sued?'' The thought process goes like this--I know we do not need this test or this x-ray for the patients benefit--but I must order this test or this x-ray in case I am sued, because some lawyer will make it appear I did not do all I can do. There is a limit to how much malpractice one can pay for, but there is no limit to how much a jury of our peers can award. Some physicians pay as much as $150,000 per year for malpractice insurance. That increases the cost of medicine. And with jury verdicts in the tens of millions of dollars, one can never carry enough insurance to be sure you aren't ruined by a lawsuit. There must be a cap if you wish this country to continue to have the best health care system in the world-- There must be a cap if you want the cost of health care to come down. We have listened so long to the half-truths about protecting the middle class put out by the other side, it is time to lower the veil of ob-fus-cation and look at the costly reality that our tort system has become. We must no longer endanger the health of this Nation--we must place limits on all non-economic damages. We should pass this amendment today. Mr. Chairman, Congress has recognized this problem before. In 1992, Congress created the Federal Tort Claims Act in response to skyrocketing malpractice insurance premiums from federally funded community health centers. Under this act, judges rather than juries decide damages. Attorney's fees are limited and punitive damages are disallowed altogether. Why would the Federal Government institute such a restrictive system? Because the Federal Government, that is of course the taxpayers has to pay for the cost of these suits. If it is good enough for the government, it ought to be good enough for the rest of the health care industry. Let's give the rest of the medical industry that same relief. Mr. Chairman, I end my remarks with one simple thought for your consideration. The Office of Technology Assessment recently identified a ceiling on non-economic damages as the single most effective reform in containing medical liability costs. We should do the same.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly support the Oxley-Burr amendment. Mr. Chairman, I know the FDA is not perfect, I will admit that, but if we have to choose between the FDA and tort juries, the FDA is obviously better suited to make judgments as to what products should be on the market. This amendment is intended to prevent tort juries from second-guessing and overriding often very, very difficult but essential and scientific conclusions and risk-benefit assessments the FDA must make in approving a drug and deciding what warnings must and must not accompany a drug. We must pass this amendment, Mr. Chairman, for the health of our Nation. When juries are permitted to punish defendants for conduct approved by the FDA, substituting their amateur scientific judgment and cost-benefit analysis for the judgment of the FDA's professional scientists, it makes drug manufacturers very wary of producing new products.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Speaker, I have for you today a couple of OSHA nightmares which illustrate OSHA's overbearing enforcement policies. Although OSHA eventually dropped the charges in both cases, I think they still provide valuable insight into the mentality of an out-of- control agency. In the first OSHA nightmare, a Maine dentist, Dr. Jeffrey Grosser, was fined $17,500 as the result of an OSHA office inspection. The fines included an $8,000 infection control citation and a $7,000 citation for improper hazardous materials information and training. OSHA charged that Dr. Grosser's employees ``were exposed to the hazard of being infected with hepatitis B and/or HIV through possible direct contact with blood or other body fluids.'' However, Dr. Grosser's only employee is a receptionist who does not work with patients. For that, Dr. Grosser incurred an $8,000 infection control fine. So what, you may ask did Dr. Grosser do in the case of the $7,000 fine? In this instance Dr. Grosser was charged $7,000 for not providing hazardous materials information and training. What were the hazardous materials in question? Chemical developer used in a self-contained x-ray machine and bleach used to mop the floor. That's right, ordinary household bleach. Madam Speaker, in the second OSHA nightmare, Dr. Steven Smunt was fined $4,400 for citations that included removing his eyeglasses when administering anesthetic to a child, and inadequately labeling a first- aid kit that had a ``first-aid'' sticker on it. The sum $4,400 is a lot of money no matter what line of work you're in. Regulatory actions like this can only end up hurting consumers. This is particularly the case when this Nation is trillions of dollars in debt, and we are spending the money hard-working Americans send to us on OSHA nonsense like this. But, Madam Speaker, some people continue to believe that our regulatory reform efforts are wrong-headed. They think that all our regulations are fine and wonderful. Some people just do not get it. In this Sunday's Washington Post, Jessica Matthews wrote that our regulatory reform package was too drastic and based on false premises. Well Ms. Matthews, maybe it is OK with you that OSHA tried to declare bricks a poisonous substance. Maybe it is OK with you that OSHA wants you to get a environmental impact statement everyday you come to work, and maybe it is OK with you when OSHA writes new rules that cost an industry $2 billion but produce no measurable improvement in worker safety. Or maybe it is OK with you that regulations in this country cost us $500 billion annually--nearly $10 thousand for the average family of 4--maybe that is OK with you, but it is not OK with me, and it is not OK with the American people. 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, that the other side continues to accuse us of cutting funding for child nutrition programs is ludicrous. I voted in committee to increase the funding child nutrition programs are receiving, yet people are calling my office worried that we are gutting these programs. We are increasing the funding and eliminating the wasteful Federal bureaucracy to send more money to the States. The charge that we are cutting funding is patently false. Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask that Americans look at the facts. It is a fact that we are putting more money in to child nutrition. It is a fact that our bill dismantles part of the Federal bureaucracy. And it is a fact that many Democrats receive significant campaign contributions from Federal bureaucrats every year. All I ask is that Americans consider the facts.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the common sense legal reforms we will consider this week. We have the opportunity this week to restore sanity to our legal system. The irresponsible costs added to our Nations' economy by fear of lawsuits must be curtailed. Our reforms add simple principles of common sense to the legal system and will cut down the tremendous expenses Americans face every year in legal fees and increase costs in goods and services. Our reform package is based on four simple principles. First, we set up a responsible loser pays provision that makes settlement an attractive alternative. The loser pays provision will reduce the urge for lawyers to take suits to trial in an effort to win extravagant damage amounts. Loser pays will lessen the load on our judicial system, and will in no way harm those seeking legitimate claims. The next reform is to place tighter restrictions on the use of expert witnesses. Our bill will make sure that expert witnesses are in fact experts. It will require the use of scientific theories to be scientific and we will cut down the use of rent-a-scientists. Mr. Speaker, we are not hurting consumers by making expert witness rules stricter, we are helping consumers by limiting the costs that are passed on to them by business, that have to defend themselves against questionable experts. Our bill will limit the liability of a defendant to a proportional share of their fault in noneconomic damages. One of the most destructive problems with our legal system is join and several liability. Our current rules allow litigants to shake down wealthy defendants for far more damages than they should ever be responsible. It is just plain wrong for the Gates Rubber Co. to have to defend themselves against millions of dollars in damages when a chicken processing plant burns down--especially when that plant had no fire alarms, no sprinkler system, and padlocks on the fire doors. Mr. Speaker, clearly any responsibility owned by Gates is minimal. Our bill will see to it, that responsibility is proportionate. The fourth principle our reform package is based on is limiting punitive damages. There is clearly a place for punitive damages in our legal system in cases where defendants intended to cause harm to others or acted with a flagrant indifference to the safety of others. But there must be a limit put on punitive damages, particularly when they are imposed on defendants in a reckless manner by vindictive juries-- when this happens, we all pay. At some point, punitive damages move from reasonable to ridiculous. In our bill, that point is $250,000 or three times the amount of economic damages whichever is greater. After all, no one in this country should have to check on their liability insurance before serving coffee. I would encourage my colleagues to consider one further reform as we act on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, if we are to ever contain health care costs in this Nation, we must limit the punitive liability faced by manufacturers and sellers of drugs or medical devices--if those drugs or devices are approved by the FDA. Once FDA approval is legally met, a manufacturer or seller should not face punitive damages. If we do not take this important step forward, health care costs will continue to sky-rocket, and the quality of care our Nation receives will be lacking. Mr. Speaker, our legal reform package is not about hating lawyers. It is about reforming the system to allow lawyers to act more responsibly as a profession. This legislation is not about hurting consumers--in reality, our reforms will remove some of the costly burden consumers have to pay in the marketplace everyday as a result of frivolous lawsuits, without limiting their ability to seek legal remedies when they feel they have been wronged. Mr. Speaker, our legal system is out of control, and it goes far deeper than million dollar cups of coffee, it is the billions of dollars in liability our economy is forced to absorb every year. I urge my colleagues to make these reasonable reforms and resist the pressure to back down, our economy and now.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, someone once defined the Federal welfare system as the result of Americans wanting--in the worst way--to help those who have fallen behind. There must be a way to help people without trapping them in dependency, robbing their self-respect, suffocating their initiative, and paving their way to lives of despair, illiteracy, and illegitimate behavior. That better way is now working its way through the deliberative legislative process here in the House of Representatives and will be before this body in the next few days. Foremost, this new approach incorporates the realization that the Federal Government is incapable of undertaking the experiments to produce a new welfare system. To fulfill that role, we would designate the States as laboratories of innovation, reform, and effective transformation of the welfare system. We also would eliminate an expensive, unnecessary layer of Federal bureaucracy whose role has been to look over the shoulders of the States and impose a one-size-fits-all straitjacket to restrain administrators for searching for better ways to deliver help to those in need.

Mr. NORWOOD

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

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, we have now completed 59 days of very hard work in this House, and as I sit back and ponder what we have accomplished in these 59 days I am really struck by the differences in what we on this side of the aisle are doing and what the Democrats are saying in opposition. We want to take this country forward. We want to protect our Nation's future by reducing our national debt. But from the other side we hear very meek defenses and sometimes very loud defenses of the status quo. We hear their cries to save the failed policies of the welfare state that they created over the last 40 years. And we hear their pleas to save the precious bureaucracy, for only the Federal bureaucrats know how to govern this Nation, they say. Mr. Speaker, we owe very near $5 trillion. We are adding another trillion every 4 years. We are paying almost $300 billion annually in interest on our debt. There is no greater thing we must fear than our debt. A trillion is a large number. I never can keep the zeros correct behind a trillion. But we owe almost $5 trillion, and maybe to put that in perspective just a little bit, I would say that if we tried to pay off $1 trillion of our debt and we chose to do that by paying $1 every second, we would pay off that trillion dollars in 144,000 years. And I remind my colleagues perhaps that organized agriculture only started on this planet 10,000 years ago. I hope that says to Members as it does to me that though 5 is small, trillion is a lot, and the young people in this room today surely must realize that if we continue on the path that we have been going we are spending their inheritance, and we are spending their future, and those of us who sit over here every day and listen to the mistruths on this side every day are simply trying to bring that in balance. The Federal bureaucrats who seem to run this Nation are people that are hired by us with our tax dollars. These people are nonelected officials, and it is not my opinion that they know what is best. In this great country, it is true that we are responsible for ourselves, we have individual responsibilities, and the great thing about this Nation is that we are free, and we should all be able to reach for the heavens and be all we can be according to our abilities and our willingness to work without interference from a Federal bureaucracy, and that is what we have been saying for 59 days. These people must get off our backs and quit taking our freedoms away. Mr. Speaker, I would like for you to consider all of the things that we have accomplished. On the first day of this Congress we passed reforms to make this body more responsible, to limit the power of the committee chairmen who for years, along with the Speaker have run this government, who had dictatorial control during their Democratic regime. We have cut the number of staffers, just like we said we would, and we have eliminated funding for the caucuses, just like we said we would. We have made this body more open and more responsible, all the while every day the Democrats gripe and complain. Mr. Speaker on January 26 we took a step in this body that the vast majority of Americans asked us to do. We passed the BBA, the balanced budget amendment, after trying for years, and I cannot tell you how excited I was that night when over 300 Members of this body cast their veto giving us finally a balanced budget amendment. It was exciting because the number was 300, in fact because it was a bipartisan effort, Members from both sides of the aisle finally realized that in order to get this Congress to have the guts to do what they are supposed to do there was no option left but to change the Constitution. Three hundred Members of this body voted for it. And this will basically restore fiscal sanity and bring us back from the brink of disaster that we peer over, and we do. It was a vote to save the children of this great Nation from a daunting future ahead of them, it was a vote to save my granddaughter from a very uncomfortable future. We did the right thing. I know we did. And even though the amendment did not pass the Senate yesterday, I know we in this body did what we said we would do. We did what 80 percent of the Americans in this country asked us to do: We passed a balanced budget amendment. And I know that you are watching, I know that the American people are watching, they are watching C-SPAN in greater numbers than any time in the history of C-SPAN. They will remember who stopped this amendment. They will recognize that those in the Senate who voted against this amendment, though, said just a year ago they would gladly vote for a balanced budget amendment were some of the very same people that cut Social Security benefits to our senior citizens just last year by a tax increase; yet this year they say, no, we cannot have a balanced budget amendment because it might affect Social Security. The American people will remember the names of those who voted for the amendment last year and against it this year. The American people will remember. And there will be, ladies and gentlemen, there will be accountability for defeating the will of the majority. All the while a small group of Democrats in this body cried about the precious programs that they would lose because of a balanced budget amendment. It is almost as if these programs are more important to them than the fiscal security of this Nation. We heard much the same arguments when we passed the line-item veto and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. With the line-item veto we gave the President the same power possessed by most of the Nation's Governors. We gave the President an important tool in our fight against the deficit. We released the States from a choking grasp of unfunded Federal mandates and all the while the Democrats fretted that Government. Ladies and gentlemen, the power in this country is the power within the people's lands, not a Federal Government. In these 59 days we have made great strides in improving the quality of life in this Nation. Our crime bill, for example, will give local law enforcement the power to attack crime only as they know how. The National Security Restoration Act will ensure that no American soldier in the service of this Nation will die at the whim of an Egyptian bureaucrat. We have passed legislation to bring the massive regulatory bureaucracy under control, and thank God. We have released the American people from the mindless bureaucrats that inflict billions and billions of dollars of unnecessary burden on the American economy, large business, small business and all. In passing these acts we have kept our promise to the American people. We have put in more hours, held more hearings, cast more votes than any previous Congress had to this point in recent history. We have shown this Nation, with the work that we have done, that the U.S. House of Representatives can be an effective legislature. We have shown the American people that Government can get the important business of this Nation accomplished. And we are going to accomplish still more in the next 41 days. In the next 41 days we will reform the legal system to make our system more responsible and reduce the dragging effect that frivolous lawsuits have on this Nation. We are going to pass term limits to make legislators value public service over professional politics. We will take steps to treat seniors equitably with the Senior Citizens Equity Act, and yes, we will make reforms of our morally bankrupt welfare system. And we will continue to hear the guardians of the old order whine and cry as we dismantle the system that they created over 40 years. We will continue to hear Democrats tell the American people how the Federal Government always knows best, as they did in the unfunded mandates debate. We will continue to hear the Democrats say that local officials cannot be trusted to do the right thing, as they did in the crime bill debate. We will continue to hear the Democrats fight to save the power of the Federal bureaucrats, as they did in the regulatory reform debate. It is offensive to me to sit here and listen day in and day out as they trumpet the capabilities of the bureaucracy to make our life better, as they clamor for the necessity of a bureaucracy that lives in our daily lives from the minute we get up to the minute we go to bed. The hardworking folks back at home know better. The Federal Government has never been the cure-all the Democrats would like for you to think. The Federal Government is more often than not a nightmare waiting to happen to the hardworking people of this Nation. The American people know better, and that is why the Democrats are in the minority today. Ah, but now, Mr. Speaker, they have finally found a way to disguise this bankrupt argument that the Federal Government knows best. They have found a way to disguise their love of the Federal bureaucracy. We are now beginning to hear arguments that Republicans are out to starve the American children. Mr. Speaker, this is utter and complete nonsense. I was on this floor last night for 1 hour listening to one lie right after the other about our nutrition programs, lies told by people who know better. If the American people knew how much the Democrats are willing to distort the truth to save the bureaucracy, they would be absolutely outraged. Yes, we are combining many nutritional programs into block grants; yes, we are sending the moneys back to the States where the teachers and the dietitians and the superintendents know best. But, no, we are not sending less, we are sending more. We are increasing the funding because it involves children. But if you listen to the other side, you do not get the truth. Mr. Speaker, it is exasperating to have to put up with the rhetoric the other side hurls at us. I voted in committee to increase the funding for child nutrition programs, to increase the funding child nutrition programs are getting. Yet people are calling my office worried that we are gutting these programs. Why? We are not. Where do they read such things? Where do they hear such things? It is not happening. We are increasing funding and eliminating the wasteful Federal bureaucracy to help get more money to the States, more money for food, not for bureaucrats. The charge that we are cutting funding is patently false. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, Americans should consider why Democrats have sought to distort reality to protect Federal bureaucrats. Could it be, Mr. Speaker, for financial reasons? Could it be because Democrats receive millions and millions of dollars in campaign funding from bureaucrats? Could it be because these contributions to Democrats outnumber contributions to Republicans by a margin of 9 to 1? Could it be that Democrats have a vested interest in protecting Federal bureaucrats? Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask that the American people look at the facts. It is a fact that we are putting more money into child nutrition, it is a fact that our bill dismantles part of the Federal bureaucracy and it is a fact that Democrats receive significant campaign contributions from Federal bureaucrats. All I ask is that the American people consider the facts. Mr. Speaker, this Congress will continue to do what is best for America, this 104th Congress will. We will continue to keep the promises we made to make this Nation a better place, even in the face of distorted arguments made by the other side. Mr. Speaker, if the Democrats really cared about children, they would stop fighting to save the bureaucracy and engage in an honest discussion about how to improve our welfare system. For the good of this Nation, I surely hope they will join us in doing what is right for America.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Of course, thanks to the Federal Government, we cannot ask anybody if they have AIDS. If the gentleman can make sense out of that, tell me after the program. But I will tell the gentleman the dentists in this country are paying now somewhere in the neighborhood of $30,000 a year in extra costs thanks to OSHA.

Mr. NORWOOD. I do not think any.

Mr. NORWOOD. I think we are going to do what we were told do. The Contract With America is not Newt Gingrich's contract, it is a contract taken from the people of this country when they told us last summer what they wanted to do. We are going to do it, too.

Mr. NORWOOD. We prayed for you.

Mr. NORWOOD. I start my day everyday at 6:30, and generally it ends at midnight. I think that is wonderful, because I was sent here to do a job, and I was sent here to win, and there is just not too many hours in the day I am not willing to give to it, particularly as long as we are winning. I have never seen Americans with as big a smile as on their faces as I have in the last 6 weeks going home.

Mr. NORWOOD. One of the things I have been thinking about doing, Mr. Kingston, is see if you drop a bill to get us paid by the hour up here.

Mr. NORWOOD. You would sort of think that the other side, after 40 years, would catch on that you sort of got to take care of the goose that lays the golden egg, and the goose is free enterprise, people that work out there using their own money, not sending it up here to Washington.

Mr. NORWOOD. By a Democratic Congress who had control of the checkbook.

Mr. NORWOOD. Earlier today when we were listening to this litany of half-truths, one of the statements that kept coming up is that well, we want a capital gains tax so we can give it to our rich friends, and that will keep us from funding the nutritional programs. Well, first, I think we have already decided that we are funding the nutritional programs. But I think it is pretty important to understand that a cut in capital gains very well will help reduce the deficit, not add to the deficit. But our friends from the other side who have been there so long, I think 40 years or so, they have been there so long they do not realize that a cut in capital gains tax is not for the rich, it is for many, many average Americans.

Mr. NORWOOD. It is going to be a lot harder on us if we don't. I know they told me in that election that they want this budget balanced, they want us to deal with this debt, and they want it done by cutting spending. The important thing I believe is that we do it fairly. You have to take a little bit from everywhere across the board. Yes, you are right we do gets visits, you know that, every 15 minutes all day long, with somebody saying you got to balance that budget, but leave my program alone. Well, that will not work, and everybody knows that will not work. But we must do this very, very fairly and intelligently and across the board. Again, I point out in the nutritional programs, feeding the children, we didn't cut. We increased it 4.5 percent.

Mr. NORWOOD. It is called cutting bureaucrats and cutting paperwork and spending our money on what we are trying to do, which is to feed children.

Mr. NORWOOD. Are we being bad because we are cutting money that they cannot spend because they have got so much they are spending it all up? What is going on with that?

Mr. NORWOOD. I am afraid--I do not want us to miss a couple of more details about the nutritional programs before we get off that. But one of the things that will make this work is that the amount of increase is 4.5 percent a program more money to work with, but the administrative costs will come down. In fact we capped them at 2 percent. That is all of that money that they can spend for administrative costs, and what we really truly believe is that we are going to have more food for the children and their lunch programs, and that is what it is all about, that is what the whole purpose of the program is, not to pay bureaucrats. And I want to talk about WIC one more time because I have had a visit with a lot of people in my hometown who worked within the WIC programs, and they are absolutely excited about the possibility of them deciding a little bit how their program might work best, but, as my colleagues know, there were about 80 programs in this country for nutrition, and we have block granted them and brought them down, and the WIC program, the money that we have got for the family nutrition block grant, we have guaranteed that 80 percent of that goes to WIC. And I think the gentleman told me just today that WIC is not using all the money we are sending them now. Did I hear the gentleman say that?

Mr. NORWOOD. That is a hundred for each hand.

Mr. NORWOOD. That is in my Committee on Commerce, and I want make very clear that when we hear some Members here talking, talking about business, they are talking about Amoco, and they are talking about G.M. When I talk about business, I am talking about the mom and pops, the 5 employees, the 3 employees or 10 employees. The small business people are the ones that have been killed with the rules and regulations that just continue to grow. I mean I think the stack now is about 14 feet tall with all the rules and regulations, and what we are basically doing is we are saying to Federal Government, ``No longer can you run roughshod over us with people not elected to office, meaning bureaucrats,'' and they are going to have to do a risk analysis, and they are going to have to do a cost- benefit analysis on each rule and regulation before they pass them down to us. But, Mr. Kingston, the really exciting part about that is that people will now have a way to voice their concern with this Government because there will be a process of petition, there will be a process of peer review, where we can say, ``Wait a minute, that rule makes no sense, that rule is not smart, and it ruins my business,'' and if they do not listen to that, then we will have legal standing, and I am excited about that because we are going to get this crowd of bureaucrats inside the Beltway to listen to us unless we do have----