Charlie Norwood

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to submit for the Record an article from Dr. Ronald Gaddie of the University of Oklahoma and an article from the American Enterprise Institute.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I just want to mention to my colleague that 43 of the people you had testify were 43 people who came in to justify what you had done in H.R. 9. Everybody has been here long enough to know how you set up hearings. There were three people in that whole group that disagreed. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it perfectly clear, I believe every citizen of this country should be able to vote unencumbered. I believe, actually, that the Voting Rights Act has been and is a good thing and it should be reauthorized. I nor anybody I know is trying to do away with section 5, though I continue to hear it over and over again. Mr. Chairman, today we battle a phantom that has haunted this Chamber since the day, probably, it was first built. It has stalked us since before we were a Nation. It poured the curse of slavery on our infant Republic. It fed the flames of regional conflict until we suffered the most devastating war in our history. It gave birth to segregation, poll taxes, and literacy tests. This specter embodies what is perhaps our Nation's original sin: discrimination. It has dunned us with a moral debt that maybe can never be fully paid. I pray that is not the case. But then again, maybe it is only waiting for a generation with the courage to exorcise that demon out of our hearts and out of this land. Our forebears, in spite of their many blessings that they left us, failed this challenge. They had the chance with Dred Scott and instead decided that slaves were not human beings. They had a second chance with Jim Crow, but instead built a segregated society. Today, we have a rare chance, and I mean rare, to revisit the fundamental issue, discrimination, that our predecessors avoided dealing with. Discrimination is the creation of laws or systems that deny a person the same rights enjoyed by their fellow human beings, not because of what they do but because of who they are. In 1965 that meant white people in many areas of this country, and especially in my beloved South, set up legal hurdles that kept people of color from voting. Not because of what they did, but simply because of who they were. The Voting Rights Act, passed by this House in 1965, stopped that practice. It did so by temporarily denying the voters of my State and others their constitutional right to determine election practices without Federal interference. This harsh measure, known as section 5 oversight, was not discrimination. It was not laid on these jurisdictions because of who they were, but because of what they did. Now, this is a profound point. Forty years later there is not a single member of my State legislature who served in 1964, particularly the Democrats, under those discriminatory laws. Seventy percent of today's Georgians did not live in Georgia in 1964. They are either dead or have moved away under these discriminatory laws. They were either unborn or have since moved perhaps somewhere else. Yet H.R. 9 would leave all these people, who have committed no wrong, with diminished election rights. Not because of what they do, but because of who they are. This is blatant discrimination based on nothing more than where we live. All who dwell on a particular type of soil, section 5 soil, now have their constitutional rights curtailed. Is the Earth beneath our feet guilty of the crimes of man? Does it then condemn all who trod on our soil? That is the contention of H.R. 9, as it ravages the rights of the innocent, those whose only offense is in where they live. Unlike H.R. 9, the Voting Rights Act did not condemn the righteous with the wicked. It reserved its penalties only for those jurisdictions where offenses had occurred and only until those injustices were corrected. It was not a life sentence and certainly not a sentence on those yet unborn. Georgia now outperforms the Nation, outperforms the Nation, in every area of black voting: turnout, registration, the success rate of black candidates in our State. Yet H.R. 9 turns a blind eye to these facts and seeks to let the innocent continue their punishment for another quarter of a century. Mr. Chairman, either we restore their voting rights to equality, or the Supreme Court will be forced to do it for us. And the Court will do so in ways far more damaging to section 5 than any reasonable amendment that I am going to bring later today that we could devise. The days of allowing the ghost of the past to discriminate against the living are and should be coming to an end. Our choice today is whether it will end through carefully crafted amendments or will it be through the judicial act. All we are trying to do is change section 5 so that every citizen in this country, whether you are from Tennessee, whether you are from Wisconsin, have the same equal rights that minorities in Georgia have. And when you get time, look at these maps. On the right it shows you everybody that is in white is not under section 5. If you are in a color, you are under section 5. Everybody on the map on the left covers 39 States that actually have been guilty of section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. I do not understand how you can go home and you can say you are all for equal rights, fair rights, protections for voters in Georgia, but it is not all right to have those same protections in Tennessee or in Arkansas or in Wisconsin or Ohio. What is wrong with looking at the whole Nation? Everybody is not going to go under it. Everybody is not going to break section 5 formula. But others are besides just us. And on that map Georgia stays under section 5, and I hate it. I wish we were not. Ten counties might get out, but they can only get out for 4 years. The Attorney General is going to be requested to look at it every 4 years and all across the country, including Ohio and including Florida. What is wrong with that? I fail to understand why anybody would find fault. You say that we have had so many objections, meaning Georgia. I promise you an objection does not automatically mean discrimination. We have had five objections since 2000. One of them came from a majority black city council, and it was thrown out. That puts us in the penalty box for another 10 years. Let me quote what my good friend John Lewis said in an affidavit: The State (Georgia) is not the same State it was. It's not the same State that it was in 1965 or in 1975 or even in 1980 or 1990. We have changed. We have come a great distance. I think that it's not just in Georgia but in the American South. I think people are preparing to lay down the burden of race. Clearly John is proud of Georgia's progress, as am I. Congressman Lewis is not alone in recognizing progress. Here's how my State's African American Attorney General Thurbert Baker testified before a Federal three judge panel in 2001. The State's (Georgia) racial and political experience in recent years is radically different than it was 10 or 20 years ago, and that is exemplified on every level of politics from statewide elections on down. The election history for legislative offices in the Georgia House, Senate, and the United States Congress reflect a high level of success of African American candidates. But this is more critical. The Judiciary Committee record seems to show that the problems that do continue to exist occur across the Nation, not just the States in the covered jurisdictions. So why isn't the Judiciary Committee going after these current potential violations instead of dwelling on those from four decades ago? Since 1965, there have been 83 Department of Justice objections raised to voting changes in Georgia. And here's a critical point for the record--a DOJ objection does not equal guilt. DOJ itself withdrew 14 of those 83 objections. When my State tried to satisfy one of those objections in drawing congressional districts, the district lines demanded by DOJ objection were then thrown out by the Supreme Court. So objection does not equal violation. Fifty-five of the 83 objections were in the first 10 years as the act was being implemented, leaving 28 objections between 1975 and now. Only seven objections have been stated since 2000, well within national averages. And again, an objection is not a violation. It's now been 40 years since the Voting Rights Act took effect. Georgia has a higher percentage of black elected officials than the overwhelming majority of States not included in Section 5 Federal oversight. Yet the Federal oversight continues. Nationwide, there are 9,101 black elected officials. Blacks make up 11.4 percent of voters, and 1.8 percent of elected officials. In contrast, Georgia has 611 black elected officials. Blacks make up 26.6 percent of our population, and 9.3 percent of elected officials. That's more than double the level of black representation of the Nation as a whole. Black elected officials make up 20 percent of our State House and Senate members, and 30 percent of our members to the U.S. House. Georgia has a black Attorney General, elected by voters statewide. Georgia has a black Supreme Court Justice. Georgia and the South now lead the Nation in civil rights achievements, putting to shame the record of those States who continue to point their hypocritical fingers at the grave of Bull Connor. Yet Georgia remains on the Federal oversight list, while States with a fraction of our percentage of black elected officials per capita remain oversight free. If Georgia remains on that list without modification, then the majority of the people of a State, who have committed no offense to minority voter rights, whose legislators have committed no offense to minority voter rights, whose State has one of the highest levels of minority elected officials in the Nation, will have their State's constitutional right to determine political boundaries and election rules usurped without justification. That's a clear-cut violation of the U.S. Constitution. And it's voter discrimination against every Georgian. Connecticut, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, and Wyoming were included in 1970, but successfully filed ``bailout'' lawsuits that allowed them to get off the list, because no one had a political reason to object. To successfully file a bailout, the State must prove that during the past 10 years no scheme such as poll taxes or literacy tests have been used; all changes affecting voting have been reviewed prior to their implementation; no change has been the subject of an objection by the Attorney General or the District of Columbia district court; there have been no adverse judgments in lawsuits alleging voting discrimination; there are no pending lawsuits that allege voting discrimination; and Federal examiners have not been assigned. As can easily be seen, a simple accusation will keep a State off the bailout list for 10 years at a time. DOJ can file an objection, then withdraw it, and that's all that's necessary to keep Georgia under Section 5 another 10 years. There must be a more lawful means for the citizens of Georgia to regain voting rights equality with the rest of America. Later today I will bring an amendment to ensure that all Americans will have equal protection under the Voting Rights Act. Under this amendment, minority voters nationwide will have access to the same Section 5 protections, if there has been a violation of their rights. At the same time, all voters across America will be treated the same if there has been no violation in the last 12 years. With this amendment, the Voting Rights Act will be restored to its original intent--to end unjust discrimination in Voting Rights, for all Americans. This amendment provides lawful means to win release from Section 5, while expanding minority voting rights protections nationally. It is the only commonsense solution to avoiding a constitutional challenge.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time. Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank Chairman Dreier for making my amendment in order under this rule. I rise today in support of this rule, in support of the VRA, and against H.R. 9 as it presently is written. We should all understand that in 1965, 40 years ago, when the VRA was written, part of it was intended to be permanent law and part of that bill was meant to be temporary. The Voting Rights Act was needed in 1965, and it was a good bill. It enabled all citizens to be able to vote unencumbered. I strongly believe in that. Now, 40 years later, we are not trying to remove the temporary part of this bill, meaning 4, 5 and on, but later this morning we are going to try to amend section 4 of the Voting Rights Act so that it may be updated, modernized and actually brought into the 21st century. Only section 4 of the temporary part of the Voting Rights Act are we trying to amend. Section 4 of the VRA is the formula or the trigger mechanism that determines which jurisdiction, whether it be city, county or State, that has broken the rules and, therefore, is to be put in the penalty box of section 5. This is the section that puts jurisdictions under the heavy hand of the Justice Department, the preclearance section of the bill. The trigger section occurs when less than 50 percent of citizens of voting age do not vote in Presidential elections. To determine if you will be under section 5 of the VRA, the elections used are 1964, 1968 and 1972, elections 40 years ago, presidential elections between Goldwater and Johnson. Only those who violated section 4 during those 8 years are under preclearance today. H.R. 9 wants to extend that 25 more years, using 40-year-old data, applied to the same jurisdictions, no matter how good their voting record is today. H.R. 9, it does not seem to matter that many other jurisdictions around the country have also violated section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, even in this century. Those violations are not looked at generally by anyone. My amendment, that we will have later today, changes that and updates section 4 to use the election years of 1996, 2000 and 2004. It will be incumbent upon the Attorney General, and he is so instructed, or she, to look at all jurisdictions in all States, and this information is to be reviewed after each Presidential election, using the latest three Presidential elections. If you violate section 4, you are and you should go to the penalty box, which is the preclearance section. If you are in the penalty box and have not violated section 4 in the last three Presidential elections, you get to come out of the penalty box. It is that fair, it is that just, and it is just that simple. Listen carefully now. The authors of H.R. 9 are going to give you many reasons why my lovely State of Georgia should stay in the penalty box, even though we have one of the absolute best voting records in the country of electing black Georgians and black voting and black registration, but I bet we do not hear them talk about that. The truth is that under my amendment all Georgia jurisdictions stay under preclearance. Under my amendment all Georgia jurisdictions, meaning counties, stay under preclearance, except 10 counties out of 159, even though all of Georgia will be treated as if we are still under section 5. They are not going to mention that 837 jurisdictions today in 16 States are under preclearance, but if my amendment were to pass, over 1,000 jurisdictions in this country will be under preclearance in at least 39 States. I think that black Georgians who have protections under the law should give those same protections to black Tennesseeans. Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk about this all day. I appreciate the time.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Community Health Center Reauthorization. Mr. Speaker, we are approaching 1,000 community health centers with 3,600 sites serving over 13 million Americans. There are over 80 of these sites in northeast Georgia alone, in my district and in Chairman Deal's district. They operate in rural communities where health services are either scarce, or, in some cases, nonexistent. They help keep our poor out of expensive emergency rooms. With 25 percent of our population living in rural areas, only 10 percent of our physicians practice there. Rural Americans, like many folks in my district, are more likely to live below the poverty level and therefore be uninsured. Health centers are Medicaid and Medicare providers, guaranteeing access for much of our elderly. While health care costs have risen, health centers have been kept theirs well under those of other providers. Patients of health centers are generally healthier, use emergency rooms less and save money. In Georgia, they save the State $13.4 million each year in Medicaid costs alone. Community health centers are a good deal for poor Americans and taxpayers. I have been an enthusiastic supporter of this program, and I am glad the President has supported the expansion of health centers in 200 new communities. Mr. Speaker, the least expensive way possible to provide health care is to provide the best possible treatment up front. Community health centers are doing just that, and all of us need to support them.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, this rule, which I support, will allow one of the most critical actions to date in the war on terror. Hardly a charade. This action is not military in nature. It is entirely political. But it will determine victory or defeat as surely as any battle in Iraq. Our troops can defeat any enemy on earth. Our volunteers, our patriots, our heroes, our warriors, under any conditions they can win if we have the will, if we have the backbone to do what is right. That is what we debate under this rule. Do we have the will to win? Many, not all, of the other side of the aisle lack the will to win. The American people need to know precisely who they are. If there are any on this side of the aisle who hold the same view, this will allow them to be found out as well. Then the public can decide the course of this war in November by hopefully throwing the defeatists out of office. This debate, under the rule, is as critical a fight as any our troops could have on the battlefield. No one has any doubt our soldiers will win any fight we send them to. That is not the question. The world's doubt is entirely over the backbone of this Congress. Because of the statements of Members of this body, not their votes, but what they say today, and of the Senate, that have given substantial propaganda assistance to the enemy, this rule, this debate is absolutely essential to preserving the victories of our troops that they have won with their blood and their lives. It is time to stand up and vote. Is it al Qaeda or is it America? Let the voters take note of this debate. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the 173rd Airborne in 1968-69 Vietnam, I saw how the words of Senators and Congressmen undermine the hard-fought victories and sacrifices of our soldiers. Men who today sit in Congress publicly trashed the troops on the front back then, comparing our American soldiers to the barbarian Genghis Khan. American media overlooked decades of Communist torture and atrocity against Vietnamese civilians. I couldn't overlook it. As a dental surgeon I had to reattach the tongues cut out by Viet Cong terrorists. Where was our media? They instead chose to focus the world's attention on isolated American failure at My Lai. Through carefully planned international media and political manipulations, the NVA and Viet Cong were encouraged to keep fighting, regardless of their defeats in the field. American media fell right into line with the enemy's public affairs plan. Our troops and citizens were told over and over by the press and politicians that their efforts were futile, our countless victories pointless, and every reverse, no matter how slight, disastrous. The result of this psychological warfare was that the same Nation that had prevailed in World War II against heavy odds, numerous battle defeats, and our enemies' military parity, simply walked off the field in Southeast Asia. It was a lesson in strategy our enemies have learned well, one that is now being used against us in Iraq. It is of great interest to note that the same reporter who ``broke'' the story on My Lai also ``broke'' the story on Abu Grahib nearly four decades later--while overlooking the thousands of executions, beheadings, and other atrocities of the enemy. Coincidence or planned strategy? Same players, same actions, seeking the same result--unconditional U.S. withdrawal from a war on terror we didn't start, allowing barbarians to slaughter millions of innocent civilians, with the end result our Nation humiliated and compromised on the world stage. The lesson we should have learned from Vietnam is that we can fight our enemies in this House by sending an unmistakable message that America will not run. The day that our enemies in Iraq believe this, the war will be won. It's time for this body to start fighting for our soldiers. The 173rd has been back in action in this war, and I will be darned if I will let what happened to us in Southeast Asia happen to these guys in the Middle East, if I can help it. Let's finally bury the ghosts of Vietnam by committing to victory. In doing so, we greatly reduce the need for future military action, as potential enemies will no longer doubt our national resolve in a showdown.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, we need to pass the Deal amendment. We need to strike section 110 of this bill that has been put in the bill at the last minute. That section is very, very simple that needs to be stricken. It prohibits the Corps of Engineers from updating the amount of water that counties in Georgia, Alabama and Florida can draw from the Corps of Engineers' lakes. Now, the Corps of Engineers is simply doing what the Federal courts have told them. Someone says this is in court now. No, this is not in court now. It is very clear. The corps will have to complete this NEPA process and was ordered to do so by the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia as late as January 6, 2006, and it says do this as quickly as possible. The problem is we have not been able to work this out in the three States. The second part of the problem is Alabama and Florida do not want the Corps of Engineers to work this out. Well, maybe they will be and maybe they will not, but we have to have a master plan. So says the law. So support the Deal amendment.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member Skelton, and committee staff for including my legislation improving TRICARE dental coverage into this bill. Currently, TRICARE will only pay for medically necessary dental work in a hospital if the condition has a medical component. That means if a young child or disabled dependent has a serious dental condition and cannot be treated in the office, the general anesthesia costs get passed to the family. As a former Army and private practice dentist, I can tell you that hospital dental care is medically necessary in limited cases, and that these costs are an unjust burden on military families. This Authorization finally acknowledges that fact, and I urge its support.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to commemorate the good work of the Morehouse College TRiO Programs, specifically the Student Support Services--SSS--and Robert C. McNair Scholars programs. Morehouse is not in my district, although it was founded in my district, and I am well aware of the fine work the institution does. It is one of only three all male colleges or universities in the country, and the only one with the distinction of being historically black. Every year, 500 men leave the familiar gates of Morehouse to enter graduate schools across the country, the board rooms of Wall Street, and even the hallowed halls of our congressional office buildings. However, much of this would not be possible if it were not for the services provided by SSS and the McNair programs. SSS at Morehouse services 175 students each year. These are often students from low income families or first generation college students. The nurturing environment these students receive is one of the many reasons why SSS is so successful in helping with the College's retention rate. In addition, SSS provides academic, professional, and financial counseling for students throughout their matriculation as well as financial aid assistance and help with graduate school navigation. There is even some direct financial assistance for students who are Federal Pell Grant recipients. The McNair Program, named in honor of engineer, scientist, and Challenger astronaut Robert E. McNair, serves a smaller student population of 23 each year. The goal of this program is to increase the number of doctoral candidates from underrepresented backgrounds. This program prepares undergraduate students for the world of vigorous research that doctorial studies require. Therefore, not only does Morehouse work closely with these students during their undergraduate years, but it also tracks the students' progress until successful completion of higher education degrees. One of the major advantages of these programs is the mentoring the participants receive. Here they are off in college, many are the first to do so in their families, and they get the chance to receive guidance and assistance from professionals who want them to succeed. What more could a student ask for? Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the good work the professionals at Morehouse SSS and McNair Programs do. Among them are Dr. Ruby Bird, Malcolm Williams, and Michael Maxwell. I also want to congratulate all the Men of Morehouse that will become Morehouse Men on May 14th, 2006, with special acknowledgement of those who took advantage of the assets Morehouse TRiO Programs have to offer.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. and Mrs. Carl Rafoth of Augusta, GA on the occasion of their 70th wedding anniversary, which they celebrated on April 21, 2006. Carl and Hylda Rafoth were married on April 21, 1936, in Youngstown, OH. Carl supported his family of four children by working at the Islay Dairy Company in Youngstown. Since then, their family has grown significantly in size, as they now have 11 grandchildren and 14 great-grandchildren. Their family resides throughout the country in Georgia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, where their children, grandchildren, and great- grandchildren hold fast to the work ethic and patriotism instilled in them by these two fine Americans. Carl's and Hylda's many decades together exemplify our American values concerning the institution of marriage. They are committed citizens, and even in their golden years, they have never waned in actively serving their family, their country and their community in Augusta. Their service and dedication are a model for all Americans, and I come before the House with the hopes that they had a most memorable 70th anniversary.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Burton amendment. This commonsense reform requires colleges and universities receiving Title VI funds to disclose contributions and gifts under a publicly searchable database known as the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data system. I generally believe that institutions of higher learning ought to focus their time and energy on the business of educating young people, not complying with burdensome reporting requirements. However, this particular case demands as much sunlight as humanly possible. Over the last several decades, American students and faculty members have been bombarded with a steady stream of rhetoric attacking American foreign policy in the Middle East and throughout the world. Many refer to this as the ``Blame America First'' philosophy that permeates throughout college campuses and takes root in small yet influential international studies programs. And while the so-called ``intellectuals'' hired to staff these programs are well within their rights to engage in important foreign policy debates, it is important to note that much of this debate is bought and paid for by, foreign entities that do not have American interests in mind. In fact, a wave of foreign money from oil-rich countries in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, is directly responsible for funding programs on college campuses that produce vicious rhetoric attacking American foreign policy in the Middle East and the War on Terrorism. These centers purportedly train teachers and professors, supply materials, and often preach a radical anti-democratic and anti- Semitic agenda in our classrooms at every level. Allowing the American people to access information will help them discern fact from fiction in the field of ``International Studies.'' The Burton amendment accomplishes this goal by giving average Americans the ability to connect the dots. After all, if an oil-rich sheikh funds a Middle East Studies program in the U.S. with millions of dollars, it stands to reason he might have an ulterior motive. The American people deserve a right to know.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, there is a physician in my district who deserves the thanks of our Nation and this Congress for his actions in combat in Iraq. Naval Commander Rich Jadick, MD, of the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta deployed to Iraq in the summer of 2004. He arrived just in time for the Battle of Fallujah, the heaviest urban combat American troops have endured in a generation. Newsweek Magazine quotes Dr. Jadick's commander, Lt. Col. Mark Winn, that as a direct result of Dr. Jadick's courageous actions under fire, at least 30 U.S. Marines were saved from death. During just 30 days of combat, Dr. Jadick treated over 600 Marines and Iraqi soldiers and civilians. He established a forward aide station well advanced beyond the safety limit prescribed for combat medical personnel. His courage in ignoring the danger to himself in order to provide life-saving treatment for wounded personnel led to his being awarded the Bronze Star with a ``V'' for valor. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of the Ninth Congressional District of Georgia, I commend and thank Dr. Jadick for his heroism and extraordinary service to his Nation and his fellow man.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Raymond Floyd for his service to our Nation, the game of golf and the Masters Tournament. Few events in the world of sports can compare to the pageantry, beauty and grace of the Masters Tournament in Augusta, GA. And there are even fewer individuals who have contributed to that prestige as much as Raymond Floyd. Early in his career Raymond Floyd became a role model for young people with his dedication to the game of golf, his family, and family values. Raymond was inducted to the World Golf Hall of Fame in 1989. In 1992, he was honored as Golf World's ``Man of the Year.'' Then, in 1994, the Floyd family was named ``Golf's Family of the Year'' by Golf Week magazine. Raymond Floyd's record in golf includes 62 victories worldwide. He won two PGA Championships, one Masters Championship, and one U.S. Open Championship. He played in eight Ryder Cup competitions and served as captain for another Ryder Cup Team. He holds numerous scoring and course records. He is also the only player to win on both the PGA and Senior PGA Tour in the same year. He has also joined the legendary Sam Snead in winning during each of his four decades on the professional tour. In addition to his accomplishments playing on the course, Raymond Floyd has made a name for himself in the art of golf course design. His understanding of the game of golf, combined with a desire to create courses that are both beautiful and challenging has resulted in numerous quality golf courses. Mr. Speaker, Raymond Floyd is among the names of the other greats in golf history. His accomplishments on and off the course will live forever.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, though I was absent on Wednesday, March 15, 2006, for personal reasons, I wish to have my intended votes recorded in the Congressional Record for the following series: march 15, 2006 Rollcall vote 40 on Ordering the Previous Question on H.R. 4939-- ``aye.'' Rollcall vote 41 for the Adoption of the Rules for H.R. 4939-- ``aye.'' Rollcall vote 42 on Approving H. Con. Res. 190--``aye.'' Rollcall vote 43 on the Gilchrest Amendment to H.R. 4939--``nay.'' Rollcall vote 44 to pass H.R. 4944--``yea.''

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, though I was absent on Thursday, March 9, 2006 for personal reasons, I wish to have my intended votes recorded in the Congressional Record. March 9, 2006: Rollcall vote 33 on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule for H.R. 2829--``aye''; rollcall vote 34 on Chabot amendment to H.R. 2829--``aye''; rollcall vote 35 on the Hooley amendment to H.R. 2829--``aye''; rollcall vote 36 on the Paul amendment to H.R. 2829-- ``nay''; rollcall vote 37 on the Rehberg amendment to H.R. 2829-- ``aye''; and rollcall vote 38 on the final passage of H.R. 2829-- ``aye.''

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. I was absent on Wednesday, March 8, 2006, for personal reasons. My intended votes are as follows: Rollcall vote 27 on the Cardoza Amendment to H.R. 4167--``aye''; rollcall vote 28 on the Waxman Amendment to H.R. 4167--``no''; rollcall vote 29 on the Capps, Stupak, Waxman, Eshoo Amendment to H.R. 4167--``no''; rollcall vote 30 on the Wasserman Schultz Amendment to H.R. 4167--``no''; rollcall vote 31 on the Motion to Recommit on H.R. 4167--``no''; rollcall vote 32 on the Final Passage of H.R. 4167--``aye.''

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, though I was absent on Wednesday, March 8, 2006 for personal reasons, I wish to have my intended votes recorded in the Congressional Record for the following series: Rollcall vote 21 on ordering the previous question for H.R. 710-- ``aye''; rollcall vote 22 on the motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 2830--``no''; rollcall vote 23 on H.R. 4192--``aye''; rollcall vote 24 on H.R. 1053--``aye''; rollcall vote 25 on H. Res 673--``aye''; rollcall vote 26 on H.R. 3505--``aye.''

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I was absent on Thursday, March 2, 2006, because of a recent death in the family. Had I been present on rollcall vote No. 18 on the Previous Question on the General Debate Rule for H.R. 4167, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor today to bring attention to the fact that March 2006 is National Eye Donor Month. As a Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Health and a recipient of organ donation myself, I am firmly committed to promoting organ, eye, and tissue donation. I have been blessed with the same gift thousands of transplant recipients have received: the gift of life. Sometimes that gift comes in the form of a longer life. Other times, in the case of cornea transplant recipients for example, the gift is one of enhanced life, or the simple ability to continue every day activities. The recipient is allowed the opportunity to enjoy one of the things so many of us take for granted--a chance to see the world around us. Few of us know personally the challenges associated with lost vision, but the fact that our Nation's eye banks exist and have helped so many Americans is a testament to their good work. As our Nation's seniors live longer and vision issues confront the baby boom generation in record numbers, the challenge will grow and the work of our Nation's eye banks will prove even more important. I know they are up to this new challenge and Congress must stand behind them. The first successful transplant of cornea tissue was made more than one hundred years ago. Since then, advancements in medical technology have been phenomenal. Cornea transplants are now among the most common and most successful transplant procedures. More than one million people, ranging in age from nine days to 107 years old, have received eye tissue transplants. All eye banks are not-for-profit organizations that are community- based and work with local philanthropic organizations, such as Lions Clubs, to educate citizens on the importance of donation. The community-based reach helps contribute to their success. Eye banks facilitate approximately 46,000 sight-restoring transplants each year. In my home state of Georgia, over 1,000 Georgians have been given the gift of sight with the help of the Georgia Eye bank and our ocular transplant physicians. Their success is a testament to their hard work but it also indicates that Congress must join eye banks in the struggle they face everyday. The Eye Bank Association of America has been vital in advancing the cause of eye donation for the past 45 years. Their efforts to raise awareness and support for eye donation have done wonders for the development of safe and effective transplants. This year marks the 23rd anniversary of Eye Donor Month. If you are not yet an anatomical gift donor, I encourage you to become one. I know all too well what may seem like a simple check on a card can mean to those awaiting a life-saving or life-enhancing donation. I continue my call and challenge to all Americans to discuss this issue with their families and consider becoming an organ, eye, and tissue donor. Such conversations must take place around the kitchen table, not after a loved one is gone. The process of becoming a donor takes just a few minutes, but its impact can last a lifetime for recipients. I also hope that people consider the merits of donating not just solid organs, but tissue and corneas as well. As our eye banks have proven, being able to give the gift of sight is truly a testament to our medical advancement. As this month goes on, I encourage my colleagues to recognize the success of eye banks across our Nation and work to increase local awareness about corneal transplants and the importance of donation. Transplants that give the gift of sight change Americans' lives every day, and we must do everything in our power to support this effort. I, for one, will do my part and hope you will join me in saluting our Nation's eye banks during Eye Donor Month.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, there was a very subtle illegal guestworker plan stuck in the budget the administration just submitted to Congress. That budget calls for the United States to allow over one million new illegal immigrants to infiltrate our borders during 2007. As a matter of fact, last year's budget is allowing one million illegal aliens to enter this year as well. That is how many immigrants enter our country illegally each year under our current enforcement plans. We know it will happen because it happens every year under current enforcement policy; and we are going right ahead with the same old plan, knowing in advance that it will be a near total failure. We continue talking about how we are adding 1,500 new border agents in 2007. That won't be in the field until 2009, letting another two million illegal aliens to walk across our border. We talk about how we are adding technology and fencing, but that won't be ready until 2010, allowing another million illegals in our country. Right now, with our current budget and reform plans, we are, by default, agreeing to allow an additional four million illegal aliens into our country. That is equivalent to the population of South Carolina or Oregon. Think about that. We are being asked to add a 51st state populated entirely by low-income illegal aliens. Mr. Speaker, I cannot find an excuse for this. We know right now how to bring this flood of illegal immigration to a virtual halt, and I think within the next 2 weeks. We need somewhere between 36 and 48,000 troops immediately deployed to the southern border. Now, the Minuteman Project in April showed that with between 18 and 24 additional enforcement personnel per mile, we can effectively secure our border for the first time. And it was not just the Minuteman Project that revealed these statistics. The U.S. Border Patrol conducted similar demonstration projects in 1993. Operation Blockade in El Paso and Operation Gatekeeper in San Diego produced the identical same results. We have a good idea on how much a deployment like this would cost. $2.5 billion a year. But, you know what? That is less than 4 percent of the minimum $70 billion a year we are currently spending covering the health care, education and the different costs for illegal immigrants. We already know how long it would take to get these troops on line and end this nightmare. One week. That is how long it took NORTHCOM to place 70,000 National Guard and regular Army troops on the Gulf Coast in response to Katrina, and we are still railing about how that took too long. One week. If the burden of the National Guard is too heavy, we can ask our governors to loan the Nation's 15,000 State defense forces to help. We can call up the Coast Guard Auxiliary and the U.S. Air Force Civil Air Patrol. We have laws in place, thanks to changes we made in the 108th Congress. Title 32, Section 9, U.S. Code now allows our governors to call out their National Guard for homeland security missions such as this at 100 percent Federal expense. Governor Janet Napolitano of Arizona has supposedly made such a call on the Department of Defense. Her State legislature voted earlier this week to force her to follow up on that request. Mr. Speaker, we need every Member of the House to urge their Governor to deploy all necessary forces to combat this invasion. We need the President to order the Department of Defense to fund this mission at 100 percent, and we need new legislation forcing the issue if action is not forthcoming. We can solve this problem if only Congress has the will.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to mark a milestone in Southern politics and culture by recognizing the 50th Anniversary of a culinary and political tradition in my district--Sconyers Barbecue Restaurant of Augusta, Georgia. Those outside my region might not be aware of how much a role a successful ``barbecue'' plays in Southern hospitality and politics. The first thing one needs to understand is that in the South, the word itself can be noun, a verb, or an adjective. It is more than food, it is a cultural identification, and one that crosses all party lines. I don't think there is any better example of this than Larry Sconyers and Sconyers Barbecue Restaurant in Augusta, Georgia. Sconyers Bar-B-Que was founded 50 years ago in 1956, when Claude and Adeline Sconyers could no longer make a living at farming and decided to give their hobby a try. With all their children but one grown and no one to help them on the farm, they opened Sconyers Bar-B-Que on Peach Orchard Road, just about a mile from the Tobacco Road of Erskine Caldwell fame. The small restaurant was an instant hit, with classically prepared southern barbecue. Larry Sconyers, Claude and Adeline's youngest son, took over the business after the death of his father. Under Larry's direction, the hobby grew into a major business in the Augusta area, with a move to a larger and more upscale location. But Larry wanted to take the traditional southern barbecue to a higher level--catering. Over the years Sconyers' Bar-B-Que has been served on the White House lawn for President Jimmy Carter and members of Congress, in Atlanta at the Georgia Capital as well as at many local and state events, including my own fundraising barbecues. Larry's close ties with political events almost cost us this wonderful asset. He was enticed to run for office himself, first serving as a Richmond County Commissioner from 1991-95, then as the first Mayor of a consolidated Augusta-Richmond County--Georgia's second largest city-- until he retired from direct politics in 1998 to return to the barbecue business. All this isn't just me talking. Sconyer's Barbecue has been featured in People's Magazine as one of the top ten Bar-B-Que restaurants in the United States. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of the 9th District of Georgia, I commend Larry Sconyers, the Sconyers family, and the entire staff, past and present, of Sconyers Barbecue for a half-century of service and traditional southern hospitality to the people of East Central Georgia, the South, and the nation.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4519, which would extend seed grant money for the creation and operation of high risk pools. I thank my friend, Mr. Shadegg, for bringing this. This is extremely important legislation. It has the potential, if it works right, to help all of us pay lower premiums in the future for our insurance policies. This is a nonpartisan issue. High risk pools have quietly become very important and are a very important part of our Nation's public-private patchwork of health care coverage. The folks covered are often times employed. They are paying taxes. But they cannot get coverage under a normal insurance plan. Pools are already covering thousands of people who through no fault of their own do not have access to group health insurance and cannot simply afford the coverage in the individual market. Thirty-one States are already operating high risk pools that offer good coverage at reasonable prices. I hope with the passage of this bill my home State now will be able to join that number. Mr. Speaker, this legislation takes us a step closer to making sure that everyone can purchase the health insurance protection they need. I know the worries associated with a serious health condition, and my constituents know the danger that catastrophic health care costs can pose to working families, especially rural families and the self-employed. High risk pools reduce costs on the government in the long term by providing a private safety net of coverage. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I hope at some point in time we will take up Mr. Shadegg's idea of tax credits for health care. But in the meantime, we need to make sure we get these high risk pools in place, and that will allow many Americans to buy health care insurance because the premiums will be reduced.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a courageous young man who died while serving our country in the war in Iraq. Corporal Anthony Thomas McElveen, Company F, 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division, was killed by enemy action while conducting combat operations on December 1 in Fallujah, Iraq. On behalf of the people of the 9th Congressional District of Georgia, I wish to extend condolences to Corporal McElveen's family and friends, and especially to his widow Carrie who resides in my district. I also extend the thanks of our state and nation to a brave Marine and his family for their sacrifice in keeping the fight for our freedom on foreign soil. Corporal McElveen's courage, dedication to duty, and willingness to pay the ultimate price to preserve his country will never be forgotten. Semper Fidelis.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.