Nancy Johnson

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

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 rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 452 I put my card in the box but it failed to register. Had it registered, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are bringing legislation to the floor today to repeal this unfair tax on seniors. Our senior citizens have worked their entire lives to build the savings that will enable them to enjoy a safe and secure retirement. The 85 percent tax created in the 1993 Clinton budget penalizes those seniors who have done what we are encouraging them to do, build their own personal savings for retirement. The worst thing about this tax is that the income levels that trigger it have not changed since the law was enacted--even though the cost of living has certainly increased since then. Therefore, more and more people become affected by it each year. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this year 10 million seniors (that's one out of every five seniors) will have to pay additional taxes, and by 2010 that number will reach 17 million--or one-third of seniors. With the income levels at $32,000 for individuals and $44,000 for couples, this is not a tax on upper income seniors--it is a tax on middle income seniors. And in Connecticut it hits seniors even harder because of our higher cost of living. In a letter to Chairman Archer, the AARP expresses its concerns about the tax. Their letter states: ``The 1993 tax may serve to undermine the program. By adding additional taxes to an already progressive Social Security benefit formula, these changes risk undermining the widespread public support the system enjoys.'' This tax was created as part of a deficit reduction program. Now that we are enjoying unprecedented budget surpluses, we owe it to our seniors to repeal the tax. In 1993, the deficit was $255 billion. For fiscal year 2000, the surplus is $233 billion. This tax helped create that surplus, so we owe it to our seniors and working Americans to repay the favor. Repealing this increase is a matter of fairness and will help senior citizens, especially those with moderate incomes, keep more of their money in their own pockets. I urge my colleagues to support this piece of critical tax relief.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time, and I rise in strong support of this bipartisan legislation which will help revitalize our most disadvantaged communities. It simply gives communities the tools they need to revitalize their neighborhoods. It includes pro-growth tax incentives, brownfields cleanup, regulatory relief, all things that will help create jobs in our distressed cities. I want to talk about one provision that not only deals with the regeneration of the economic base of our cities but will enable people to live close to their jobs by expanding the number of affordable housing units in our distressed neighborhoods. This bill includes an increase in the low-income housing tax credit cap and important reforms to that program. Increasing the cap has the overwhelming support of the Members of this House and will result in an expansion of the Federal- State program that has produced more affordable rental housing across America than any other program; but due to inflation, its value and its power in our lives has been eroded 50 percent. I ask strong support of the bill of my colleagues.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me this time and rise in strong support of passage of this Intercountry Adoption Act. The Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means has written legislation that has more than doubled adoptions nationwide in America through good law, and we hope that this Intercountry Adoption Act will not only demonstrate America's commitment to the child, the birth parents and the adoptive parents, all parties to the adoption but will enable those adoptions to move more smoothly and more rapidly so that more children throughout the world can find permanent and loving homes. The purpose of the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption is to set the rules for intercountry adoption that will do three important things: first, allow recognition of adoption among the party countries; two, protect the interests of all members of the adoption triad; and, three, prevent illegal child trafficking. The Convention establishes an international set of principles and rules that will govern intercountry adoptions. These rules provide for the first time normal international recognition of the process of intercountry adoption and establish a minimum set of uniform standards governing international adoptions. The implementing legislation we have before us today has been a long time in coming. The number of people that have been involved has been iterated by previous speakers so I will not reiterate those names; but it is fair to say without six Members of this House devoting really many hours to this subject over the last 2 years, we would not have this opportunity to more fairly and honestly and effectively govern international adoptions. I would particularly like to recognize the efforts of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp). He is a member of my subcommittee. He has been involved in this issue many, many years; and he has carried the major responsibility on behalf of the Committee on Ways and Means and myself on this legislation. I also want to recognize the work of Dr. Cassie Bevan, our chief of staff, because not only did she write the Safe Home and Families Act that has done so much to increase adoptions in America, but she was very instrumental in helping us find the language that allowed us to come to agreement on this bill and have it before Members today. There are two principles that governed the drafting of this implementing legislation. First, the drafters were careful to include in the implementing legislation only those requirements that were specifically mandated by the Convention. The Convention required the implementing country to, among other things, designate a central authority, establish an accreditation process, and preserve adoption records. This legislation was not intended to change domestic adoption practices or provide for a larger Federal role in nonconvention adoptions but was designed to meet the specific requirements of the Hague Convention. Secondly, the drafters were mindful that in the United States, family law is a field in which States are preeminent. Thus, this legislation was not viewed as an opportunity to override State laws. On the contrary, efforts to override State laws were resisted. The Intercountry Adoption Act was designed to put into practice certain internationally agreed upon norms and procedures. Among these are the establishment of an accreditation system that will ensure that adoption agencies and adoption lawyers engage in sound, ethical adoption practices that recognize the dignity of all the parties involved. Today, the Congress continues to build an impressive record of promoting adoption. I believe that H.R. 2909 along with the adoption tax credit, the Multiethnic Placement Act, the Adoption and Safe Families Act, and the Foster Care Independence Act shows our interest in making it easier for children to find permanent, loving families through adoption. I congratulate the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for his skillful leadership and the intense interest of a few Members, that handful of Members on both sides of the aisle that have made this bill possible and thank again my staff, the staff of all the committees, and the office of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) that helped us get this crucial legislation to the floor.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I want to make simply three points. First of all, under no circumstances can American dollars be used to fund abortions abroad, period. No matter what anyone implies on this floor, that is the law of the United States of America and it cannot happen. However, I am stunned that representatives in this democracy would stand up on the floor and advocate that our policy be to force citizens of another country to break their own laws. That is simply unheard of and unconscionable. If in another country abortion is legal and referral to people who can do abortions is legal, then we should not force native citizens of that country not to be allowed to say to a woman who comes in where they can go to get an abortion if it is a legal medical procedure in their country and they have a right to it. Why would we in a free society want to force, as a consequence of American aid, citizens in other countries to abrogate their own laws? Have we no respect? When I think of the worry on the floor of this House over the sovereignty issue when we get into trade matters, will the World Trade Organization impose its views on our laws, and the answer to that is no, we do not allow that, we do not allow international agreements to impose themselves in a way that contradicts our domestic law, yet that is exactly what this provision in this bill would do in terms of following U.S. money with a requirement for citizens in other countries to literally abrogate their law. Let me tell Members why we really have to strike this provision. If a woman comes in and she is already pregnant and she wants a termination, and I am the health person, do Members really want me to say, ``I cannot say that word, so you will have to leave and go someplace else to talk to other people?'' No. We want to be able to say to that woman, look, maybe she does not have to have an abortion. Maybe she could carry this pregnancy because we can help her after that not to get pregnant again. Because that is what we are trying to do: We are trying to teach family planning services. We are trying to give women the power to control their reproductive capabilities responsibly. If she then says, ``No, I absolutely have to for a lot of reasons: I have 10 children, we cannot afford it,'' whatever it is, ``and if I cannot get it here, I will go to the back alley,'' do Members not think it is better for us to say, well, she can legally get a safe, clean abortion, and then come back and we will help her? Through the power of knowledge in a free society, we will help her prevent this and she will never again get in this position where she faces an unwanted pregnancy. Contraceptives are the right answer to abortion. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the motion to strike.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, in my earlier remarks, I did mention the breadth of formulary that seniors would have access to under the Republican bill, because they would have access to competing plans. So they would have access to a number of prescription drugs in every category, and assurance that off-label use of drugs, so important to cancer treatment, will be at their beck and call. But there is another wonderful provision of the bill that I want to point out to my colleagues. It allows our seniors to participate in a demonstration project if they are diagnosed with advanced stage congestive heart failure, diabetes, or coronary heart disease. These are the very seniors with the highest drug costs, and participating in these disease management programs will enable them to get their pharmaceuticals essentially covered and through a disease management approach they will get support in recovering and adopting preventative health life style changes, following all of their doctor's orders, that will improve their health and reduce their health care costs all the while covering their drug costs. It has been proven that disease management lowers hospital costs, lowers doctor costs, lowers emergency costs. Good for Medicare and good health for seniors.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, this is a red letter day for seniors. It is just a red letter day. For the first time in history, out of this House is going to go legislation to provide prescription drug coverage for seniors across America, every village, every city. I am proud of that. This is not about insurance companies, and here is the proof. In the Democrats' bill, they are going to use, and it says, ``or insurers.'' They are going to use insurers; we are going to use insurers. They are going to use pharmaceutical benefits managers; we are going to use pharmaceutical benefits managers. They are going to use pharmacy chains; we are going to use pharmacies. The difference is, they are going to use one. They are going to use one plan. Seniors will have no choice, one formulary. Seniors will have no choice. In that one formulary, they may have only one drug in each category. In our bill, they must have multiple drugs. In our bill, we guarantee that we will cover off-label uses. Sixty percent of cancer victims depend on off- label uses of drugs for their cure. Mr. Speaker, our plan offers them not only prescription coverage, but choice and hope. Mr. Speaker, today is a great day for our nation's seniors because today we are considering historic legislation that will expand Medicare to cover the rising cost of prescription drugs. When Medicare was created in 1965, prescription drug coverage was not included because there were relatively few drugs available and the focus was on physician and hospital care. Today, however, it's clear that you can't have modern health care without having access to lifesaving pharmaceuticals. Thankfully, two-thirds of seniors have prescription drug coverage under other health plans, but 12 million have no coverage at all. This is simply morally wrong in the world's most prosperous nation because no senior should have to choose between filling the prescription they need and putting food on the table. So, today is truly a red letter day. We will pass a House Republican bill with bipartisan support to make prescription drug coverage a part of Medicare for all seniors in America, in every town and every city. While some of my Democrat colleagues are dramatizing their opposition to this bill, I would remind those watching that if it weren't an election year, they'd be claiming victory. The similarities between the two proposals, ours and theirs, is striking and broad. The AARP acknowledged this point in a letter that they sent to Congress yesterday. ``We are pleased that both the House Republican and Democratic bills include a voluntary prescription drug benefit in Medicare--a benefit to which every Medicare beneficiary is entitled. Further, both bills provide for a benefit that would be available in either fee-for-service or managed care settings. And while there are differences, both bills describe the core prescription drug benefit in statute. These are important steps and represent real progress over the past year.'' Horace B. Deets, AARP, June 27. In other words, our plan is universal, just like the President's. Our plan is voluntary, just like the President's. Our plan provides an entitlement under Medicare, just like the President's. Our plan contracts with private health organizations, just like the President's. And like Part B coverage for doctor services and diagnostic tests, it is funded with both premiums and government subsidies, just like the President's. But our plan is unique in two important ways. It is the only plan-- and was the first--to provide immediate protection for seniors from out-of-control drug costs. All seniors will get full coverage for their drugs when their spending reaches the catastrophic threshold. We included this provision in our legislation from the very beginning because we realized how important it is for seniors peace of mind and retirement security. The President's original proposal did not include catastrophic coverage. When he realized the importance of our provision, he added it. I am hopeful that his movement toward the Republicans on this issue is a signal that we can work together in a bipartisan way to provide seniors with prescription drug coverage this year. The second unique aspect of the House Republican bill is that it guarantees every senior in America access to at least two prescription drug plans. We know every senior has different health care needs, and therefore needs different plans to choose from. But a choice of plans also assures an immediate 25% price discount; lowering prescription drug costs for our seniors, just as large employers lower drug costs for their employees through group purchasing power. In contrast, the President's proposal--because it offers only a ``one-size-fits-all'' plan, would only save seniors, on average, 12 percent off retail prices. Our seniors will be able to get the best possible price on their medicines. In addition, our plan requires companies to offer multiple drugs in each category--not just one as the Democrat's bill does. And our bill requires coverage of off-label uses of drugs, while the Democrat's bill does not. That's particularly important to the 60% of seniors who rely on off-label uses to threat their cancer. And finally, with drug costs expected to rise 10 percent a year for the next decade, we think it's critical to adjust funding each year for drug cost inflation. In sum, the bipartisan bill creates a structure that will give seniors the best bang for their buck! And for those who have great employer-provided retiree coverage, the House plan helps ensure that employers will continue to offer it. The bill provides employers with subsidies to address the cost of offering seniors insurance against catastrophic drug costs. The Democrat plan does not provide this same public-private partnership to preserve private retiree health coverage. Our legislation will not jeopardize the coverage that seniors already have, and they'll have the choice to keep it! In addition to providing seniors with many choices, our legislation also contains an important initiative that I authored. For the first time, we will help seniors with serious chronic diseases--diabetes and heart disease. They will be able to enroll in a disease management program and will receive their prescription drugs at a low cost. By helping seniors manage their disease, we will be able to help them avoid hospitalizations and emergency room visits, thereby lowering Medicare spending. The private sector has moved ahead of Medicare and had success offering these programs. Now we'll be able to ensure that seniors on Medicare will have this choice to improve their health and lower Medicare's costs. And finally, this legislation also includes an important provision for states like Connecticut that have already had the foresight to provide prescription drugs for low-income seniors. It assumes that these states will not be penalized, but rather helped to integrate their successful programs with this new federal benefit. Indeed, this is a red letter day for seniors. The House is demonstrating its support on both sides of the aisle to commit significant funding to make prescription drugs available for the millions of seniors who are having difficulty meeting their health needs today. The AARP confirms this in a letter to Congress saying that we are taking ``important steps'' and that our work represents ``real progress.''

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise to congratulate the subcommittee for increasing the funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. It is a very cost-effective Federal-State, public-private partnership that helps small and midsized American manufacturers modernize to compete in the global marketplace. As one of my small manufacturers said to me, it is fine if you vote for China trade. Please, just keep these critical dollars in place so we can keep up with the pace of change in technology and manufacturing organizations, stay competitive, and win. Another of my manufacturers said to me, CONN/STEP, which is this MEP program in Connecticut, is the only program helping us assure the survivability, the viability, and the profitability of our small shops. He and others have stressed how they rely on CONN/STEP for its remarkable, broad network of top professionals. No individual small manufacturer could develop such a network. He or she has neither the amount of work nor the time it takes to develop such a sophisticated network of interested engineering and technical experts. Yet, these top people are at the beck and call of the small manufacturers in my district because of the CONN/STEP program, one of the more than 70 MEP manufacturing centers throughout America. They are, indeed, in every State and in Puerto Rico. My small manufacturers have depended on CONN/STEP to help them achieve 9000 certification, design new products, recruit new high- skilled employees, understand and adapt lean manufacturing techniques and, in general, keep pace with the truly incredible rate of change in manufacturing techniques and processes to improve precision and productivity and stay competitive. MEP funds are critical to the future of small manufacturing, and without strong small manufacturers, our global manufacturers cannot survive. So I thank the chairman and his subcommittee for their foresightedness in increasing those funds.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution to withdraw from the WTO. The WTO is critical to the United States' interests. It has been instrumental in opening foreign markets to our goods and in promoting U.S. values throughout the world. The U.S. is the world's largest exporter, and it is not just multinational corporations that export, it is small businesses, and medium-sized businesses. In fact most of the jobs associated with exports are associated with small- and medium-sized businesses. It is a job creator, a high-paying job creator, in the towns and cities throughout America. But because we are the world's largest exporter, we benefit tremendously from the WTO's dispute settlement process. In fact, of the 27 cases that have been brought for dispute resolution, the U.S. has prevailed in 25 of those cases. Let me make another point about being part of a rules-based system. We have had testimony before the Committee on Ways and Means by human rights advocates that wanted us to bring China into the WTO explicitly because it would for the first time bring them into an international rules-based law-based system. They made the point that if China has to abide by international norms in the economic area, for example protect intellectual property rights--that is, our ideas--then it will be easier to get that government to also recognize that it must respect the religious commitment of their people, too, the human rights of their people. Mr. Speaker, spreading a rules-based system to govern economic activity is the first and critical step to developing a rules-based political system worldwide that respects human rights. We cannot afford to withdraw from the WTO because our economic growth will be substantially determined by our ability to sell U.S. goods and services abroad. Removing ourselves from a multilateral rules-based institution will only undermine the tremendous growth the U.S. has achieved through the expansion of world trade, and imperil our goods, subjecting them to trade barriers by other countries. I urge opposition to this resolution. In the long run, we must be strong and capable competitors if our people are to have high-paying jobs. We cannot afford not to be able to compete, and we cannot afford not to be able to spread the concept of rules-based law-based systems, both for our economic well-being and for our human rights commitments.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote to move this bill forward but also to express my concerns about what I consider to be seriously inadequate funding levels for education, health, and job training. Chairman John Porter did an admirable job constructing this bill considering the difficult 302(B) allocation he was given in the budget resolution. I opposed that resolution because it inadequately funded so many agencies. But as in years past, the Senate has more generous subcommittee allocations and therefore will fund many programs at higher levels than the House. Furthermore, the President has consistently advocated higher spending levels, though he has funded them through unacceptable taxes and cuts in key programs that members of both parties reject. Hence, as this bill moves through the process of Senate consideration and then the House-Senate conference, allocation levels will rise to what I believe will be sound funding levels appropriately funded. Therefore I vote in favor of this bill to move it forward in the process. I would note that last year's House Labor-HHS proposal provided only $35.6 billion for education programs while the President proposed a total of $37.1 billion. Ultimately, the process produced a bill that provided $38 billion for education and tied to that level of funding was greater flexibility so communities could meet their own needs. I have no doubt the same result will occur again this year which is why I am willing to put aside my concerns with this specific bill and move this legislation forward. H.R. 4577 provides funding increases for a number of programs of importance, including many health initiatives. I am very proud that Chairman Porter has targeted community health centers for support as these facilities are the only source of affordable health care in many neighborhoods. Helping people secure health insurance should be a priority for this Congress, but that health insurance will not be helpful unless people have a medical facility they can use. The House proposal increases funding by $81.3 million, $31 million more than the President's request. This legislation also provides critical funding increases for programs that help In some cases, our bill is far more generous than the Senate. The House provides $86 million more than the Senate and $156 million more than the President for the Centers for Disease Control. While we were not able to provide the full 15% increase previously agreed to for NIH, Chairman Porter's bill does increase funding by 5%, the same as the President requested. Chairman Porter also has made a commitment to work toward the full 15% increase in conference with the Senate. The House bill is also much more generous to SAMHSA providing $50 million more than the Senate, a $60 million increase over last year. SAMHSA funding is critical to helping deliver substance abuse and mental health services to communities. Job Training/Welfare While I am very happy to see an increase in funding for Job Corps programs, residential facilities that provide job training, placement and support services to at-risk youth, I am deeply concerned about funding cuts to many of our other job training programs. While the economy is experiencing its highest rates of growth in our history and unemployment and welfare rolls are at an all time low, job training is more important than ever. Many families moving off public assistance can only become economically independent and secure with help to develop their skills and to win their battles against addiction. They urgently need these job training programs if they are going to successfully transition off of welfare. The cuts to the one-stop career centers as well as WIA adult training grants are both going to undermine our effort to move families off of welfare and to help low wage workers move up the skill and wage ladder. I urge my colleagues to visit a one step center in their district to see how effective they are. Another area of great concern is the under-funding of the Social Services Block Grant, used by states to fill funding gaps in their social welfare programs. States use SSBG to fund domestic violence shelters, adoption services, meals-on-wheels, elderly and disabled services and child and adult protective services to name a few. During the debate over welfare reform, Congress guaranteed the states that it would fund SSBG at $2.38 billion and that states could transfer 10% of their TANF dollars into SSBG to develop the support network necessary to families in transition from dependence to independence. However, to pay for last year's transportation bill, SSBG's authorization was cut to $1.7 billion and the transfer was reduced to 4.25%. While the level is lower than that I advocate for in my legislation, H.R. 4481, the House actually funded SSBG at its new authorization level of $1.7 billion. The Senate however cuts the program by $1.1 billion to $600 million. A cut of this magnitude will be devastating to the community organizations that serve some of our most needy constituents. I urge my colleagues to restore full funding to $2.38 billion and the transfer to 10%. Education The House proposal provides additional resources to many important education programs but its failure to increase the allocation for Title I should be of concern to all Members. Both the President and the Senate provided increases which would enable us to reach as many as 260,000 more children. Further, H.R. 4577 would fund the Teacher Empowerment Act, a block grant of the Eisenhower Professional Development program, Goals 2000 and the President's class-size reduction program, at $1.75 billion instead of the proposed $2 billion authorization level. If Republicans are going to advocate for block granting similar pots of money--which I support--we must adequately fund the whole. As we have seen with TANF, Congress must abide by our promises and fully fund these programs if the new flexibility granted is to matter to kids, teachers and taxpayers. This cut of $300 million sets a very dangerous precedent for those who strongly support block grants and I hope my colleagues will reconsider this funding level. However, there are many programs which received increased funding from the Committee. The bill increases the average Pell Grant to $3,500, its highest level in history. Republicans have increased the Pell Grant, which saw cuts when the Democrats controlled both the White House and the Congress, by $1,200, or 50% since assuming the majority in 1995. Further, while the bill doesn't provide the additional $2 billion in funding agreed to by the House for IDEA, it does increase funding by $500 million. If there is one program that comes up in every meeting I have had with teachers and administrators in my district, it is IDEA. The increase of $500 million is a step in the right direction. I also applaud the Head Start increase of $400 million or 7.5% and the TRIO program increase of an additional $115 million over FY00. Given the challenge presented to the committee by the budget resolution, they did a commendable job on this bill. However, many of its funding levels are inadequate and must grow through the process or I will vote against sending this bill to the President. Again, I will support this proposal because I believe that in the end we will have a bill that reflects our priorities--education, health care, and job training.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in support of this amendment. I agree absolutely with the gentleman from Ohio that this Nation has no energy policy and that is part of the reason we are in such a desperate situation. I would remind the Members that we are almost twice as dependent on imported oil now as we were during the Carter years. It is because we have been backward looking in many of our policy areas, including the tax code. I join with those who would like to see us work on a more comprehensive energy policy. Frankly I think the coal research, to be able to burn clean coal is part of that. There are many facets to this. I would just like to put on the record, and it has probably been put on the record before so I will make it very brief, but to me it is an absolute outrage that in 1998 the Department of Energy completed and announced a 2-year study on regional storage facilities. They then buried the study because it indicated that it would be good for not only the Northeast but for the entire country if a reserve was established in the Northeast. It would be cost effective to keep a government stockpile of some heating oil in the Northeast and it would benefit not only the Northeast but other parts of the country, particularly the Midwest. I personally think that had that stockpile been established and had the President acted promptly to release some reserve, that OPEC would have been motivated to reduce its cut in production far earlier and we would not have had those months of shortage that helped send prices up. While I am well aware that OPEC's decision was not the only factor in that constraint of supplies and that increase of prices, nonetheless it was a significant one and we were not in a position to be able to rapidly deal with it. A stockpile in the Northeast would be beneficial to the interests of the Nation as well as to the Northeast, and therefore I support this amendment and commend the gentleman from Vermont for bringing it.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. No, don't clap; I have some other things that aren't so nice to say, too. I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment. We won fair and square a very tough vote to set aside money so we could provide some increase in funding for the NEA and the NEH and the museum services. We won by a small margin. But for the first time in a long time, this House expressed its support for increasing funding. Now, that is very significant, and we did it under very difficult circumstances, because the amendment actually didn't provide the money to the NEA, it just set money aside to be used later. Now we find ourselves in the unfortunate situation of someone else using that money for a worthy purpose. I am going to oppose that worthy purpose because that could have been funded in the underlying bill. And, in fact, this money is specifically available because Members on both sides of the aisle thought that it would be used to fund an increase in the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the museum services. However, one of the problems we are running into, and this is very serious, is that I cannot count on the votes of my Democrat colleagues for the bill if Republicans join you in a motion to recommit on the arts. Now, if 40 of you will come forward and tell me that if the arts money passes on the motion to recommit you'll vote for the bill, we can have NEA funding. But because I can't count on that, and I don't know, maybe by the time we get there we'll be able to do that, but for this moment I am making this bill an issue for the arts. And I will call for a recorded vote. It will put some people on both sides of the aisle in an awkward position to choose between funding for Indian health and funding for the arts. But on the motion to recommit, I can certainly not urge my Members to vote for your motion to recommit if your Members have not signed in blood that they will vote for the bill if we get the money. So that is just the reality, folks. Life's tough. We passed it once, we need to pass it again. We need to win this vote again, to reject this amendment, so that we can use this money for the arts as we intended to. Then you're going to have to help pass the bill. Because those who oppose the arts money won't vote for it. And if you don't, we still won't have money for the arts. So you can't have it both ways. I have voted for many bills on this House floor because I got some key breakthrough in it. And if we get this arts money through this vote and another vote, that will be a key breakthrough. But we cannot pass the final bill without those arts supporters voting for it, warts and all. A lot of warts will come off in conference. But in conference we will gets arts money if we stick to our guns. But that means voting this amendment down, voting the arts amendment up, and voting for the bill, regardless of what is in it other than the arts money. Life's tough. If you're for the arts, you'll do it. If you're not for the arts, you'll vote for some of the amendments and not all.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I appreciate the chairman's concern about the clean coal technology research money, and have for years supported it. I would hope that in conference he can move the money around in an appropriate way. Mr. Chairman, it is very, very important, and it is difficult within our process, but it is very important for this Congress in this session to provide some modest increase in funding for the NEA, the NEH, and our museum folks. Mr. Chairman, let me tell the Members why. Bill Ivey, the new head of the NEA, deserves to be recognized and supported. He has earned our support. He has not only brought that agency back on track, but he has brought it in compliance with the letter of all the reforms this House has adopted, and in compliance with the spirit of those reforms. He has gone beyond that. He has developed a new NEA program called ``Challenge America.'' Challenge America is to do exactly what this House said over and over again, particularly Republicans, what they wanted the NEA to do. That is to bring arts money to the service of local communities. If any Member has ever been in one of the HOT schools, stood there and listened to that fifth grader tell you what it means to go to a school that is a Higher Order of Thinking school, you would have had to become a believer. One of the problems in America is that kids are not learning well. They are not learning to integrate logical thinking with intuitive thinking. Kids who have arts education develop better skills in those areas and do better lifelong. This is not an issue. The research is overwhelming. So for the NEA to take on Challenge America, to challenge our communities at the local level to better integrate arts into their curriculum so kids will learn better, think better, and be stronger members of our Nation, that is a very good thing. Bill Ivey is doing it. Secondly, look at the rural communities, at least in my part of the country. They are developing tourism as the way to save the rural economies. They are developing theaters, they are developing museums in their very old houses, and in Connecticut, resuscitating the old iron industry, which built the cannons that won the Revolutionary War for us. So these areas of our country need this kind of Challenge American money to be able to develop the economy that will compliment the farm economy and create strong rural communities. What is the NEH doing? The NEH is out there helping these small communities develop the very museum capacity, that preserves our history and strengthens our communities. I have seen it happen. They come in with expertise far beyond what any small community could mobilize. They connect that little museum planning committee with nationwide intellect, experience, and capability in both the area of planning exhibits, communicating with kids, and developing outreach programs that make museums strong economic entities, and also part of that chain of facilities that means that tourism can compliment a rural economy to make it strong. The NEA and the NEH are not just about some abstract cultural strength of our country, they are integral to the development of the arts, theater, music, poetry, educated children, a strong work force, and strong economies in our cities and towns. Anyone who has been involved in economic development of the cities knows that we cannot do it without the arts. So for us to put just a little money into the NEA, which is now on the right track and reaching our local kids and local towns, a little money for the NEH, a little money for the museum folks who are doing so much good in communities of all sizes to build institutions that will last for generations is right. It would be simply a tragedy if we do not respond to the changes these organizations have made, and to their ability now to reach into every corner of America and help us achieve the goals we cherish: a strong cultural heritage; to value that of the past and create that of the future. If this is not a perfect vehicle, we just have to set that aside. A lot of things are not perfect vehicles around here. But if we can save this money, pass the NEA amendment, then in conference with the Senate higher levels and the Senate NEA money, we will be able to make just a little tiny improvement in our funding for the arts, the humanities, and our museum development capability. I think we owe this much to ourselves and to our children and the communities of America.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I just want to get the record on the 1997 deal. This administration has cut Medicare more than the 1997 budget required.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Traficant amendment. First of all, let me put in the Record that I am very proud that Elizabeth Dole initiated this national debate and that our former colleague, Lynn Martin, when she was Secretary of Labor, moved it forward. And I daresay that if either of them were Secretary of Labor now we would not be here tonight. We are here because the proposed regulations issued by the Department of Labor are so unfair to workers. It is unfair to workers to have the Federal Government mandate a 90 percent compensation because an individual is injured as the result of ergonomics and a lower level of compensation if injured some other way. Do my colleagues realize what that is going to do in the long run to the sense of equity and fairness in labor law for working Americans? We are here tonight because this sets up a really unfair system of compensation, for the first time ever people getting compensated differently depending on the origin of their injury. It also will interfere with the very mechanisms that in my district have been put in place. And, believe me, I have been in factory after factory over the last year. And if my colleagues have not been there and looked at how their factories are improving their safety records, then they cannot really understand how these regulations will prevent the very mechanisms that are creating an absolutely astounding reduction in workplace injuries. Do my colleagues realize that occupational injury and illness rates are at their lowest level since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began recording this information in the 1970s? And, in fact, since 1992, injuries resulting in the loss of workdays have dropped 20 percent. In my district I can tell my colleagues why that is happening. It is because people are very serious about keeping their employees healthy. In the factories in my district, teams of workers are out there looking at this stuff all the time. They are improving it. These regulations the Department of Labor is interested in would lay over this employee activity that is working, a bureaucratic administrative mechanism that is only sort of didactically driven. It interferes with the very dynamic, the communication, the vitality, all the things that are happening in the workplace to reduce injuries. I have seen that in plant after plant after plant, and I have had workers stand there and ask me how we can tell them they are doing it wrong when they are doing so well. I was in one of the plants in my district that was used by OSHA to do its research to develop these regulations. And what appalled them was that together they did identify some things that were problems, for which none of them could think up any solutions. But under these regulations one incident, not a pattern of problems, not a pattern of injuries, not a pattern of even symptoms, but one injury would trigger the whole 1200 pages of Federal regulations coming down on their head, even though OSHA themselves could find no solution to the problem that jointly the workers, management, and OSHA had identified. So this regulation that OSHA has come out with is so wildly inappropriately related to the problem of getting working people and helping working people and giving them the resources to identify the problems and find solutions, when employers are clearly highly motivated to invest in safety. It is so wrong headed it cannot be fixed and it must be stopped. Lastly, the idea of providing a separate, different, higher compensation for people because they are injured as a result of one cause versus another is simply going to create a system of such gross inequity that we should not here tonight let that go forward. I want a good ergonomics regulation. This Secretary has not produced it. And these regulations must be stopped. At the rate the Department works, it will take them a year to figure out and look at what would be the next step. But these regulations would be catastrophic for the constructive employers who are winning awards for safety, and that ought to tell my colleagues something.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman, I would be pleased to set the record straight on his comments. The gentleman has raised a very substantial, interesting, and I think important issue in his proposal to require disclosure by 527 groups, and I believe the gentleman is aware that the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation of the Committee on Ways and Means is, as we speak-- and has been back only 2 days since this was discussed at the Committee on Ways and Means full committee meeting--is preparing a proposal that goes beyond the gentleman's proposal in a very important way. It goes beyond the gentleman's proposal by treating all tax-exempt entities that are allowed under the law to engage in political activity the same way. I agree with the gentleman's proposal. I just do not believe that it is evenhanded tax law, because it does not treat in an evenhanded, equitable, fair way all entities that are tax-subsidized, that is, citizen-subsidized, but allowed to engage in political activity the same way. So we are going to do a very good job on this, in my estimation. Sunshine is important. Entities that engage in political activity with taxpayer subsidies should be required, in my estimation, to report their contributors and their expenditures; and I believe that we will have the opportunity in committee and on this floor, to pass legislation that builds on the gentleman's proposal, and does what is necessary, and that is, treats 501(c)(3)s, 4s and 5s and 6s the same way. So I urge support for the rule and opposition to the previous question motion.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of PNTR for China for three reasons. First, it does not just enable America's goods and services to flow into the fastest-growing market in the world by cutting China's tariffs. It also eliminates state-mandated middlemen and China's prohibition on our distributing and servicing our own products. It eliminates quotas and special licensing requirements, and prohibits conditioning investment on local content requirements, offsets, research in China or technology transfer. Secondly, it will help us enforce our trade agreements with China because we will not be solo at the enforcement table. All 136 nation members of the WTO will be on the enforcement team. Further, this is a unique, remarkably enforceable agreement because the obligations it imposes are concrete and specific, with clear time tables for implementation and firm end dates for full compliance. In addition, for the first time the agreement involves surge protections, unique provisions that will enable us to moderate any surge of imports to protect American producers and give them the time they need to become competitive. Finally, this agreement is the best way to change China's policy toward human rights. As a Chinese evangelist Christian clergyman testified, ``The WTO agreement obligates China to play by the rules. In the process, China will need to strengthen its legal institutions, train more legal professionals, learn to follow international legal procedures, and educate its people about the concept of rights, law, and international norms. This process alone is a breakthrough with important philosophical implications for China as a nation. When a Chinese realizes that he has rights as an investor that government should not violate, then more likely he will also realize that he has other rights as a human being.'' Support PNTR for China. It is good for the United States, it is good for reform in China, and it will move us toward a more prosperous and peaceful world. This week, the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on a bill that would do more to strengthen our economy and provide job security for American workers than any vote this year. The bill would simply open China's market to American-made products. Home to more than one billion potential consumers, China presently blocks American goods with high tariffs, arbitrary requirements, and wholesale prohibitions on direct business dealings with the Chinese people, while exporting freely to U.S. shores. All this will change if Congress passes legislation granting china Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR), the same status China has enjoyed for 20 years and the same status as our other trading partners. President Clinton and former Presidents Carter and Ford support this measure, as do Senators Dodd and Lieberman. The reason is simple: under the new trade agreement the United States recently negotiated, China will tear down the walls that keep our goods and services out of their markets and nearly every American industry will benefit. The agreement reduces or eliminates manufacturing and farming tariffs. It eliminates state-mandated middlemen so we can sell directly to Chinese consumers. It permits American-owned distribution and customer support operations so we can service the products we sell. It protects intellectual property rights for software, movies, music and high-tech designs. And it prohibits conditioning investment on offsets, local content, or technology transfer requirements. This is good for working families in Connecticut because it means we'll sell more Connecticut made jet engines, elevators, construction equipment, medical equipment, pharmaceuticals, environmental technology, and insurance products in China. This will benefit hundreds of small shops supplying exporters and create more high wage jobs as on average export related jobs pay up to 20 percent more than non-export related jobs. By granting PNTR, we will be the beneficiaries of these across-the- board concessions that will bring down the curtain on Chinese protectionism. And what is the price for all these benefits? They are free--ours for the taking. The United States doesn't have high tariffs nor barriers to trade from China, so we are not forced to give up anything in exchange for Chinese concessions. All Congress must do is approve PNTR--make permanent the trading status that we have approved every year for 20 years and for essentially every other country in the world. It is the bargain of the century. China has every reason to make such concessions: they are trying to reform their economy. After decades of economic dead ends, Chinese leaders have concluded that the most efficient way to grow their economy is by entering the international market and accepting its international rules. While this will cause some problems, China has changed enough in the last decade to understand that entering the international market and abiding by international rules is their only hope of prosperity. This dramatic decision by China has three consequences for us: first, if we don't pass PNTR, we won't receive any of the benefits of the agreement we negotiated with China, while Europe, Japan, and other trading nations will. With their products 10 percent to 50 percent cheaper, we will lose significant export trade so critical to our economic health. Second, instead of working alone to enforce trade agreements with China as we have in the past, we will have the help of all 136 members of the World Trade Organization. If China fails to deliver, the WTO lays out clear and decisive steps to hold China accountable. Furthermore, this agreement is unique. It has very precise timetables for very specific actions, making enforcement far easier. In addition, it includes new protections no trade agreement has ever provided. Its ``surge'' protections allow a timely response to slow down any big increase in imports. From my work on voluntary restraint agreements in the past, I know this approach works and enables U.S. competitors to succeed. Third, it is the best way to reduce abuses of human rights in China. As a Chinese Christian clergyman testified ``The WTO agreement obligates China to play by the rules. In the process, China will need to strengthen its legal institutions, train more legal professionals, learn to follow international legal procedures and educate its people about the concept of rights, law and international norms. This process alone is a breakthrough with important philosophical implications for China as a nation. When a Chinese realizes that he has rights as an investor that government should not violate, then more likely he will also realize that he has other rights as a human being.'' Free trade is a potent catalyst for change because it works from the inside out. under PNTR, we get to post the best advertisement in the world for democracy in the heart of China itself. Signing a free trade agreement with China, opening its markets to our goods and values, bringing china into the rule based international trading community, is not only good for Connecticut jobs, but it is good for reform in China and will move us toward a more prosperous world community. Congress should pass PNTR.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) very much for yielding me his time. I appreciate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski) for their help in getting committee approval of H.R. 3313, the Long Island Sound Restoration Act, legislation both the Connecticut and New York delegations have worked hard together to bring to the floor. I also want to thank Governor Rowland of Connecticut and the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection for working closely with me, not only to achieve the worthy goals of this bill, but to do so in a way that small communities, distressed small towns can handle without unfair economic hardship. Long Island Sound was one of the original 11 estuaries designated a national estuary under our Federal estuary program. Consistent with the requirements, New York and Connecticut, with the guidance from the EPA, developed a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan which dictates the steps each State must take to end pollution of the Sound. The plan addresses six core areas: hypoxia, or lack of oxygen in the water caused by high levels of nitrogen; nonpoint source pollutants; toxics in the water; floating debris; pathogens and land use or habitat protection. Just Connecticut will spend between $600 million and $900 million over the next 20 years to clean up the 85 water treatment plants, the primary solution to hypoxia. These multimillion dollar costs will be paid by our towns and cities through a combination of grants from the State and local tax dollars that will repay loans from the revolving loan funds. While the grants are generous, totalling 30 percent of each town's expenses, the 70 percent of loans can impose an overwhelming burden on small communities and tax-strapped cities. For instance, the town of Winsted, Connecticut has a cumulative debt of $15 million as a result of upgrades to both their water treatment, their drinking water, and wastewater treatment plants. Winsted's 2,500 customers face a daunting task in repaying the $15 million. They simply cannot afford any additional debt to fund the cost of nitrogen control equipment. The Mattabassett District is the regional sewer authority for New Britain, Cromwell and Berlin, Connecticut and serves 102,000 residents. This district estimates that it will have to raise rates by well over 100 percent in order to install the required nitrogen removal equipment. This area of the State, once a manufacturing hub of the Northeast, has seen its tax base collapse in the last two decades and has been slow to share in the current economic boom. A doubling of water rates would be devastating to economic development efforts just taking hold in these towns and to their tax- paying residents. Some may argue that Long Island Sound is not a national problem and should be handled by those States most affected. But 10 percent of America's population lives within the Long Island Sound Watershed. It is one of the most populated, visited and traveled areas of the country. The Sound contributes $5 billion annually to the regional economy. And the ports of Bridgeport, New Haven, and New London--each in Connecticut--handle incoming freight from national and international sources. Much of the northeast's heating oil comes in through these ports; over 12 million tons of petroleum products passed through in 1997. I will not go through the details of what it contributes to our economy. But more than 12 million tons of petroleum come through its ports. The Port of New Haven alone handles 622,000 tons of steel in 1997, making it the fourth largest port of entry for steel products into the United States after New Orleans, Houston, and Philadelphia. The New London port is one of the chief ports for lumber exports and home to Groton Naval Shipyard. Further, in 1998, New York and Connecticut caught $23.8 million worth of clams and oysters. In other words, if people aren't enjoying the Sound for its recreational opportunities, they are using the products that come in through its ports or consuming the seafood from its waters. In other words, if people are enjoying the Sound for its recreational opportunities, they are using it, the products that come in through its ports or consuming the seafood from its waters. In sum, the Sound is clearly a body of national, economic, and environmental significance and calls for a nationwide commitment to its restoration. As the Federal Government has provided help to implement other States' plans to save their estuaries, harbors, and lakes, so New York and Connecticut need help. Boston Harbor received $840 million to construct Deer Island Water Treatment Facility and clean their harbor. The Great Lakes has received $13 million a year since 1991. The Chesapeake Bay has received nearly $20 million a year since 1991. Long Island Sound is important to our Nation. It is as important to these other bodies of water and deserves our national efforts. But New York and Connecticut are not just looking for Federal help, they are looking for a Federal partnership. Consistent with its responsibility to that partnership, Connecticut has developed a plan for reducing the overall cost of the cleanup. Connecticut estimates that their water treatment upgrades could cost up to $900 million over the next 20 years, but with this trading program will cost considerably less, probably $200 million to $300 million less. Mr. Speaker, I urge the support of my colleagues of this very important legislation to preserve one of the Nation's real gems. My legislation will allow Connecticut and New York to develop a nitrogen trading program to fulfill their obligations under the CCMP. The entire state must still meet the same nitrogen levels, but the trading program will help small communities who contribute very little pollution do their part to clean up the Sound. In addition to authorizing a trading program and increasing the authorization level for the Long Island Sound office, my legislation will provide states with the option to give additional help to low income, distressed communities which have slow growth tax bases and would be unable to sustain significant increases in water rates. These communities would be eligible for grant money as well as negative interest loans. Nothing is more important than bequeathing to our children a clean, healthy environment. With this bill we take a giant step toward the restoration of a real jewel, Long Island Sound. Again, I thank the Chairman, Mr. Boehlert and Mr. Shuster for their support and assistance in developing this bill and urge its passage by the House.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. One of the reasons we are doing this Special Order is to point out how terribly important it is that we address this problem for seniors and also to point out how much agreement there is. The President's proposal is really a proposal to cover 50 percent of the costs of the drug. There is no proposal out there, because it is so expensive, that recommends covering 100 percent of the costs of the drug. I think people, sometimes when they hear us talk about covering prescription drugs under Medicare, they think we are talking about covering all of the costs. They think the President is talking about that. The President's proposal is really very simple. He is talking about covering 50 percent of the cost up to about $2,500. In other words, the insured would cover $1,250 and the Government would cover $1,250. And they would not cover the first $1,250; they would cover 50 percent of each premium up to that. And I am not sure whether the limit in the President's program is $2,000 or $2,500. But we can see from the chart that by having no coverage at all thereafter, that 20 percent of seniors that have the highest drug costs get very little help from the President's plan. But the House plan is, too, and I have not read another plan that is not a cost-sharing plan, usually 50-50. I think what is slowing down the production of the final bill a little bit is the complexity of the stop-loss provision, of helping everybody to be protected from catastrophic loss. It is a matter of peace of mind. It is a matter of confidence and ease and security in our elder years to have stop-loss insurance and know that prescription drugs will never bankrupt us, just like long-term care insurance gives a peace of mind. That is why we are working so hard this year to make long-term care premium costs deductible on income tax. We could do that. Then for a rather modest investment in a long-term care premium, we have the peace of mind of knowing that we will never have to spend down to poverty to pay for long-term care costs. And under prescription drugs, with a stop-loss provision, we will have the peace of mind of knowing that we will never be bankrupt by the costs of prescription drugs. So this is not a concept that the President opposes at all. We are all talking within provisions that we all know would be helpful to our seniors. We simply have to work out, not only their costs, but how they fit in with the real world, how we can protect seniors who already have good drug coverage and do not want it disturbed, how we do not want to encourage their employers to drop good coverage. So we want to make sure that we do not compromise opportunities that seniors currently have but that we create new opportunities for seniors who either have no drug coverage or inadequate drug coverage. It is really important for everyone listening to remember that, under both the Republican and the Democrat and the President's plan, because those are the two on the table now, that all seniors would be helped. They would both be optional plans. They are voluntary. They are not mandatory. Seniors can elect them. That is why seniors who have other plans that they prefer can continue to benefit from those plans.