Nancy Johnson

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) and his subcommittee for bringing forward this resolution, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) for introducing it, because it is extremely important to recognize the very thoughtful work of this administration in making the most complex and difficult change in payment systems that we have frankly ever legislated in any sector of Medicare payment policy. They had to change both the way the government paid for the drugs and the way they paid for the physicians, and changing each system required the development of whole new information systems; and then they had to coordinate these in such a way that they actually came to the oncologists in the right amount at the right time. To ensure that, they developed the demonstration project that both will improve quality and also ensure that these payments together would maintain the access to oncology care that American seniors enjoy and Americans across the country enjoy. We enjoy greater access to cancer treatment than the people of any other country. In making this much-needed, but complex, change in how we pay for that cancer care, this administration showed great medical understanding, great patient sensitivity, and great dedication to ensuring that access to cancer care would in no way be compromised while we reformed the way we paid for that care. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) for a solid resolution and congratulate Members on a very difficult job. Very well done. I thank publicly Dr. McClellan and all his staff for their energy and dedication to this and for the staff of both committees who worked very hard to ensure that in different aspects of our jurisdiction we brought all of the knowledge we had developed in the course of developing these payment changes to the table to work with the administration. I thank the committee staff, as well as my own staff.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. I want to congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) of the Committee on Ways and Means and also the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) for bringing a very important bill to the floor very promptly. In spite of the comments of my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), the ranking member of this subcommittee, TANF has reduced poverty among minority children in America more than any program ever adopted by Congress. It has been an enormous success in helping families get into the workforce, raise their incomes, and reduce the poverty level among children in our country. So now to open TANF for those families devastated, devastated, by this natural disaster, is extremely important, because these are families now, like so many of our own children, living paycheck to paycheck, who have no paycheck and no assets. And that is today's problem. By bringing them immediately into TANF, they can get a paycheck. They can get cash assistance. But, better than that, though nothing is better than that when you have no cash and you have a bunch of kids, but equally important is that it brings them into a system that is set up, that is structured, that is skilled, that is dedicated, that has people in it that know and understand it, who can help them with employment, who can help them with day care vouchers, who can give them transportation vouchers, who know what it takes to help a family get on its feet economically. And that is the challenge they face. So this is a very important component of responding to the immediate needs of the families wiped out by this unprecedented, devastating hurricane. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that we are doing this right now. We are going to hold the States who open their TANF system to refugees harmless to the costs. We will be able to fund that from the contingency fund we have already put in place. We will be able to do this, meet immediate needs, and help those families to respond to opportunities like the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) just mentioned. This is exactly what we need right now. We cannot see the whole problem yet; and it would be irresponsible to do anything but use the resources already at our disposal, resources that are experienced, savvy, and directly meet the needs for both cash assistance and opportunity for these families to rebuild their lives and receive the services they need. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for this good piece of legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, this is how we answer that little girl. We tell her the world that she is going to work in is going to be a world in which there will be better labor laws better enforced. For the very first time ever, the International Labor Organization spent 1 year working with these countries to upgrade their labor laws, and, everyone agrees, their labor laws meet the core standards of the ILO. For the very first time ever, the ILO is going to be the enforcement mechanism to see that those laws are enforced as enforcement is always the weakness. Always the weakness. Many of you voted for the Jordan Free Trade Agreement. Many of you voted for the Moroccan Free Trade Agreement. Not nearly as good of a body of laws in those countries, and the enforcement was: You must be making efforts towards; you must be striving to enforce. In this labor agreement, in CAFTA, the ILO will come in and review every 6 months and publicly report every 6 months: Are you implementing the plan? Now, they have written the plan. You can see whether they will have implemented the plan, because it is laid out, how many inspectors, and so on and so forth. It is all detailed. They will be accountable for implementing those plans. Those Presidents whom we met with were proud that they are upgrading their labor law and upgrading their enforcement. This is capacity- building. The very first Free Trade Agreement or trade agreement that focuses on capacity-building, building the ability of departments of labors within these governments to enforce domestic labor law which meets international labor standards, and the International Labor Organization is going to be there to oversee it, and we are putting money behind it. We are, and others are. This is a unique labor agreement. It really, really pains me that there is so much ignorance about the details of this agreement. You sit with the people who negotiate an agreement, you sit with the economic ministers, you sit with the Presidents, and you get a concrete, tactical sense of the tremendous strides they have made through the agreement to improve new labor laws and enforcement capacity. This is not status quo; this is going to change their world and protect their workers. Now, if in addition you care about fair trade, and you want to walk the walk of fair trade and not just talk the talk, then you better remember, their goods come in, no tariffs, no duties, no nothing into our country. Do you not think our guys deserve the same right? To me that is fair trade. Level the playing field. Our products should have the same access their products have. And their people deserve the same respect our people do. They do not deserve a double standard.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3283. As one who advocated China's entry into the WTO, I am concerned and disappointed with China's passage of a law on government procurement that incorporates strong preferences for domestic goods and services, fostering discrimination against, for example, software companies that have made a substantial commitment to the development of the Chinese software industry. The combined effect of rampant software piracy and the proposed discriminatory government procurement regulations will create a nearly impenetrable barrier to U.S. software. This at a time when the trade deficit with China is at an all-time high. Madam Speaker, I call on the Chinese Government to immediately enter into negotiations to accede to the agreement on government procurement of the WTO as they committed to 3 years ago and to suspend the implementation of its law on government procurement. I urge my colleagues to vote overwhelmingly for this bill to send a very strong message to China on all the fronts the bill covers, not the least of which is government procurement. We have the chance to send a strong message and take strong action, and this bill will do it.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the CAFTA agreement. Goods come from CAFTA countries into America absolutely duty free. Whether they are industrial, whether they are agricultural, no matter what goods they are, they come in duty free. Our goods, when they go to their markets, suffer from the weight of heavy duties. So all this agreement does is drop the duties on our goods, drop the tariffs on American goods flowing into these markets. It is a win for America on every single front. It is the status quo for the Central American nations. Why would they agree to it? Because it makes it permanent and because there are some two-way partnerships in this bill that are an advantage to these Central American nations, and to us. We will be defeated by China in textiles if we do not modernize the partnership between the American yarn makers and the Central American textile companies. As to the labor agreements, the labor portions of this agreement, I have gone into those in great detail over and over again. We have the best labor agreements we have ever had in any Free Trade Agreement, and the Democrats in this House have voted for those agreements overwhelmingly. It is a double standard, it is artificial, and it is unfair to vote against this agreement.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Dominican Republic and Central American Free Trade Agreement and urge my colleagues to join me in its passage in the next week. Both the strength of our economy and the jobs available to our own people depend on our ability to gain access to new markets and offer products that are price competitive, and quality competitive. Without greater access to the global market, it is our people that pay the price. The DR-CAFTA agreement will, for the very first time, allow U.S. goods to flow into the Central American countries without tariffs, just the way Central American goods flow into America without tariffs. It merely levels the playing field. Furthermore, it will allow us to modernize the partnership between the United States textile industry and the Central American countries. Through this partnership we can compete with China. If we lose this partnership and the opportunity to modernize it, then textiles will go to China. They will take jobs from the Central American countries and that will take jobs from America because this partnership uses entirely American yarn, and China is unlikely to do that. So not only would our goods flow into these Central American countries without tariffs, but by modernizing the textile partnership between the United States and the Central American nations we save jobs in both countries and keep ourselves competitive with China. Finally, this agreement helps strengthen fledgling democracies and economies that at one time were the center of civil war, terrible unrest, terrible suffering and great poverty. Through the development of their democracies and their economies, their people are beginning to do better, and by supporting that growth we can stem both legal and illegal immigration from those nations, which we would like to do. I strongly support CAFTA, as do the majority of producers of American products from manufactured products to agricultural products, because the agreement levels the playing field for workers by immediately reducing tariffs imposed on exports to Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. It zeros out many tariffs immediately, while others are reduced the first year by 80 percent. This is manufacturers, agriculture products, everything across the board. Currently, imports from CAFTA countries enter the United States duty free, but of course our goods are not allowed to go back duty free. This is a great leveling of the playing field and will increase exports from the United States to the Central American nations. It may surprise you to hear that Central American countries are my home State of Connecticut's largest export market for crops. Connecticut's dairy farmers will gain immediate duty free access to the Central American markets for dairy products, and all tariffs will be phased out over time. That is exactly why the American Farm Bureau has endorsed CAFTA. Now there has been some discussion about the labor requirements, the labor provisions of CAFTA. In fact, this agreement has been roundly criticized by Members of this body who voted overwhelmingly for the agreement with Morocco and the agreement with Jordan. And yet this agreement is far tougher on labor standards and far stronger on enforcement. I am proud to say that under this agreement, after a year's work between the Development Bank and the ILO to evaluate carefully these countries' labor laws and to upgrade those laws, to evaluate carefully their ability to enforce those laws and what had to be done to strengthen enforcement, after that year of work, all that work is embodied in this Central American agreement, the CAFTA agreement. Consequently, this agreement will enforce laws that meet the ILO standards in all these countries, 100 percent in most of them and in two of them there are constitutional provisions that essentially make it equivalent to 100 percent. So the labor laws meet high standards and through this agreement enforcement will meet high standards. We not only commit money to those standards but we creatively approach for the first time the issue of enforcement. First of all, under the old agreement, if the Central American countries did not live up to their obligations to make progress in the area of labor laws, all we could do was completely cut off all trade agreements. That nuclear, that draconian option was never in the whole 22 years used. It did not work. So in this agreement we have the right to levy stiff monetary fines, up to $15 million per year per violation; and if that does not work, we can take away their trade benefits. But meanwhile these fines will go into a special fund to be used with American oversight and American agreement to solve specific labor problems to strengthen specific enforcement measures and to make the lives of the workers in these countries better. Not only do we have flexibility and enforcement and new funding from the penalty system, but our country has committed $180 million dollars to enforcement. In sum the DR-CAFTA agreement will for the first time allow U.S. goods greater access to central American markets close to our country, allow us to modernize our textile partnership to compete directly with China, and help strengthen the fledgling democracies and economies of our southern neighbors which alone will stem immigration--legal and illegal--from those nations.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The business of the House moved more rapidly than I anticipated, and so I am asking the privilege of taking the time in opposition to this amendment, though I do not oppose it, just to stand in support of the Burton amendment. In Danbury, one of the major cities in my district, there has been an influx of 10,000 illegal immigrants in the last 5 years, mostly from South America and many from Ecuador. The tragedy that we are a party to, by allowing these Mafia type traffickers to entice people into their web, is a tragedy for families, villages, and nations. These are Mafia type organized crime organizations. They have figured out how to make money from people's dreams and hopes. They rape, they pillage, they steal, they murder, they abandon. We need to know more about how we can use the intelligence resources and other resources of the United States to work more closely with the Ecuadorian government to stop this abusive trafficking and relieve small cities like Danbury of the terrible cost of a larger population of illegal residents. These illegal immigrants are hard workers and hope only for a better life. But living the life of an illegal cannot fulfill their dreams, and it can cause tremendous problems in cities like Danbury, where services are taxed, taxpayers are overburdened, public health problems develop because these workers do not have health insurance and so on and so forth. I traveled recently to Ecuador to gain a better understanding of the origins of the problems and spoke with the Ecuadorian immigration officials about the situation. They share our concerns with the sophistication of the organized criminals who are now profiting from human trafficking and capitalizing on the hopes of people who are merely seeking a better life. There is a way for our two countries to work together, not only to stop this trafficking, but to collaborate on local economic development projects to reduce the incentive to flee one's homeland. Microlending all kinds of things that we do routinely here in America and that we do in other places in the world, could provide the economic opportunity these people so desperately want right in their own country. Illegal immigration is not only dangerous and brutal for those involved but hard on American towns and cities and terrible for the little villages that are left behind in which grandparents are raising children and hopelessness forces painful, permanent separation. I commend the gentleman on taking this step forward and working to stop human trafficking, which also creates the problems associated with illegal immigration in America. We have the resources to solve these problems if we focus thoughtfully on both the causes and the effects. The gentleman's amendment will start that process of focusing and will, I hope, lead to destroying the business of human trafficking and creating an economic development model built on the experience of both the United States and Ecuador, that will restore hope for Ecuadorians to their homeland. I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the committee, for allowing me to take the time in opposition to this amendment that I do not oppose. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to take the time in opposition though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, although I appreciate the concern of the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner). First of all, we all know how important Medicare is to our seniors. Two hundred thousand new beneficiaries sign up every month, and anything that would disrupt their entry up into the system would be a terrible hardship to impose on our seniors. This amendment would actually interfere with the operation of the current system before a new system could be put in place, causing serious disruption in the Medicare program in the enrollment process for new beneficiaries. That much said, CMS does share the gentleman's concern and is in the process of examining this issue. That project is currently in the information-gathering phase, focusing on identifying all of the systems and entities and understanding the nature of the transactions that rely on a beneficiary identifier. There are many parties involved, with a variety of information claims processing and data exchange systems, and once they get this base research done, they can move forward on reforming the use of the Social Security system. I would tell the Members that in the new drug plan they do not use the Social Security identifier. So I would urge the gentleman to maintain his interest in this subject to work with the committee as we oversee CMS's gathering of this material and evaluation of this problem; and the fact that they have managed to develop the drug plan without using a Social Security identifier indicates to us that they will take the time and invest the resources to change the base underlying system. But any radical change to that system will deny current beneficiaries coming into the system, month by month, their benefits.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I certainly support denying impotence drugs to sex offenders, but to arbitrarily eliminate any class of drugs from a formulary, first of all, sets a terrible precedent and has the same potential for mischief as State mandates on health plans have demonstrated is possible. So the precedent being set here is one I object to. But much more important, these drugs are often medically necessary. ED drugs help men who have lost sexual function caused by prostate cancer, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, nerve damage, or cardiac conditions. It is important that these drugs are available when they are medically appropriate and there is no evidence of abuse for medically appropriate situations. They are not sold over the counter, they are prescription, must be prescribed by a physician, and they are so important in the cases where they are medically needed, that it would be, in my mind, a gross disservice to our seniors to automatically deny them access under our prescription drug program to these drugs. First of all, where does this approval end? We do not say to seniors, we will not prescribe cholesterol medications for you or drugs for high blood pressure until you have changed your diet and exercised. Yet diet and exercise could eliminate the need for taxpayer-funded drugs in many categories, but we do not require that. Secondly, we are very interested in, and increasingly interested in, early identification and prevention of serious illness, and sexual dysfunction is often an early sign of other very serious conditions. Those diseases may go untreated and undetected if there is no need to go to the doctor to talk about impotence, to evaluate the causes of impotence and, therefore, be entitled to the prescription. So it interferes with early diagnosis and prevention in certain diseases. It is also extremely important to consider this issue in the context of mental health and the costs of mental health in our elderly population. Certainly, in a long-term marriage, a healthy sexual relationship is important to the strength of that relationship and important to the mental health of the people involved. Would we rather pay for depression treatment, or would we rather have that couple eligible for the kind of medications that the gentleman wishes to ban from the Medicare program? So if we take a holistic approach to health and remember that mental health is important to reducing the cost of physical disease and that early identification and prevention of serious health problems is extremely important to lowering the long-term costs of Medicare and giving the program sustainability that is crucial to the well-being of our seniors, then my colleagues will vote against this amendment, even though I appreciate that, superficially and politically, voting for it would be a desirable vote. I would urge my colleagues to oppose the availability of these drugs for sex offenders. I would urge my colleagues to oppose eliminating them from the Medicare formulas, because they are often medically appropriate and they are important to the long-term health and well- being and early identification of disease in our seniors.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I offer this amendment because one of the things that has concerned the Members of this body is the plight of the uninsured in America. The community health centers reach out to help the uninsured, and they are very effective and very important to that health care system, available to those who are either underinsured or uninsured. But the HCAP grants are becoming equally important because they enable the community health centers to create a whole network in neighborhoods and urban communities that can reach out to the uninsured and the underinsured and bring them into the system and provide them with a patient home and the kind of support that they need. Many of these people have chronic illnesses. Many of these people are a very high cost to the system because they do not get care until they land in the emergency room or the hospital. This amendment to provide some funds for the HCAP program is modest. It merely moves money from the CDC budget, from the VERB program, which is funding for an anti-obesity media campaign that is now duplicative of Federal and private sector programs. Even the Bush administration's OMB says, ``There is no longer a need for this Federal program.'' I would maintain that now that every school board is conscious of the problem of obesity and so many groups, including McDonald's, have taken on this cause, that it is not necessary to spend the Federal money on the obesity campaign; but it is absolutely crucial that we put some placeholder dollars in the budget for the HCAP program. This program is in 45 States across the country and has already provided access to care for 6.2 million uninsured and vulnerable Americans and has placed about the same number of children and parents, children and adults, into either Medicaid or CHIP. In Waterbury, Connecticut, the biggest city in my district, the HCAP program started only a year and a half ago. It has already provided 750 low-income city residents with case managers who help them coordinate complex care regimens, make sure they have access to low-cost medications and track their progress. This same program has enrolled 450 patients, HIV/AIDS patients and diabetes patients in the appropriate kind of management program to monitor their conditions and keep them healthy and out of the hospital, better quality of life to the patient, savings to society. Eighty physicians because of HCAP, 80 physicians from Waterbury have signed up to provide their fair share of specialty care to this uninsured population, and the hospitals have donated lab services. Ultimately, this HCAP grant is going to electronically provide electronic health records for 120,000 patients in the greater Waterbury area through every hospital and doctor's office so that this kind of patient coming into the system with no insurance but complex needs can immediately have their medical record accessed by their physician; their medication protocol accessed by their physician; the history of their care accessed by their physician. Therefore, the physician is able to provide to these uninsured and very ill people timely, fast, high-quality care. So the HCAP program has been extremely helpful to building beyond the community health centers out into the community a system to provide access to medical care for uninsured people, and that is why I am so interested in the passage of my amendment that just would move a little money from a program that is at the end of its useful life into this critical area so there would be a placeholder on which we could build in conference. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman feel confident even without any placeholder, should, say, the Senate fail to provide a placeholder, as they have in the past, that we will be able to address this in conference?

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I appreciate the good work the Committee on Appropriations and the subcommittee has done. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Madam Chairman, I rise to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the subcommittee for doing a remarkable job in funding our Nation's education, health and workforce priorities in a time of intense fiscal restraint. This legislation includes in education: increased funding for special funding, for No Child Left Behind, and for Head Start. It has a tremendous increase in the Pell grant area which will help our young people go to college, get the education they need to succeed and contribute. It holds firm on TRIO and GEAR UP, so important to kids who are the first in their family to go to college. So in education, while it does not do everything, it does some important things for our children, and I thank the gentleman. I hope in conference we will find a little more additional money for title I, but this is a good start. In health, it also has some very important accomplishments. By increasing Community Health Center funding, it decidedly reaches out to additional uninsured people. It provides the support vitally needed for the important initiative to implant information technology in our health care sector, which is our best hope of both improving quality and reducing long-term costs, and it provides the money needed for the government to educate our seniors about the important, generous prescription drug program that will go into effect January 1. I thank the gentleman for those very important education dollars. There are, of course, as always, areas of concern. I hope that in conference there will be more money for the Community Services Block Grant because that is the critical, flexible money that cities, particularly, use to fill the holes in the safety net programs, to provide day-care for women returning to work, and so on. In HCAP, I hope we will restore the funding and thoughtfully review some of the other problems in the bill. But this is a fine job done, and I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of the legislation before us which I consider to be extremely important. It builds on the President's policy by merely allowing the use of embryonic stem cells created for fertility purposes to be donated with permission, but without payment, by the woman for research, research to cure some of the terrible diseases that plague our lives. These free citizens would simply exercise their right and their conscience in donating embryos that would otherwise be discarded, destroyed, as waste. I believe we have a moral responsibility to advance the research that saves lives, relieves pain, and prevents suffering, rather than destroying those embryos. Those embryos could produce the stem cells that would save lives, and should not be destroyed as waste. Why do we have to do this today? Because if we do not, stem cell research will be done, but will not be uniformly governed by NIH's ethics policy. Why do we have to do this today? Because no nation has created a sustained, strong, globally-competitive economy without the freedom to research the frontiers of knowledge. Finally, why do we have to do this today? Because it is the right thing. Now, we have heard a lot of discussion on the floor today about destroying these cells as taking life and, as a matter of conscience, this is a complicated issue and one on which we disagree. If you believe life begins when the sperm enters the egg, then, yes, you would believe this is a taking of life, though we would unceremoniously toss those same cells into a waste bucket. But if you believe that life begins when the fertilized egg is implanted in the mother's womb, which, of course, is essential for it to realize its potential for life, then using a fertilized egg that has not been implanted is not a taking of life. If, further, you believe that life begins later in the process, then you are not taking life. So I ask each of my colleagues to think carefully in conscience when life does begin; and, on that issue, your vote on this bill rests.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. Certainly if we do not do a better job of educating our children in the arts, we will be a Nation of poor spirit and little understanding. It is really through the arts that we understand how destructive is greed.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, recognizing the very serious problems that its proponent seeks to address. But it would be very unwise to cut the budget of the NEA, especially after we succeeded in adding a little money back to it, because the NEA is simply doing a fantastic job now of strengthening public arts education, of strengthening arts institutions, and of helping arts institutions to market themselves and strengthen the economies of not only our inner cities, but small, rural communities. So in Connecticut, the NEA, in conjunction with the Connecticut Commission on the Arts, has really helped us develop the itineraries that we needed to attract tourism to the small towns with arts institutions or performing groups where the agricultural economy is failing. In our schools, the HOT schools, (the Higher Order of Thinking schools), have been supported by the NEA, and have helped children understand that not only thinking is a powerful process, but original thinking is an extraordinary process children can possess and use to grow in mind and spirit, as well as technical capability. In 139 of Connecticut's schools, they are using the NEA's Shakespeare in American Communities, a free educational kit that really helps kids grasp the power of Shakespeare. Who better can teach children about the horrendous power of greed to do evil and the tremendous opportunity of love to do good. So the arts are extremely important to the spiritual strength of this Nation, the strength of its economy, and the health and well-being of our children, for the arts provide the power to aspire to new heights of greatness in each of us. So I must oppose this amendment, because it drains resources from the National Endowment for the Arts.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), chairman of the Committee on Resources, for bringing out today and through this House H.R. 938, legislation that establishes the Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area and designates a number of other National Heritage Areas as well. This program of National Heritage Areas is really a wonderful program. The 29 towns that encompass the Upper Housatonic Valley have worked together, their first selectmen, their historic societies, and a very large group of volunteers to inventory the historic, the economic, and the environmental assets of this area. And truly, in my district as in the others, they are unique areas, uniquely important historically and uniquely endowed environmentally. By having a structure within which they could work together with the technical experts from the Federal level, they have developed a knowledge that enables them to plan and will enable them to strengthen the economy through thoughtful tourism programs. Truly this is a partnership between the Federal Government and very small local governments that will bless every life in the Upper Housatonic Valley and the other Heritage Areas throughout the country.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 938, a bill to establish the Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area Act. The Upper Housatonic Valley, encompassing 29 towns in the hilly terrain of western Massachusetts and northwestern Connecticut, is a singular geographical and cultural region that has made significant national contributions through its literacy, artistic, musical, and architectural achievements, its iron, paper, and electrical equipment industries and its scenic beautification and environmental conservation efforts. I would like to thank Chairman Pombo and the Resources Committee for bringing this legislation forward and for recognizing that through this broad, flexible and locally led initiative, the States of Connecticut and Massachusetts will be able to make real progress in protecting the river and its heritage. The heritage area has broad support throughout the region, from historic and civic organizations, local businesses and governments, and our State governments have expressed strong support for the establishment of a National Heritage Area and are enthusiastic about the potential for celebration and preservation of the heritage. It also has inspired the development of a local organization that has already begun hosting hiking events and historic visits. Congress established criteria in our 2000 legislation that clarifies that designation requires a cultural, natural and historical heritage of national significance, must have broad public support and a qualified entity to manage the Area. The Park Service agreed that the Upper Housatonic Valley meets the Department's ten interim criteria for designation of a national heritage area and cite us as the best example of how to go about becoming a National Heritage Area. The Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area would extend from Lanesboro, Massachusetts, 60 miles South to Kent, Connecticut. This region of New England was home to the Nation's first industrial iron sites from the 1730s to the 1920s. The first blast furnace was built in 1762 by Ethan Allen and supplied the iron for the cannons that helped George Washington's army to make other weapons for soldiers of the Revolutionary army. While most of the furnaces, mine sites and charcoal pits have been lost to development and time, the few that remain are in need of refurbishment. The Beckley Furnace in Canaan, Connecticut, was designated an official project by the Millennium Committee to Save America's Treasures and now has been well restored. The Valley's history as a cultural retreat from the Boston and New York areas provides both past and current riches for the country. Since the 1930s visitors from all over have come to hear the music at Tanglewood, Music Mountain and Norfolk, see the paintings at the Norman Rockwell Museum, watch serious theater at Stockbridge and musical treats at Sharon. Today's local authors draw on a long tradition going back to the 19th century, when Herman Melville, Nathaniel Hawthorne and Edith Wharton lived and wrote here. The Housatonic Valley is also rich with environmental and recreational treasures. The Housatonic River, just below Falls Village, Connecticut, is one of the prized fly-fishing centers in the Northeast and is enjoyed by fisherman from not only Connecticut and Massachusetts but the entire eastern seaboard. Olympic rowers have trained in this river as children have learned to swim, boat and fish and value its ecosystem. The Upper Housatonic Area, with its remoteness from, but ties to large cities, occupy a special niche in our national culture and I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I do rise in strong opposition to this bill. I am a strong supporter of my own State's law requiring parental involvement, but I strongly oppose this bill. First of all, it is quite different from any bill that has appeared before us, and it is truly ironic that we should have this bill before the House on the very same day we are passing a Small Business Bill of Rights. One of those rights is for small business to be relieved of litigation. The majority of physicians in America practice in one, two, or three- man practices, which are small businesses. But, this bill opens up a new lawsuit possibility against them for civil damages in case they do not notify the parents, and that is plural, of a young person who comes to them for abortion services. It requires that the physician serve this notification in person. Now, what happens if that doctor gets in his car, goes and drives and notifies the mother, but since he does not know the mother and father are estranged, he does not notify the father. The father then has a right of action against him. This is not fair or right. This bill requires physicians to reveal information that under HIPAA and all confidentiality laws, they are not allowed to reveal. So this puts a burden on physicians that is extraordinary, and they are small businesses, and we need to remember that. Secondly, it puts young people, remember, it does not put the teenager of a healthy family in jeopardy, it puts the teenager of the at-risk family, of the family in which there is a lot of abuse, in jeopardy. Many of the teenagers who become pregnant young are pregnant because their fathers impregnated them, or an uncle or a nephew or a cousin. These are ugly situations, and if they find a grandmother or an aunt or a cousin who will substitute for a mother who may be the drugee and effectively out of their lives, who might help them deal with this situation, and that grandmother does not happen to know that she has to comply with State notification and all the other laws of both States, she will be subject to criminal penalties. This is a bad bill for the children who most need our help.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time on the Rogers amendment so that we can move on to the gentleman from New Jersey's (Mr. Holt) comments on our amendment.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) on the Rogers amendment.