Nancy Johnson

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. The gentleman makes an excellent point. Honestly, some nights I just lie in anguish because I know that by my colleagues making this a partisan decision, seniors in America are not going to get prescription drugs for another year and a half. Now, all the plans will take a year or two to put in place and if we cannot pass the bill for another year and a half, there are people in my district who are really truly desperate for this coverage, and that says to them, ``Not for another 3 or 4 years.'' We could pass this this year. It is really almost a crime that our colleagues will not come together and help us do it. It needs to be bipartisan. Now, we have talked about price, but there is one really important issue that you referred to that needs to be addressed. Seniors need to be able to have the drug that is appropriate to them. Some antidepressants, for example, work by making you sleepy. Well, if you are sleepy and you fall and break a hip, that is terrible. There are other antidepressants that do not make you sleepy, and your doctor ought to have the right to choose the one that works for you. Under our bill, I am proud to say every plan will have to provide not only multiple drugs in each category but what we call multiple drugs in each classification. One of the problems with the proposal from the other side is that you have to only provide one drug in each category, and that means your doctor will not be able to choose the pharmaceutical product that is really good for you, that will interact fairly in a healthy fashion with your other medications, that will not give you side effects that will cause harm to your health or to your well-being. So I think in this fast-paced debate, it is kind of being overlooked, that we not only want a plan that gives seniors choices of drug plans but that we want within those plans for each one to provide a lot of choices of medications so each senior gets the medication that she or he needs and that doctors will have the right to choose the pharmaceutical agent that is best for that senior.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I want to mention something that really has received no attention because it goes to what my colleague from Louisiana was saying. If you rely on the private sector and you have multiple plans out there, lower prices for seniors, better choices of pharmaceuticals, you also could use, and our seniors could have used it at this very time as HCFA is driving the Medicare HMOs out of the business, an ombudsman office. And our bill puts in it a new office that is separate from HCFA, within the government but separate from HCFA, who will help them when they need help, help them find the right coverage if they cannot find it, if they need to appeal the government's decision that they can or cannot have certain care. Then this ombudsman will help them get the information together and make that appeal. Under current law, they have effectively no appeal rights. Here we are talking about a patient bill of rights for all under-65-year-old Americans, and that has passed through the House, we, the Republican majority, included in the prescription drug bill an appeals process so that every senior would have the right to appeal if they cannot have the right drug, if they cannot have the right procedure, if they need medical care that they are being denied, and this office of ombudsman who can help them get together the information they need, guide them through the process of appeal if they need to be guided through that appeal process, and help them whenever they need help in dealing with the government around the current Medicare plan. I am very proud that we have set up this new independent office of ombudsman and also passed for every senior in America an appeals process that gives them those critical rights to speak up and say, ``Wait a minute, I need that medical treatment, and I ought to have it and have someone neutral to turn to say, yes, actually you should have that medical treatment because you need it and Medicare should be providing it.'' The breadth of our prescription drug bill, not only in the choices it provides seniors and in the pharmaceutical products it provides seniors, but also in restoring their rights as human beings under Medicare is really important for seniors to understand. I am proud we did it. I hope that over the course of the next few weeks we can join together, Republicans and Democrats, and of course our bill was bipartisan, but into a larger arena and get the President with us so that our seniors will not have to wait 3 years for prescription drug coverage.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, the chairman of the subcommittee that governs most of the Medicare program, for yielding to me. I have been very pleased. First of all, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) for his very thorough overview of the legislation that we developed in our committee. And I might say, over many months I have been very pleased that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have really taken an interest in prescription drugs. The last few months, and actually in our last floor debate, we had a full- blown alternative developed. Had that been possible a year ago, we would have prescription drugs signed by the President now. But our subcommittee did start holding hearings on this matter at the very beginning of this session. I must say, as a woman, I have been keenly aware of the need for Medicare to cover prescription drugs. It is simply a fact that 90 percent of all women over 65 have at least one chronic illness and 73 percent of women over 65 have at least two chronic illnesses. And, for this reason, because women tend to have more chronic illnesses and also live longer than men, they spend much more on prescription drugs than do men over 65. It is also a fact that, for a lot of reasons in our society, that most women are retired on very modest incomes, oftentimes not so low that they benefit from our State medication subsidy programs. In Connecticut it is called COMPACE, and it is a wonderful blessing to low-income seniors. But to those just above the poverty income but struggling along on a very modest income, they get no help from the State program. They cannot afford insurance. They cannot afford preventative health care and, in fact, they commonly suffer from disabilities. But they do have in common a higher instance of chronic illness and therefore a greater need for regular weekly, monthly prescription drugs. So it is extremely important to our seniors and extremely important to senior women that we integrate prescription drug coverage into Medicare. And so there are two things that are very important in this effort to gain coverage of prescription drugs under Medicare. One is price. Over and over, seniors will say to me, why, when we are such a big buying group, can we not negotiate lower prices at the pharmacist? I want to congratulate the chairman for structuring a bill that will cut those prices 25 to 30 percent. Unfortunately, the Democrats' bill, because it does not involve competition, and we are going to talk about what that means to seniors in terms of the quality of drug coverage, but just from the point of view of price, because our Democrat colleagues' alternative does not allow more than one company to distribute drugs, they will reduce drug prices at the pharmacy only about 12 percent. And since all the bills, whether it is the Democrats or the Republicans, the President or the Congress, involve 50 percent copayment for most seniors, whether it is 50 percent of $50 or 50 percent of $100 or 50 percent of $75 makes a lot of difference. I just want to congratulate the chairman on the fact that the structure of his bill, and this goes back to not only the importance of achieving the goal, but how we do it, the structure of our bill will drive those prices down at the pharmacy 25 to 30 percent; and that will help seniors no matter what their income group, no matter how many drugs they have to buy, whether they have reached the catastrophic limit or they have not. So I am very proud that our bill will reduce prices at the pharmacy by 25 percent. I would like to take a couple of minutes later on in the discussion to talk about the fact that our bill will also ensure many more drugs are available to our seniors.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 479 I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to the Coburn motion to instruct conferees. Mr. Speaker, school-based health centers are partnerships. They are partnerships within a community, and they are organizations in which school personnel, parents, community leaders, health professionals set policy governing what health care is available and under what circumstances. Mr. Speaker, 94 percent of school-based health centers require parental consent forms before a student can be seen. Two out of every three allow parents to choose which services their child cannot receive. Those centers in which children have most access on their own are located in those communities where teen pregnancies are the highest, and they are the communities where supervision of these children, support for these children, community options for these children, public education for these children is frankly the worst. There are children in our communities who never see their parents for days, and who are basically on their own. There are also lots of young women in high schools who are really actually the victims of what we would now call date rape. But nobody has talked to them about how to say no. Nobody has educated them about how to prevent pregnancy. So we are saying that they should have, through their high school clinics, if the community board has determined that this is appropriate, they should have access to a morning after pill or emergency contraception. This kind of contraception is only a high dosage of birth control pills, the same kind of pills that millions of Americans take every day. This is not RU486. This is just a high dosage of normal contraceptive pills. If a woman is already pregnant, the emergency pill has no effect on her pregnancy. But if a young person takes this within 72 hours of unprotected sex, date rape, rape, which is sometimes the case and more often than we actually like to acknowledge, or is the victim of incest, she can actually prevent herself from being pregnant. Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why my colleagues who oppose abortion, although I do understand why they oppose abortion, but I do not understand why they are so opposed to preventing pregnancy, particularly for young girls who are not going to be able to support this child economically and are almost by definition unready to support this child emotionally. My concern for the children of America is that they be born into stable, loving families that can give them the emotional and economic support and guidance over decades that children need. I can understand the difference of opinion in our Nation about how to manage abortion or what role abortion should play. But this, frankly, has nothing to do with abortion at all. It has everything to do with preventing pregnancy; it has everything to do with communities, health professionals, parents, educators, merely giving young women the knowledge and the tools and the power to prevent pregnancy. Now, is it wise for young women to be intimate sexually when they are in high school? I would tell them no, because on a peer development basis, you are transferring power to this young man that frankly women should not transfer because they get more into the web. I mean, I could go on and on. I tell high school kids this. I tell kids all the reasons why being sexually intimate prematurely is not a good idea, how it disempowers them, how it limits their ability to develop and gain control over their abilities, their future, their hopes and their dreams. However, by the same token, I want those young women who nobody told that to, I want those young women who had nobody advising them and helping them to at least know and understand what their choices are for responsible action. Frankly, I think it is more responsible for a young woman who has either been the victim of date rape, been the victim of rape, how many of these young people are the victims of incest, we do not know, but we are cavalier, cavalier about denying them access to a contraceptive that simply prevents implantation. It prevents pregnancy. That is a good thing. If you cannot economically and emotionally support a child, frankly, it is wise and responsible not to have one. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the gentleman's motion, because this House has no business passing this provision.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Norm Sills of Salisbury, Connecticut, for being named to the Appalachian Trail Conference's (ATC) Honor Roll of Volunteers. In this 75th anniversary year of the Appalachian Trail, the ATC is recognizing 75 individuals for their commitment to the trail. The honor roll seeks to recognize people for their dedication to the trail based upon the number of hours each has worked, their willingness to mentor new volunteers and their overall leadership skills. Over the last 34 years, Mr. Sills, has clearly exhibited all of these qualities. A retired farmer, Mr. Sills has contributed over 2,500 hours of his time to help maintain the Appalachian Trail. In addition to his work on the trail itself, Mr. Sills is co-editor of the Massachusetts- Connecticut Appalachian Trail Guide and a 34-year member of the Appalachian Mountain Club. The Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) is one of many organizations that helps to coordinate maintenance of the trail, largely by volunteers. Founded in 1876 as a hiking and climbing club, the AMC is now responsible for maintaining 122 miles of the Trail in Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Pennsylvania. AMC has created a 4,200 person nationwide volunteer network that spent 181,500 hours in 1999 alone managing this national treasure. First established in 1925, the Appalachian Trail Conference linked several northern hiking groups, such as the AMC, regional planning groups and the then young national forest system to coordinate creation, and later maintenance, of the trail. In 1984, the National Park Service delegated day to day upkeep of the trail and the accompanying Forest Service lands to the ATC. The trail now runs 2,167 miles from Maine to Georgia, through 14 states, and through my district, the northwest corner of Connecticut. The 14 states have collectively contributed over 180,000 acres through which the trail passes to the ATC. No other nonprofit organization is responsible for the daily oversight of such a large tract of land or one with such a rich history. Volunteers, such as Mr. Sills, are crucial in ensuring the continuing use of the trail. Given Mr. Sills' longstanding dedication, there can be no doubt that Mr. Sills has been instrumental in maintaining the trail and he is truly deserving of this award. I congratulate Mr. Sills on this honor.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I enthusiastically support Reflexite Corporation's celebration of their 30th year as a company and 15th year of the establishment of their Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP). On September 16, 2000, Reflexite will celebrate many accomplishments; being a world leader in the creation of microprism retroreflective technology that is unparalleled by any other company, their fundamental commitments and excellence in technology, quality and customer service, and allowing all employees to contribute to the growth of the company through ownership. In 1985, Reflexite Corporation established its ESOP and was recently recognized as the New England ESOP Company of the Year, 2000. Since its founding, Reflexite Corporation has achieved technological breakthroughs that continue to open new markets throughout the world. Reflexite's worldwide network of member companies also strive for excellence, service, and commitment to technological advances in the industry. Reflexite Corporation is a civic minded company, reaching out to numerous groups and individuals, improving many lives. Their success has been achieved through the hard work, creativity and determination on the part of the employee-owners. It is with great pride that I rise to recognize their tremendous accomplishments and contributions to the State of Connecticut.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate him not only on the bill but for his leadership on education issues over many years, both as Member of the minority and then as chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. I also congratulate him on not only having passed the Even Start bill in 1988, but having overseen what has happened under that legislation and bringing us tonight this legislation that improves the effectiveness of the Even Start program and improves the quality of the teaching that will go on under Even Start. Particularly, I want to commend the gentleman because he has never forgotten that children are the children of parents; that children grow up in families, and if children are not doing well, we need to look at both what the child needs and what their families need. The holistic approach to learning to read embodied in this bill is the right answer, not just for children, but for families. Research has shown for decades that children do better in school if their parents are interested in their progress in school. Yet, if parents themselves have not felt the power of education in their lives, they cannot transmit to their children a love of learning, a respect for learning, or the excitement that is necessary to motivate children to learn when they are young and accomplish the goals so important in elementary school. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman for his leadership and thank him for his work over all of these decades here in the Congress.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I do not agree that there is a loophole. Clearly you cannot do it during the program. If you go as far as the gentleman's bill, to say you cannot do it ``in'' the program, is significant and will disallow a lot of normal church activities. But my deepest concern is not whether or not the gentleman and I argue this technically, whether lawyers agree or disagree. The fact is that a change in the wording of this provision that has been in place now for I think 4 years, starting with welfare reform, will chill the participation, particularly of the small churches that we are trying to get involved through this bill.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this is a difficult issue. But for 4 years now this Nation has had Charitable Choice language in its welfare reform bill, in its Even Start program, and in other legislative initiatives for the explicit purpose of allowing churches to be part of the social service delivery system because often they can reach people that no government agency can reach. There are neighborhoods in America, there are areas of America where the only institutions left are small churches. Those small churches cannot tolerate complex, burdensome regulations governing their activities, but they can provide services without proselytizing. Clearly under current law, they cannot use Federal funds on any program that is going to proselytize. They cannot use Federal funds if they are going to discriminate. All those things are in current Charitable Choice laws and they have worked. Do not change it. And particularly do not change it in this fatherhood bill, because the fathers we are trying to reach are outside of the traditional system. The most likely agencies to reach them are the very small black churches in poor neighborhoods, Hispanic churches, other small institutions that we hope will be able to reach out to these fathers, and help bring them back into being the emotional parent of their child as well as the economic parent. Charitable Choice provisions have worked. Do not vote for this motion to recommit because it will destroy the opportunity of particularly our smallest churches to participate in the fatherhood grant demonstration program. And that would be really a tragedy because it would weaken us in reaching people that traditionally in our society we have not been able to reach. Government has not reached them, the big institutional churches have not reached them, and we need, we need, to reach into the neighborhoods where the people need our help. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this motion to recommit.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder). (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say, Listen up America. So often what happens on this House floor is not reported by the media, unless there is a conflict and a battle. The fact that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and I have spent many, many hours thinking about this bill, listening to people's concerns about it, working out the problems means that it comes to the floor with agreement, but it is a dramatic change in public policy. It is going to make an enormous difference in the ability of our Nation to build strong families. It is going to make an enormous difference in the lives of children. Just as welfare reform put models of work in our neighborhood, so his bill will put models of marriage in those neighborhoods, creating the umbrella of economic and emotional security under which children can grow well and strong. Research has documented over and over, what we have never been willing on this floor to talk about, the importance of marriage and what it means to children. So today we take that step. We are going to help people learn how to parent, help people understand marriage, help people take that option. Why? Because mothers and fathers do better in marriage, but we are doing this for the kids. Years ago when I was a freshman in this body, I was a member of the Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families. We held a hearing on children's fears, and the goal of the hearing was to demonstrate that children's greatest fear was of nuclear war. In fact, what the hearing demonstrated was that children's greatest fear was of divorce. Children need moms, they need dads, and we need to honor the role of fathers and help those who come into it without preparation to succeed in it, just as much as we need to help women on welfare succeed economically. This bill will help men whose children are on welfare succeed economically, in the same way welfare gives the mothers of their children that help, but it goes beyond that and addresses the emotional need to grow of young people so that they can not only succeed economically, but succeed as parents and succeed as co-parents of this child. So this is a giant change in public policy, it is a radical step forward, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman that you cannot do it during the program. Current law very clearly prohibits public monies for sectarian worship, instruction or proselytizing. In addition, current law is very clear that no program receiving Federal funds may discriminate based on race, color, national origin, disability, or age. This amendment is not necessary to enforce title VI of the Civil Rights Act, section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act or the Age Discrimination Act. It is not necessary, further, to present proselytizing. What it does do is to change the provisions on which we have relied for a number of years and will thereby frighten churches away from being willing to participate in this program. Remember, these fathers that we are trying to reach out to are the very people that government has not been able to reach, that the bureaucracy is not going to be able to get at them. That is why we want the churches to help. In many neighborhoods, frankly, the black churches, the Hispanic churches, are the only institutions left standing; and we want them to be able to get some Federal money to help them teach parenting skills, teach financial management skills, do work-readiness programs, to help these fathers take their economic responsibility and their emotional responsibility to their kids. The big advantage of this is going to be that if that neighborhood church is able to bring these men back into their families and help these families grow then they will be there to support those families throughout the many decades of growth that families go through, through the hard times, which we all know are a part of our lives, as well as through the good times. So to pass this amendment would absolutely, without question, chill the participation of the ecumenical community, not just the Protestant churches and the Catholic church, but the synagogues and the mosques, in this program. That would be a tragedy for men, for families, and for children. I urge defeat of the amendment.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, who has provided extraordinary leadership for families and children.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a member of the subcommittee.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make very clear that the amendment that the gentleman is offering is not the same amendment that is in the Even Start legislation or in the Drug-Free Schools bill. It is different in its wording, and the difference is significant. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 566, I call up the bill (H.R. 4678) to provide more child support money to families leaving welfare, to simplify the rules governing the assignment and the distribution of child support collected by States on behalf of children, to improve the collection of child support, to promote marriage, and for other purposes.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I begin by expressing my appreciation to my colleague and ranking member, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), and his very capable staff. This bill we bring before the House today was fashioned in some of its most significant sections by the gentleman's hard work and insight, and I thank him. I also want to thank my colleagues on the Conservative Action Team, who have helped us strengthen the marriage provisions in the fatherhood program that is such a vital part of this legislation. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) and his associates have worked with us in good faith and have improved this bill both by changing the procedure under which it is being debated and by adding excellent provisions to the bill. The 1996 welfare reform law has been one of the greatest social policy successes of the last half century. Due in great measure to this legislation and excellent reforms in the earned income credit, Medicaid child care, and other programs that support working families, work by single mothers, and especially never-married single mothers has increased in the last 5 years to its highest level ever. The result, according to a broad Census Bureau measure of poverty, is that we have reduced child poverty by nearly 30 percent in the last 5 years. We have reduced child poverty by nearly 30 percent in the last 5 years. This is a historic achievement made possible by legislation that originated in this body. Welfare reform has put us on the right track. But many of these single mothers and their children are struggling on extremely low incomes. Those who used to be on welfare are now in the workforce, but all too often their day-to-day personal struggle is nothing short of heroic. They work hard to juggle transportation, child care, work, and family time. It is a big job and millions of women are tackling it with determination and grit. So we come before our colleagues today with a proposal to ensure that these mothers who have left welfare get all the help they deserve. Under this bill they will get to keep more of the child support money the fathers of their children are paying. It is time to modernize the child support system's connection with welfare and require that a woman get 100 percent of the father's child support payment as she leaves welfare. That is exactly what this bill does. When fully implemented, this legislation will provide young mothers leaving welfare with an additional $700 million per year. That is $3.5 billion over 5 years. And every penny of it comes from child support payments made by fathers. In addition, this bill allows States to pass along child support through to the family while the family is still on welfare. This will encourage the development of the bond between the noncustodial parent in the family, help them develop an understanding of their economic ties, and better prepare families for the transfer off of welfare. Remember, if they understand the economic ties that bind, they are going to be better positioned to develop the emotional ties that bind and on which life depends. Of course, the best solution for these single mothers and their children would be to form two-parent families through marriage. We now have overwhelming evidence from research that marriage is good for health and happiness of both mothers and fathers, but the greatest beneficiaries of marriage are the children. Thus, as part of a very balanced package we bring to the floor today, we propose to fund small- scale community and faith-based projects throughout the Nation to promote marriage and better parenting by low-income fathers whose children are on welfare and to help them improve their economic circumstances. I know that many in this body doubt that government should be involved in promoting marriage, so I urge them to consider how our proposal would work. We want to provide seed money to help faith-based and other community organizations tackle this vital job. Seventy-five percent of the funds must support nongovernmental organizations. So we are not creating a new government program and bureaucracy. Government is simply a mechanism to help private organizations perform this important work. Let me also mention the legitimate concern of some that women could be pressured into violent relationships. In this bill we have added many provisions to assure that domestic violence and child abuse are prevented and, when necessary, that referrals are made to local services to help families in which violence is occurring. But we must in good conscience build on the important fact discovered through welfare reform. Because of its paternity determination requirements, we now know that 80 percent of the adults having out-of- wedlock children are serious about their relationship and believe it will be lasting. That is simply astounding. And we did not know that before welfare reform was implemented. Yet, after 2 years, after 2 years, most fathers are out of the picture. This bill will help many poor young men and women, more than half of whom live together when the child is born, and as I said, 80 percent of whom say they hope to form a lasting relationship, to fulfill that dream through education and support. These young people are poor. They often live in dangerous communities, lack economic prowess, and have few role models to follow to help them form stable, lasting marriages. These young couples face long odds. This bill will help them. It will help them work toward marriage; it will help them work toward becoming better parents and work toward economic advancement. For example, we will now provide the same help in getting a job to the fathers of children on welfare as we do to mothers on welfare. In other areas we will provide some of the education that has so helped women to their male partners. It is just common sense. This bill will move us a dramatic step forward in helping our poorest young people help themselves by making sure that child support money stays in the family. This will help young mothers to avoid or get off welfare, and bring young fathers and their children closer together. The fatherhood provisions of this bill promote more responsible behavior by fathers, including marriage, better parenting, and work. Through the fatherhood demonstration grants and the child support distribution reforms, we will bring our Nation a giant step forward on that path to building strong families and helping our poorest young people and children realize their dreams. Again, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), for his very significant contribution to this family- strengthening bipartisan legislation. Today we advance the agenda of personal responsibility and strengthen the family ties on which the well-being of our children depends. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to the motion to recommit, and I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), my ranking member.