Charlie Norwood

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), my friend, for the time. Mr. Chairman, this amendment the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) and I are offering today is about allowing States and localities some flexibility with their Federal homeland security funds. This flexibility is vital, especially when States and localities are doing the job of the Federal Government. Essentially, we believe that when States and localities are performing Federal homeland security functions, they should be able to tap into Federal homeland security dollars. First, let me say and make very clear that the gentleman from California (Chairman Cox) and his committee had a tough assignment, and I very much like what they have done and respect the product that they have produced. I strongly support getting this first-responder money out of the currently clogged pipeline, and that is basically what we are trying to do here today, and my congratulations to the chairman for doing just that. I have a major homeland security concern that I really do not think is getting nearly enough attention or funding. Additional resources are needed to help law enforcement deal with the problem of illegal aliens, a Federal issue and responsibility closely related to our security and anti-terrorism concerns. I believe our amendment would help these States and localities deal with this problem. Last Congress, I introduced the CLEAR Act which was designed to clarify State and local law enforcement involvement in combating illegal immigration. I need not remind the body that many of the 9/11 hijackers were here illegally, that many of the World Trade Center bombers were here illegally, and many of the plotters for other terrorist acts are here illegally. Immigration and border issues are central to our homeland security and anti-terrorism efforts. In promoting that bill, two problems were identified for law enforcement, the lack of resources and the lack of authority to do what needs to be done. While this bill does not deal with the authority part of the problem, it does deal with the resources part of the solution. Therefore, our law enforcement folks and others who are increasingly taking on anti-terror and homeland security operations should be able to access Federal funds for performing these Federal roles. The gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) and I have different districts, with different needs, but we agree that this language provides some flexibility to get at our individual concerns. Of course, the Department of Homeland Security has a role in oversight under the amendment so there are some checks and balances, appropriately. We are intentionally not talking about an unfettered ability to send the Feds a bill for services rendered. Neither of us have interest in that. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill, and I do thank the committee for working with us on this language, and I want to continue to work with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) in addressing this critical problem.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I point to the previous amendment where we talked about estimates a little bit. Well, this is dealing with estimates. This amendment would simply require a study conducted jointly by the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice on the link between illegal aliens and gang membership. Surprisingly, despite the overwhelming agreement from all parties that the two are linked, there is no comprehensive report anywhere that we can find on this topic. It is time for that to change. Congressional testimony on April 13 of this year produced some important anecdotal evidence of the need of this sort of data. Before the Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Marsha Garst offered some statistics in relation to some problems in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. She indicated the gangs there are nearly 75 percent composed of illegal aliens. She also related that a number of the illegal alien gang members had been previously deported, proving that we are not doing our job on the borders. A second witness at the same hearing was Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute. She has research that is helpful to this subject, but somewhat out of date. She indicated that a confidential California Department of Justice study from 1995 said that 60 percent of the 20,000-member 18th Street Gang in Southern California are illegal. Also, that the leadership of the Colombian Lil' Cycos Gang, who control some markets in L.A., was about 60 percent illegal in 2002. ICE officials put the number of illegals among MS-13 members at simply ``a majority.'' We need to do better than just know ``a majority.'' If you are not convinced, just listen to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), who is the Subcommittee on Immigration chairman. He indicated in his statement: ``While there are an estimated 750,000 to 800,000 gang members in the Nation, there are no firm estimates on how many of these gang members are aliens and how many are citizens.'' His point should not go unaddressed. So we again are saying today that our porous borders are a problem for our citizens. This time it is crime, sometimes deadly in our neighborhoods and streets. Despite this very clear link between gangs and illegal aliens, there is not a study that I located anywhere that addresses this issue. I think that it is long past due for that to change. People say that addicts have to first admit that they have a problem before they can move on and get help. This study is a good way for us to finally admit that we have a major problem and seek ways then to correct the problem. I hope that we will not take too long to seek that help, and I would be happy to assist with a solution, because it is an issue that I have worked on and been very interested in for a long time. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment and help us finally get the facts about the nationwide scope of what we are dealing with in terms of illegal aliens and gang membership. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I will simply say to my friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) that this is not an amendment that justifies or does not justify the previous amendment. This is an effort to get the facts on what we already know. If you ride around at all, you do not have to go very far to determine what the problem is in this country. I ask all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote to help protect this country from illegal immigrants. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to thank the gentlewoman. I hope this will be, and I think it should have bipartisan support, and I am going to call for a vote, because I believe most of us will vote for this.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, I am interested in doing anything I know we can do to stop gang violence in this country. It is time we brought it to an end, and of course, I am interested in anything about that that might head that off.

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

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is very kind. Mr. Chairman, I will tell you the NCIC system works. After 6\1/2\ years, it is overdue time we tried to do something about the visas. I will take just a minute to thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for a great bill. I appreciate so much his support in this, as well as the support of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and all their good work. We are finally, finally trying to do something about this terrible problem of illegal immigrants.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to require the Department of Homeland Security within 6 months to get information on a number of types of criminal illegal aliens into the National Crime Information Center. This makes sense for law enforcement, it makes sense if you are going to go after the gang problem, and it even makes sense to address our illegal immigration problem. The NCIC is a computerized index of criminal justice information available to the Federal, State, local law enforcement, and other criminal justice agencies. It is operational 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. This information helps apprehend fugitives, locates missing persons or property, and protects law enforcement officers. All records in NCIC are protected from unauthorized access. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleagues, there should be no fear in using this database to get this vital information into the hands of law enforcement. It is a good system. It is a tested one. Under my amendment, information on three types of aliens would be included in the National Crime Information Center: first, those aliens with a final order of removal issued against them. These are absconders who are flagrantly violating our laws. Recent estimates, remember that word ``estimates,'' recent estimates say that there are over 400,000 in our country today. Of this number, approximately 85,000 are criminal aliens. I do not mean jaywalkers either. I mean murderers, rapists, and pedophiles. Second, there are those who signed a volunteer deportation order. The third group, a very important group, are those who have overstayed their visas. Essentially, we are dealing with those who our government says should not be here, those who have themselves said they should not be here, and those who are overstaying their permission to be here. This first category, visa overstays, is the difference between the language in my amendment and that of the previous one offered by my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who incorporated much of my language into his good amendment; and I applaud him for that. Lest my colleagues forget, this final category, those who overstay their visas, has given us some of the most heinous criminals recently. The chief planner of the 9/11 attacks, Mohammed Atta, overstayed his visa, along with a number of other hijackers. Sheik Omar Rahman, the spiritual leader of the World Trade Center bombers and the plot to attack New York City landmarks, overstayed his visa, among other immigration violations. Mahmud Abouhalima entered on a tourist visa in 1985, which expired in the spring of 1986. He was given permanent residence in 1988 as part of an amnesty for agriculture workers. There was no evidence, however, that he was ever an agriculture worker. He made several trips to Afghanistan where he received combat training. He was implicated as a lead organizer in the 1993 plots to bomb New York landmarks. Mohammed Salameh entered on a 6-month tourist visa issued in Jordan in 1988. He should never have qualified for the visa by law as he fit the profile of intending immigrant. He rented the truck in the 1993 WTO bombing. Eyad Ismoil entered on a student visa in 1989, left school after three semesters, violating the terms of his visa, and became an illegal alien. He later drove the World Trade Center van full of explosives. More facts about visa overstays that might startle folks a little bit: at least 40 percent of the noncitizens who stay in the United States illegally, and perhaps more than half, did not sneak across the border. Visa overstays were described as a ``disturbing and persistent problem'' in a report by the Justice Department's Inspector General. Now, here is the punch line. This was all written on November 8, 1998, in the Dallas Morning News, nearly 3 years before the attacks of 9/11, and approximately 6\1/2\ years ago. This visa overstay language is therefore key to this amendment and key to our safety and security. This amendment is necessary. This language regarding visa overstays makes us safer. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, the House and Senate are finally taking the first small step in decades to address the hordes of criminal illegal immigrants who are undermining our Nation's laws, our culture, and our economy. We have agreed to pass the REAL ID Act as part of emergency supplemental appropriations. REAL ID holds the promise of attacking, finally, the underground fake ID industry in this country. This important legislation asks States to implement tough new standards for issuing driver's licenses, that is, if they want their State driver's licenses to be accepted as legitimate identification for Federal purposes. This bill does not force States to do so, nor does this bill implement a new national ID. The opponents of immigration reform, those who really want opened borders, are now screaming that this bill is ``too expensive'' and will ``backlog'' the driver's license application process of legal Americans. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported yesterday the concerns of one bureaucrat at the National Conference of State Legislators. He complained that the REAL ID would cost States $500 million to implement. But my home State of Georgia, like many others, already require many of the standards in this bill. So this figure is very questionable, extremely questionable. But for the sake of argument, let us accept that figure as valid. Would it be worth $500 million to have avoided 9/11? The 19 attackers who killed 3,000 Americans in New York and Washington on that day had 63 driver's licenses between them, which they used, as we all know, to board the airliners they crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. $500 million would be the deal of the century to have avoided the loss of all these Americans. Beyond our battle against terror, this bill addresses a growing threat to our very culture, to our way of life, and the reasons that people all over the world want to come here to start with. We are a Nation that respects the law, abhors corruption and graft. And as a result, we have built the greatest economy on Earth by having established a firm foundation of public honesty; reliable documents; trustworthy personal, business, and official records. Those standards are in stark contrast to most of the Third World, where graft and cronyism and corruption are the norm. That is why people from those countries want out, because they cannot feed themselves under the economic conditions created by this corruption. But illegal immigrants begin their journey by bringing that corruption to this country, by intentionally violating our immigration laws and crossing our borders illegally, and with the help of their own corrupt government. Once here, they continue the process by falsifying identification documents, which they then use to corrupt our public records at both the State and Federal level. In the process, they have created an underground criminal industry based on graft and deceit, with the sole purpose of undermining the public records of this Nation. To allow this to continue would be far more damaging than just allowing false information. It would allow a culture of corruption to take seed and grow in this country, until the weeds of graft choke the economy and the public integrity of America, as it has the nations that the illegal immigrants flee from, especially south of us. I urge the Senate, I urge the Senate to join us in passing this essential first effort against illegal immigration.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my special order at this time.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Speaker, this month the Minuteman Project has accomplished with just a few hundred citizen volunteers what the Federal Government has been unable to do and actually told us was impossible to do, and that is stopping illegal immigrants crossing our borders. In the process of focusing the Nation's attention on the insecurity of our borders, they have succeeded in bringing new information to the debate on the overall immigration crisis in this Nation. The new information is critical to this body's consideration of a specific policy area, probably and frankly the one area in which all Americans should be in 100 percent agreement, and that is protecting Americans from criminal illegal immigrants. U.S. Border Patrol Sector Chief Michael Nicely is head of the entire 260 mile long Tucson Sector of our border, the worst in the Nation for illegal immigration, and the same sector where the Minutemen shutdown a 23 mile portion of that sector. What should be horrifying to all Americans is what Chief Nicely told Government Executive Magazine just last week. He says that since November, the Border Patrol agents have caught 17,000 criminal illegal aliens trying to enter our country through just through this one 260 mile sector; 17,000 criminal illegal aliens. That is not total illegal aliens now, just the criminals. Overall, Chief Nicely's sector has arrested more than a quarter of a million people trying to enter this country illegally just since Thanksgiving. Last year, I introduced legislation specifically targeting against criminal illegal aliens. The Clear Law Enforcement For Criminal Aliens Removal Act, or we call it the CLEAR Act, gained the support of some 125 Members. Our purpose is fairly simple: State and local law enforcement personnel would be fully authorized to investigate, apprehend, and, if necessary, remove criminal aliens in the United States. Already this year our Justice Department has asked for help from local law enforcement on this issue. According to Reuters News, the Bush administration now recognizes that, ``The United States has freed numerous illegal aliens into the community who are dangerous murderers, rapists and child molesters under a legal loophole created by Supreme Court decisions, and that ``Congress should urgently pass legislation to close this loophole, which has already resulted in the release of several extremely violent offenders, with others scheduled to be released soon.'' According to the report, U.S. Justice Department Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Cohn made this request of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on March 14. We have the legislative draft to do just what they want, this year's pending version of the CLEAR Act. We plan to introduce the 2005 version within the next few weeks. We do welcome constructive input from the administration, from Members of both parties and members of both houses. But from what we have learned thus far from the Minuteman Project, the CLEAR Act cannot be a stand-alone remedy for stopping the hordes of vicious foreign criminals invading our country to murder, rape and molest Americans. My one bill will not do it, not by itself. We can provide local and State law enforcement with the tools to remove these criminal elements through guaranteed deportation. We can help Homeland Security do their job. But it does little if they can simply pour back across unsecured borders. You have gotten nothing done. The CLEAR Act, therefore, will become a critical component of overall immigration and border reform. I urge every Member in this body to join in this effort with the CLEAR Act. In return, I pledge to support whatever legislative measures that are necessary to secure our borders. That includes a total military closing, if necessary, to stop these criminals. I fully understand the meaning of ``closing,'' even if it is a temporary closing. It is a time we in this body are going to be able to declare whose side are we on. Are we on the side of fellow Americans, or are we on the side of those of the new world order who want no borders? It is that simple. The vote will come down to just that.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, as my colleague from Texas knows, the electricity title is very, very important to my consumers and my constituents in the southeast as well as in the northwest, and one of the provisions in the title that is not there is regarding participatory funding. Since that is a fairly standard thought-out thing in regional transmission organizations, I am concerned that the bill does not have any language in there to assure me and my constituents that they are not going to have to pay extra. We do really want to help people that are having blackouts and brownouts, but we do not think we should pay the whole load. What can I anticipate on participatory funding down the road?

Mr. NORWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman very much. As he knows, I agree participatory means ``everybody pays,'' and those that reap the advantages of this, which will be the generators of electricity and the receivers of electricity, need to pay. And I am all right with that. I thank my colleague, and I look forward to working with him on this as we move forward toward conference.

Mr. NORWOOD. I thank the Chairman.

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I have a little different view of this. This is a good bill. It is a bill this country needs. We need a national energy policy, there is no question about it, and I congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) on years of hard, dedicated work to bring this to the floor. Having said that, like any other bill I have ever seen, it is not a perfect bill; it has its good and bad parts. And if I could, Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I would like to have a little quick colloquy with the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I think there is little doubt that our law enforcement agencies should conduct themselves, in fulfilling their founding purpose, in a manner that is consistent with their mission of serving the American people. In this light, I am submitting for the record an article by Radley Balko, a policy analyst with the Cato Institute, entitled ``Bush Should Feel Doctors' Pain''. The article suggests that the need to protect patients, while attempting to prevent diversion and misuse of prescription drugs is arguably out of balance. There is no doubt that prescription drug abuse, particularly the abuse of prescription pain medications, is a serious public health problem. I have been one of the most vocal advocates on the necessity of this body to address the abuse of prescription medication by patients, crack down on the practice of ``doctor shopping'' and prosecute those medical professionals that harm responsible pain management by violating their responsibility to the highest standards of their profession. Consequently, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) should absolutely take appropriate steps to stop criminals from diverting these medications and exploiting those who would abuse them. But, it must also recognize that over 30 million Americans suffer chronic pain and need access to proper pain management by legitimate medical practitioners if they are to lead normal and productive lives. However, in its seemingly single-minded pursuit of ``bad doctors,'' the DEA appears to be showing its lack of proper understanding, inability, or unwillingness, to strike a proper balance between these two public policy goals. I am worried that this failure is scaring responsible doctors away from prescribing legitimate patients from obtaining needed medications, causing these patients and those who love and care for them untold harm and unnecessary distress. Congressmen Whitfield, Pallone, Strickland, and I have introduced H.R. 1132, a bill that would assist and encourage the States to establish a controlled substance monitoring program. These Prescription Monitoring Programs would assist physicians, pharmacists, and other healthcare professionals by providing them with prescribing information that would help them to detect abuse and diversion tactics and prevent ``doctor shopping''. This legislation also would permit law enforcement to review this prescribing data, but only where they certify that the requested information is related to an individual investigation involving the unlawful diversion or misuse of schedule II, III, or IV substances, and that such information will further the purpose of their investigation. It appeared that the DEA realized it should not, indeed could not, dictate proper medical practice in the prescribing of pain medications. Last August, after working with a panel of distinguished physicians specializing in pain management, the DEA published guidelines for physicians who treat pain with opioids. These guidelines were designed to assure legitimate medical practitioners that they would not face prosecution simply because they prescribed such medications or treated a large number of patients in pain. Given the disturbing trend of doctors shying away from prescribing necessary medication due in large part to the issues discussed, the DEA should not act in a way that would further limit patients' access to needed pain management medications. Within weeks, the DEA abruptly withdrew these guidelines without explanation in a transparent attempt to avoid jeopardizing a pending high profile prosecution. Strong objections came from the medical community and from 30 state Attorneys General. I am also including a copy of their letter sent to the DEA in which they raise their objections. However, the DEA has not relented in its pursuit of doctors it considers to be practicing bad medicine in a field of practice that is still evolving and requires a certain latitude for the exercise of sound medical judgment. In effect, the DEA is doing the very thing it should not do, determine what is acceptable medical practice. The chilling effect the DEA's actions are having on physicians engaged in the legitimate practice of medicine is undeniable. Effective pain management has become all too difficult to obtain because many doctors are afraid to prescribe adequate levels of opioids for fear of investigation and prosecution. This is simply unacceptable, as a member of the healthcare community for over thirty years and a patient who has known the need for proper pain management. Yes, the DEA should continue to work with the appropriate state and local authorities to pursue those who abuse the trust that was placed in them when they obtained a medical license. Yes, we should be cracking down on those patients who seek to circumvent and abuse the system to abuse prescription medications. But the DEA must lead the charge to restore the balance between these different but certainly not mutually exclusive public health goals. By assuring legitimate medical practitioners that they will not be investigated or prosecuted simply because they prescribe a certain kind of medication or have a successful practice, will better serve the American people, particularly those many millions who are needlessly suffering in pain. National Association of Attorneys General, Washington, DC, January 19, 2005. Karen P. Tandy, Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration, Alexandria,

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, in addition to my remarks today, I am also submitting a letter written by Dr. Scott Spear to the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee. In it, Dr. Spear, who is the President of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, brings to light an important health issue that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is currently debating: the safety of silicone gel-filled breast implants. The FDA's General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel has scheduled an upcoming hearing that will focus primarily on the safety of these products for the American consumer. The information that Dr. Spear shares in his letter is important for us to take note of as this panel continues its work to make an informed, science-based decision on the safety of these implants. In addition, I am submitting for the Record a pamphlet entitled Safety of Silicone Breast Implants that reviews the long term studies that have been performed on silicone gel-filled breast implants. Taken along with Dr. Spear's letter, this brochure makes a compelling argument that in determining the very real and unquestionably important issue of determining the safety of these implants, we must set preconceived notions aside, and ensure that science dictates our actions. I urge my colleagues to review these two documents and I encourage you to join me in supporting the unbiased and open-minded work of the FDA panel as it determines the safety of silicone gel-filled breast implants for American consumers. March 4, 2005. U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee, (Members and Health Legislative Assistants). Dear Senators: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is conducting an ongoing regulatory process regarding breast implants, which the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) fully supports. As physicians and patient advocates, we support sound science and have confidence that the FDA will review valid scientific data and make its decisions based on the best interests of patients. Moreover, we believe a strong post-market surveillance process will serve the best interests of our patients. As part of this process, the FDA's General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel will be conducting hearings on April 11-13 regarding the pre-market approval (PMA) applications of two manufacturers' silicone gel-filled breast implants. The FDA appointed panel represents areas of expertise and judgment relevant to the product under review including academicians in specific fields, such as from radiology, oncology, biostatistics, ethics, plastic surgery, general surgery and other disciplines. Each panelist is vigorously screened and cleared by the FDA in advance of their participation. Historically, panelists have been permitted to engage in educational activities promoting patient care. These activities have not been deemed conflicts of interest. Anti-breast implant advocates continue to raise this issue to discredit qualified and reputable clinicians. As a matter of background, the FDA's General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel conducted a similar hearing in October 2003. The hearings were conducted in a highly open and transparent process, with more than 20 hours of public testimony and signification deliberation. Ultimately, the 2003 Advisory Panel recommended approval of the device with a number of conditions. The conditions outlined by the panel include development of a model informed consent form, patient education, surgeon education, patient follow-up and exams, annual reports to FDA, implant retrieval testing, a breast implant registry, and recommendation for removal of ruptured implants. In January 2004, the FDA decided to postpone action pending submission of additional manufacturer data outlined in a revised draft guidance to be addressed at this subsequent panel hearing. Given the level of interest in the FDA's review of silicone breast implants, it is important that Members of Congress are provided accurate and science-based information concerning these medical devices.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Jack Nicklaus for his service to our Nation, the game of golf and the Masters Tournament. Few events in the world of sports compare to the beauty and grace of the Masters Tournament in Augusta, GA. There is no one that has won more Masters' titles than Jack Nicklaus. He is the owner of six coveted Green Jackets. Early in his career, Jack Nicklaus became the role model for an untold number of individuals aspiring to play the game of golf. He has also become a role model for millions of people for his personal values, particularly his dedication to family. Named the Golfer of the Century and Golfer of the Millennium by every major media outlet, Jack Nicklaus' record stands unparalleled at the top of the golf world. He has collected more than 100 professional victories worldwide. This includes 73 PGA Tour victories and 10 more on the Champions Tour. He has won a record 20 major championships: 6 Masters, 5 PGA Championships, 4 U.S. Open Championships, 3 British Opens, and 2 U.S. Amateur titles. In his career he has been the top money-winner 8 times, number one in scoring 8 times, and has recorded 20 holes in one. Jack Nicklaus has been a member of six Ryder Cup teams, captained two others, and this fall, he will serve for the third time as captain of the U.S. Presidents Cup team. Many things have been said about Jack Nicklaus. At the 1962 World Series of Golf, Arnold Palmer rose to make the following statement, ``Jack Nicklaus is just a youngster and a newcomer to the professional ranks. But you gentlemen saw one of the greatest out there today. He'll be a headliner for a long time and could put together the greatest career the game has ever known. He has everything.'' In addition to Jack Nicklaus and his sons/family growing the game of golf by designing close to 300 courses worldwide, the Nicklaus family gathered on June 12, 2003, with sand wedges instead of shovels, to break ground on the Nicklaus Children's Hospital at St. Mary's Medical Center in West Palm Beach, Florida. The hospital officially opened last November. They have also formed the non-profit Nicklaus Children's Health Care Foundation. This foundation, chaired by Mrs. Barbara Nicklaus, provides charitable support for activities that advance and enhance the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of childhood diseases and disorders. The Nicklaus Children's Health Care Foundation also supports not-for-profit programs and projects aimed at pediatric health care and health-related services, with the Nicklaus Children's Hospital located at St. Mary's Medical Center as the major focal point. So. Mr. Speaker, the name of Jack Nicklaus will always be synonymous with the game of golf and his accomplishments, on and off the course, will live forever.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, tonight is part three on the judges of Madison County, Illinois. As I promised last week, I am back on the floor tonight to talk about a place that has the dubious distinction of being America's number one ``judicial hellhole,'' Madison County, Illinois. Mr. Speaker, they do not give out awards like the number one ``judicial hellhole'' from the American Tort Reform Association to just anyone. No, sir, only a court that continually misapplies civil laws, regularly violates fundamental constitutional rights of defendants, and caters to the interests of opportunistic trial lawyers can get a recognition like that. Sadly, Mr. Speaker the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois, got this distinction the old-fashioned way; they earned it. Tonight, Mr. Speaker, I want to continue a story I started last week on one of the ways they earned this awful award by trashing someone's first amendment rights. I stood on the floor last week, and I told the Members about the former Attorney General and U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Griffin Bell and his experience with Madison County. I told the Members that, at a public forum in April of this year, Judge Bell said that counties like Madison County are a serious ``stain on our system,'' meaning the judicial system. I also told the Members that Judge Bell called for an investigation into the administration of civil justice in Madison County. I finally told the Members, Mr. Speaker, that the wrath of the ``judicial hellhole'' was felt the very next day when Judge Bell and his firm were barred from appearing in their courtroom. But as Paul Harvey might say, what I did not tell the Members, Mr. Speaker, was the ``rest of the story.'' Hold on to your hat, Mr. Speaker, because, not long after that outrageous act by the Madison County Court, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that a Madison County judge closed his courtroom to report his warning to cover a hearing about a fee dispute between prominent local trial lawyers. See, Mr. Speaker, as it turns out, the hearing was likely to include arguments over the lawyers' share of fees stemming from a very large class-action settlement, and for once, dollar amounts would likely be released regarding the sizable sums of money that these greedy trial lawyers stood to pocket. So what happened? Well, you guessed it. The Madison County judge simply refused public access to the transcripts and exhibits from that hearing. Yet, once again, free speech lost, and trial lawyers won. Mr. Speaker, the message from Madison County Circuit Court judges is simple: We have absolutely no respect for the first amendment. Folks speaking out against our brand of civil injustice should expect intimidation and retaliation, and finally, when court is in session, no one is safe unless of course he is of their trial lawyers. Mr. Speaker, last month, I wrote a letter to U.S. Attorney General Ashcroft asking him to formally investigate the judicial hijinks taking place in Madison County, Illinois. To my surprise, one of the Madison County trial lawyers, a Mr. Randall Bono, took time to ask in a local newspaper, why in the world would someone from Georgia ``have an interest'' in Madison County? Mr. Speaker, that is pretty easy. When sleazy trial lawyers like Randall Bono retire when they are 42 years old, because they have pocketed millions of dollars through frivolous lawsuits, when a local court decides to hear cases from around the country it has no business hearing, when the local judicial system stops being a public trust and becomes a private trough for greedy trial lawyers like Randall Bono, when these and countless other injustices are allowed to continue anywhere in this great Nation, it is not a local issue, Mr. Speaker; it is a national issue. And this Congressman from Georgia, for one, has had enough. Mr. Speaker, let me make this loud and clear to trial lawyers like Randall Bono and corrupt judges of Madison County: They may try to hush up, but I am coming after them, and I cannot and I will not be intimidated on these issues.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the Special Order time of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) at this time.

Mr. NORWOOD

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to once again discuss the judges of Madison County, Illinois, Part 2. It sounds like a book. Maybe it will be; maybe it should be. Last night I rose to address what the American Tort Reform Association calls America's number one judicial hellhole, also known as Madison County, Illinois. As I promised then, I am back to shine a little more light into that hole. There is absolutely no doubt the ripple effect of frivolous civil lawsuits has been felt in every corner of this great country. When greedy trial lawyers get together to brainstorm which companies they can sue for millions and millions of dollars and put no less than 40 percent of their winnings in their own pocket, everyone loses; everyone, that is, except the trial lawyers. And one greedy trial lawyer who makes darn sure he never loses when it comes to lining his own pockets is Randall Bono from Madison County. Mr. Bono has made a fair living doing business in this judicial hellhole on the backs of hardworking men and women. In fact, he was able to retire at the age of 42 from the millions of dollars that he won in asbestos civil lawsuits. Madam Speaker, I may never know how Mr. Bono or other trial lawyers sleep at night knowing they have made their fortunes because of civil injustice being doled out in Madison County, Illinois, but I know as long as this hellhole remains open for business and scoundrels like Mr. Bono use it to take hard-earned money away from working folks, I will be in the well night after night in this House to stand up to say enough is enough. I rise tonight specifically to address the first amendment violations of the courts of Madison County, Illinois. That is right; with the court's authority in Madison County, trial lawyers have violated or at least chilled the exercise of first amendment rights held by members of the media and civil defendants. I admit, Madam Speaker, it is a rare occasion for me to stand up and defend the media, but I simply cannot and will not let the courts of Madison County trash the rights our forefathers worked so hard to ensure for everybody. If Members think the media or anyone else is safe from the wrath of Madison County, think again, Madam Speaker. Consider just a few of the cases outlined in my letter to Attorney General Ashcroft requesting a formal investigation of Madison County, Illinois and all their shenanigans. In one effort to trash somebody's first amendment rights in Madison County, a plaintiff's law firm made legal maneuvers in June 2004 to try and force defendants to share and discuss any associations with or support of groups promoting tort reform. At least one of these groups has filed a motion for protective order with the court because their feelings about tort reform have absolutely nothing to do with the case before them, and forcing them to share this information is an infringement of their first amendment rights. The Wall Street Journal editorialized that the plaintiff firm's requests have no legal merit and their purpose is simply to intimidate and coerce these folks. In June 2003, the presidents of several major tort reform associations got slapped with subpoenas only after they appeared at a press conference to speak out against the outrageous litigation abuse in Madison County, Illinois. The subpoenas demanded that two of the individuals travel halfway across the country a month later to appear for a deposition in a product liability case. Once again, the clear purpose of these subpoenas was to harass and intimidate. At an April 2004 public forum hosted by Washington University Law School in St. Louis, former U.S. Attorney General and former U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Griffin Bell said that counties like Madison County that are known for treating civil defendants unfairly are a stain on our system. Judge Bell called for a Federal investigation into the administration of civil injustice in Madison County, but again the wrath of the judicial hellhole was felt the very next day. A Madison County judge retaliated by barring Judge Bell and his firm from appearing in their courtroom. Madam Speaker, we will continue this discussion every night until somebody looks into the injustices of Madison County, Illinois.