Nancy Johnson

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman making that comment. I am putting on the record that our staff says Customs asked for this, so at least the public listening to this debate and the Members ought to know that our staff believes Customs asked for this very language and needs it.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. We did have hearings on this bill, I would note, and I am very proud to support it. Furthermore, it is an urgent matter that we pass this at this time. First of all, it provides clear authority for Customs to get passenger lists from other countries. That authority is not clear in our Customs law. If we want Customs to provide us with the protection that they need to, we need to enable them to have advanced electronic information about passengers, cargo, carrier crew lists, and manifests. This is very important in terms of the immediate challenge of protecting ourselves more effectively against terrorism. This is just as important as the airport safety bill. In addition to providing access to information about passengers and cargo, it allows clear authority to search outbound mail. Customs has authority to search inbound mail, but it is in the outbound mail that the cash roars out of America, laundered clean for terrorist activities and illegal drug smuggling. Further, $10 million is going to go to something that I have been fighting for for 3 years and has had lots of hearings. Our children are not threatened by sexual exploitation and attack any more by people lurking in the school yards of America. They are now on the computers. They are in chat rooms. Do Members know where most of the child pornography comes from and how it comes into America? It flows in through cyberspace. Who are the people who have developed the most effective means of stopping child pornography and interrupting those conversations in the chat room through which adults are gaining access to children and luring them into dangerous relationships, it is the Customs folks. I have talked to them extensively in my district. This is the ammunition that they need to beef up the resources and expand the expertise. They are really now skilled at this, being able to follow these chat room conversations, spot those individuals who are posing as young people, but who are really out to attract young people into meeting them here or there for sexual exploitation. Mr. Speaker, we are very fortunate that we have not had more young children murdered. We have had children met in parking lots as a result of contacts made through international cyberspace connections. And now the business that is developing in tourism, foreign companies luring, over our computers, adults to join trips whose goal it is to offer young children around the world to American tourists. Mr. Speaker, it is terrible. It is horrible, and that is a piece of this legislation that is urgently needed. Mr. Speaker, do not underestimate the importance and the relevance of this to the very situation we face right now. Customs lost textile monitoring and enforcement infrastructure from the September 11 attack, and this allows the reestablishment of those offices and provides the resources so that the textile clearinghouse and commercial operations can be reestablished. This is a very, very important bill. It is not sexy. There is not a lot of interest in Customs in Congress. There never has been. But the authorities that we are granting in this bill, the resources that we are providing, the border protection equipment to fight terrorism and illegal drugs, is very important. Again, do not let this be mired down or defeated by all of the other cross-currents that are swirling in this body and between the two Houses.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation and I am interested that so many of my colleagues are criticizing the process by which it came to the floor or criticizing the fact that it does not do enough. This is the first time in the history of this country that Congress has offered 2 years of stipend plus training costs to the unemployed. It is the first time. And those benefits are over and above the half- year of unemployment compensation benefits under current law. The Democrats were in control of this House for 40 years. Never ever did they offer this kind of benefit to people unemployed as a result of foreign competition and, in this case, we are extending these remarkable benefits to those who lost their jobs as a result of a terrorist action as well. Now, we need to lay our controversies aside and vote this through. This is an exceptional benefit for people who were unemployed as a result of foreign competition or as a result of the attack on September 11. Let me tell my colleagues what it means. Remember your own people in your own district. Unemployment compensation is a small amount of money, and the unemployed have to keep going out and proving that they are looking for a job. Under TAA we said, look, you have the right for retraining and you will not have to go out and look for a job during this period. We are going to pay their unemployment comp so they have a way to support their family and we are going to pay for their training. I have had people tell me in my district, as recently as 4 months ago, that, no, they were not looking for a job because under TAA, they had the right to go back to school. I just heard the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) say that they were teaching English as a second language. Is not that an incredibly important thing for a person to be able to have the opportunity to learn if they want real career advancement? I have had many people, particularly women, tell me it is wonderful that I can go back and get my high school diploma. I can learn English as a second language and I am going to take this training, too, because in the period of time in which I can get training costs and a stipend, I can change my life. Often people, at least in my district, go from high school into the factories or from very minimal education into the factories, and I will tell my colleagues that for many of them, often their company losing its competitive position, resulting in their having the TAA benefits, has changed their lives. They do not have to take the next job if they can afford to live on unemployment comp, which they often can if the other spouse is working, and go back to school. The joy in their eyes, as they have the chance to learn English, as they have the chance to get a degree, as they can go to the community college, as they can go to a medical technology course to prepare for a career that will offer them a higher salary and a lifestyle they are going to be proud of and happy with. This is the first time ever in history that the United States Government has offered people 104 weeks of this benefit. I appreciate all the ancillary concerns of my colleagues, but do not let those ancillary concerns and the angers that are afoot in this body between this body and the other body prevent us from putting out there this kind of benefit that is going to help people at a level we have never been willing to help them before. Let me just add one thing about the September 11th victims, those unemployed as a result of the September 11 attack. It is very hard, to determine in law exactly who is unemployed as a result of foreign competition as to determine who is unemployed as a result of the New York attack. Our Department of Labor has been very generous in their definitions and I believe will continue to be very generous in making people eligible for these benefits. I have had a lot of experience with this in Connecticut. I represent a town that was all machine tools, bearings. Name the manufacturing facility and it used to be in my hometown, and I have been through this right up till recent years. The Department of Labor has been very open about it. They have been very generous about the definition, and people have benefited enormously, and I believe they will be the same kind of good helpmate in identifying who exactly the September 11 unemployed are. I urge support of this bill.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, our security interests are global. Our economic interests are global. As we stand here today, since 1990, the European community has negotiated 27 free trade agreements. Do Members understand that every one of those free trade agreements socks in European products, European standards? Their electrical outlets are different than ours. They get into that market, they get their goods in and our goods are out. We act here on this more as if there are not negotiations that are going to go forward. They are going to go forward. The issue is, will America lead or will America follow. Are we going to allow jobs to be created in America, or are we going to let them go to Europe? Watch this standards issue. Soon to enter the EU is Croatia. They are about to pass a bill that bans biotech materials. What will that do to agricultural exports from America? Do we not want a President at that table demanding science-based standards? This is about trade of American products to grow our economy and create jobs. I urge support. Mr. Speaker, as our security interests are global, so are our economic interests. If we want to create new jobs and protect existing jobs at home, we must open new markets to American products abroad. Since traditional trading authority expired in 1994, we have lost customers to other countries because they can now sell their goods without high tariffs simply because they have been at the negotiating table and have made trade agreements that shut us out. Of the 130 existing free trade agreements, America is a party to only 2--with Israel and the NAFTA countries. Since 1990, the EU has completed negotiations on 27 free trade agreements and is currently negotiating 15 more. The United States has missed out on dozens of opportunities to create economic pacts with other nations that want to buy goods made by American workers. We are now not only losing markets and customers, one by one, but are losing our position as a leader at the table that shapes the international trading system. By not being there, we allow Europe to set standards that work against American products, slowing U.S. economic growth now and for decades ahead. According to the USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service, Croatia, a country that aspires to future EU membership, currently plans to go further than the EU on biotech Croatia has a draft law in process that would institute an outright ban on any products containing biotech materials. So we simply must have our President at the table to insist on science-based standards to protect and open markets to American products. TPA is essential for our nation to remain prosperous, and passage will have a great impact on the workers I represent. Connecticut's economy is very export-dependent. Last year, Connecticut's export sales of merchandise totaled $13.2 billion, supporting more than 180,000 jobs. Viewed on a per capita basis, Connecticut ranks 6th nationally, with export sales of $3,860 for every state resident. 85 percent of our exporters were small and medium-sized businesses. Export-related jobs tend to be good, high-paying jobs. Wages of workers in jobs supported by exports are 13 to 18 percent higher than the national average. Export-related jobs are also more secure, as exporting plants are 9 percent less likely to shut down than comparable non-exporting plants. Trade agreements do work: Total exports from Connecticut to NAFTA countries (Mexico and Canada) in 1999 were 44 percent higher than 1993, before NAFTA. They are also good for consumers and are equivalent to tax cuts, as trade agreements reduce tariffs and provide lower-priced goods. The average American family of four could see an annual income gain of nearly $2500 from a global reduction in tariffs and trade barriers--the objective of negotiations. TPA is good for workers, and good for consumers alike. Furthermore, world trade negotiations are going to proceed. The only issue is will America lead--or follow. At the very moment when our President has provided strong and able leadership, diplomatic skill and sound judgement to unite the world against terrorism and create a more peaceful future, why would we not empower him to provide the same leadership to the economic discussions on which our prosperity and the economic growth of the nation depends? I urge my colleagues to support passage of this needed legislation.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 469 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 470 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), a hardworking member of our subcommittee.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I conclude by thanking the gentleman from California for his cooperation throughout this long process, and our joint efforts, and also his staff, as I did earlier. They have worked very, very long hours on this. And I would like to say that this bill is only the beginning of strengthening Medicare. The administration is organizing task forces with real-world providers on them to rethink the most time consuming forms that health care providers have to fill out. If we can collect only the data we need, streamline and simplify billing systems and administrative processes, we can literally free millions of hours of caregiver time for the benefit of our seniors. It will take the leadership of Secretary Thompson and Administrator Scully, and it will take long hearings and attention to detail next year and the year after, working together, our committee and the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Together, we can make Medicare a model of smart, responsive government and reverse the belief expressed by so many in our hearings, but summed up by a doctor who said, ``Medicare has lost a sense of fairness, due process and common sense.'' We intend to restore those qualities to the most beloved and important program in our Nation not just for seniors but for their children and grandchildren as well.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3391) to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide regulatory relief and contracting flexibility under the Medicare Program.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Secretary Thompson said about Medicare, ``Complexity is over the system, criminalizing honest mistakes, and driving doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals out of the program.'' I agree. Medicare and Medicaid are governed by 132,000 pages of regulations. That is 3 times the IRS Code and its regulations and the result is exactly as the Secretary described. Memorial Hospital in Gonzales, Texas has 33 beds and 20 billing staff. Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago just hired 26 new full-time employees to meet new regulatory requirements. At a time when we need Medicare dollars for more nursing care, prescription drugs, annual physicals, and new systems to help seniors manage multiple chronic illnesses, we cannot in good conscience ignore the costly administrative burdens and the multitude of injustices being heaped on Medicare doctors, hospitals, home health care providers, nursing homes, and other providers by a literal explosion of complex law, regulation directives, and paperwork. To address what I consider to be a crisis endangering the ability of small providers and many doctors to continue to serve our Nation's seniors, last January my subcommittee began taking a hard look at provider complaints. Today we bring to you a bipartisan bill to address the severe problems that have developed in Medicare. The bill before us does many radical things. It disciplines the regulatory process so regulations will be issued through a predictable and timely process, with provider input before proposed regulations are made public. Another radical thing it does, it stops, it prohibits government from imposing regulations retroactively. There will be no more changing the rules of the game and then punishing providers for noncompliance. It prohibits, read that ``stops,'' government from imposing sanctions and demanding repayment if they provided care to seniors in compliance with written guidance from the government. It speeds up the process Medicare uses to set payments for new diagnostic and treatment technologies by creating a Council of Technology and Innovation. It requires a simple process to correct technical error, relieving our caregivers of all the paperwork and severe cash flow problems that result from the laborious appeals process, a killer of small providers. Radically, we require through this bill that the people who process payments for Medicare services answer questions accurately. GAO found that these contractors answered only 15 percent of routine questions accurately, and, worse yet, 32 percent of provider questions were answered completely inaccurately. By setting performance standards in competitive contracting, Medicare can assure better-quality provider support services. Under this bill, doctors get fairer treatment when audited for billing inaccuracy. They will get explanations, the right to discuss coding differences, and written explanations when differences remain. This should stop the arbitrary decisions that result in tens of thousands of dollars of unjust fines. When a physician who is responsible for running the Medicare program tells me she cannot tell the difference between a comprehensive physical and a detailed physical, two entirely different levels of care for billing purposes, should we be surprised that doctors who make coding errors are frustrated and angered by Medicare's arbitrary, confrontational audits by nonmedical people and its complex, irrational documentation requirements? I am proud that this is a bipartisan bill. It has been developed with the study and input of every member of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health, and then the follow-on input of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Republicans and Democrats, as well as the administration and the Inspector General. I want to especially thank John McManus, Jennifer Baxendell, Deborah Williams, Joel White, Cybele Bjorklund and Carl Taylor, our Republican and Democratic staff members of the Committee on Ways and Means, because this has been an incredibly time-consuming, work-intensive bill. Without their endless attention to detail and thoughtful, sound judgments, it would not be before us today. Please support H.R. 3391. It is a giant step toward a stronger Medicare program. Thank Yous on H.R. 3391 legislative counsel Ed Grossman. Pierre Poisson. congressional research service Siby Tilson. congressional budget office Tom Bradley. Alexis Ahlstrom. ways and means minority Cybele Bjorklund. Carl Taylor. energy and commerce staff Pat Morrisey. Erin Kuhls. Julie Corcoran. Bridgett Taylor. Karen Folk. Amy Hall. Susan Christensen. Jayna Gadomski. dept. of health and human services Staff. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), who is going to speak later, for their hard work on behalf of physicians, most of which is reflected in this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I can guarantee the gentleman that we will work together next year. We learned a lot this year. We solved some problems that we can understand. We laid aside what we could not understand. There is lots more work to be done to make Medicare a smart and efficient program.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Hobson bill. It is instructive that we passed this directive in 1996. That is 5 years ago. This was going to save the system $30 billion through greater efficiency, so it was with great conviction that many of us resisted, including the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) of the Committee on Ways and Means, resisted a delay, and particularly an open-ended delay, of the implementation of these administrative simplification provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. However, in recent weeks it has become very clear that a number of providers and plans, as well as the State governments, have some legitimate reasons why they will have a hard time complying by the October 2002 deadline and have asked for a year's extension. The gentlemen from Ohio (Mr. Hobson and Mr. Sawyer) have developed a very responsible compromise which the Committee on Ways and Means supports, the Committee on Energy and Commerce supports, and really is a good example of how rational thinking can guide the Nation effectively. This bill just creates a smoother glide path to compliance for all entities. It is not open-ended; it does require everybody who is going to be responsible to comply to think about what it is going to take to come into compliance with this very important provision, but one that is complicated, particularly for small providers or very, very large providers in this era of rapid change. It forces those responsible to comply to think about what budget it will take, what work plan will accomplish the goal, what needs to be tested, what strategy needs to be adopted to impact and accomplish compliance with the HIPAA requirements. That is good. That means it will happen more surely and with better or greater effectiveness. It not only requires that kind of planning, but it does not discourage those who can comply sooner. I am particularly pleased that the Department of Health and Human Services under this legislation would be required to issue model guidance plans. So a lot of small providers can just take this plan, fill in the blanks and know exactly what they need to do and how they need to do it. In addition, I am pleased that the bill requires the Secretary to disseminate reports from evaluating these plans that provide solutions to some of the problems that are identified through reviewing the compliance plans. This creates, in fact, a new partnership between government and the private sector as we near the compliance date for the HIPAA requirements, and I think that is going to mean a better quality of compliance as well as surer compliance with a new date a year from 2002, March 31. I am also pleased that the bill does actually require all Medicare claims to be submitted electronically with the following exceptions: If there is no method to submit an electronic claim; or if one is a very small provider, a facility with fewer than 25 full-time employees; or a physician practice with fewer than 10 full-time employees; or in unusual circumstances as determined by the Secretary. I also believe that many of those small providers are going to use electronic means of submission because they are going to find it much faster, much more efficient, they will get paid more rapidly, and it will be more accurate. But this bill does recognize that small compliers and certain other situations may require an exception. So I commend my colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Sawyer) for moving with and through both the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Energy and Commerce to bring this to the floor. It was really their knowledge of this issue, their insight, their determination that helped us find this very constructive solution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson).

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) for his really outstanding and consistent leadership on this issue.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), a member of the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Ways and Means. She is a hardworking member.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) for his hard work and leadership on this difficult issue. Congress simply must act, before we adjourn, to avert an insurance coverage crisis caused by the increased risk of terrorism against the citizens and businesses of this country. I think that statement is absolutely true. I am proud of the insurance industry and the way it has stood up to what is going to be a $40 billion loss, but there is no question that they cannot do this again tomorrow. Furthermore, we in our Nation need to figure out how we are going to share this new risk, because if we do not, the cities of America are going to be the victims. It is not going to be Torrington, Connecticut. It is not going to be Rutland, Vermont. It is going to be New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Houston. Who in their right mind is going to pay the high premiums that will be charged of those who locate in New York? Every one of the big cities will be seen as the likely target for the next terrorist act, and so the premiums for businesses in our cities are going to skyrocket if we do not legislate now, do it right and follow it through over the next few years. It is hard enough for the cities to attract businesses to them, because cities have so many burdens that often their taxes are high, their police problems are great, and so on and so forth. Now we are going to add to that the highest possible insurance premiums for those companies that are willing to headquarter in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and other big cities of America. We would not do it intentionally, but that is going to be the unintended consequence of not handling this issue correctly. It will be the cities that hurt; not the towns, not the little cities, not all of America. We will put a death knell over economic activity in the big cities of our country. So I urge support of this legislation.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the citizens and businesses in my district who take part in the ``Westfield Works Wonders'' program. For the past four years, the Westfield Shoppingtown in Enfield, Connecticut, has joined with her sister facilities in Meriden, Trumbull and Milford to raise funds to help Connecticut's schools, hopsitals and charities. The efforts of thousands of volunteers have resulted in more than $1.2 million in funds for Connecticut's worthy institutions. For a $5 ticket price, participants get to attend an after hours shopping event to kick off the holiday season. Their tickets entitle them to special discounts, in-store promotions, major prize giveaways, entertainment, refreshments, free photos with Santa and complementary gift-wrapping. Most of all, ticket-holders and volunteers alike all know that their contribution and participation in this event helps to strengthen their neighborhoods and bring people together in the Holiday spirit. It is for this reason that November 18th is recognized ``Westfield Works Wonders Day'' in Enfield, Connecticut.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing legislation to clarify the standards for determining basis of property for purposes of calculating the amount of low-income housing tax credits for which that property may be eligible. I am proud to be joined in this effort by Reps. Charles Rangel, Mark Foley, and Gary Miller. A year ago, I called my colleagues' attention to the fact that the Internal Revenue Service, in a series of technical advice memoranda, had taken a very restrictive view of what items were includible in basis for purposes of allocating low-income housing tax credits. At that time, I noted that this would have an adverse impact on the ability of states to target affordable housing to those who need it the most. It was also troubling to me that after 16 years during which the Treasury Department had failed to issue regulations or provide any other guidance on this issue, the first pronouncement was in a series of technical advice memoranda. TAMs are not official guidance, reviewed by the Treasury Department, but merely IRS legal opinions provided to an IRS agent during an audit. They are not citable in court proceedings because they are not official guidance. However, in absence of official guidance, I was concerned that these TAMs would be taken as an official government position. In fact, that is exactly what has happened, as investors in tax credit properties have required that any properties in which they invest must meet the standards set forth in the TAMs. It is important to note that the Treasury Department agreed that this was an issue worthy of review and placed it on this year's Treasury Department/Internal Revenue Service business plan. I understand that there may be some guidance in the pipeline on one of the items addressed by the TAMs, but there does not seem to be much progress on a full review of the impact of the positions taken in the TAMs on the policy goals of the low-income housing tax credit program. It is important to understand that this legislation will not increase the number of low-income housing tax credits available. The maximum amount of credits that states may allocate to developers of affordable housing properties is set by the Internal Revenue Code. Thanks to legislation that we enacted last year, that amount available to each state will increase next year to $1.75 times the state's population. That is a hard cap on the revenue impact. Since the unmet demand for affordable housing is many times greater than what can be built with the help of the credit, our legislation should not affect revenues. In fact, the only way for this legislation to have a revenue impact is if the legislation makes it easier for the states to use the credits we intend for them to have under present law. What this legislation does, however, is very important. To understand its importance, it may be useful to have a little background on how the low-income housing tax credit works. In economic terms, the credit is equity financing which replaces a portion of debt that would otherwise be necessary to finance a property. By replacing debt, credits work to reduce interest costs. This allows a property to be rented at lower rates than otherwise would be the case. States allocate credits to individual properties based on criteria provided in the Internal Revenue Code and additional criteria they establish to provide affordable housing that closely matches the needs of the state's population. A state, thus, has a strong incentive not to allocate more credits to a property than necessary, because, if it did, it would have fewer credits to allocate to other properties. In addition, the amount of credits a state may allocate to a particular property is limited by the Internal Revenue Code. The limit is determined as percentage of the basis of a property. The basis is, generally speaking, the costs of constructing a building that is part of an affordable housing project. The percentage is 9 percent for a new building that is not otherwise federally subsidized, and 4 percent for existing buildings and new buildings that receive other federal subsidies. Thus, the smaller the basis is, the fewer the credits that may be allocated. The problem is that the TAMs take the position that certain construction costs should not be included in basis. The effect of this position is to make a large number of affordable housing properties financially infeasible and weaken the economics of those that still pass minimum underwriting requirements. The loss of equity would affect most severely properties that serve the lowest income tenants, provide higher levels of service or operate in high cost areas. The reason for this is simply that reducing the amount of credits does not reduce the development costs. It merely removes a source of financing, forcing either higher rents or lower quality construction. In many cases the largest item that would be excluded from eligible basis under the TAMs are impact fees. These fees, covering a wide range of infrastructure improvements including, sewer lines, schools, roads, are imposed because of the ``impact'' of construction of the improvements on the land and would not be incurred if the land remained undeveloped. Certainly, whether or not they are includible in basis for the purpose of calculating the amount of tax credit, these costs will be incurred and will impact the economics of the property. This legislation will clarify that these costs are includible in eligible basis. Other items that would be severely restricted or excluded from eligible basis under the interpretations expressed in the TAMs are site preparation costs, development fees, professional fees related to developing the property, and construction financing costs. The legislation we are introducing today will clarify that any cost incurred in preparing a site which is reasonably related to the development of a qualified low income housing property, any reasonable fee paid to the developer, any professional fee relating to an item includible in basis, and any cost of financing attributable to construction of the building is includible in basis for the purpose of calculating the maximum amount of credit a state may allocate to a low- income housing property. The intent of these clarifications is simply to codify common industry practice before the issuance of the TAMs. Not only will the legislation allow the low-income tax credit program to provide better quality housing at lower rental rates than would be possible if the positions taken in the TAMs are followed, but clarification will help simplify administration of the credit by giving both taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service a clearer statement of the standards that apply in calculating credit amounts. Our economy is not doing as well as we thought it was a year ago when I first spoke about this issue. We are going to need even more affordable housing than we thought last year. We should be proud that we increased the amount of low-income housing tax credits that will be available to help finance this housing. What we need to do now is to make sure that these credits are used as efficiently as possible to provide housing for those who need it the most. The legislation we are introducing today will help achieve that goal.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share the accomplishments of students in my district who have shown true patriotism in the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks. In recognition of their achievements, I would like to read their letter to you and the American people: Since the events of September 11, 2001, it has been a time for patriotism. In Avon, Connecticut, a third grade class (7 and 8 year olds) of Roaring Brook Elementary School, has tried to be better patriots. They have learned state capitals. They have talked about the nation's history and what it means to be an American. They have made red, white and blue pins for their mothers and made a quilt of flag pictures. They have also found that being a patriot is something like Thanksgiving--everywhere they look they see things that are special about America, and worth being thankful for. So, if you do not want to fly the flag, make pins or recite state capitals, the 3rd graders of Roaring Brook Elementary School suggest that you can be a patriot in some much simpler ways. They invite you to join them in thinking about some of the special things in America, and why those are worth some kind of special effort in this special time.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, the proponents of this amendment say that they are going to hire Federal employees to take over the security of our airports. Listen to who they are going to hire. People who are not protected by our civil rights laws. They are not going to even give these employees the protection of fair labor standards. Why should they not have the protection of minimum wage and time and a half for overtime laws? Why is it you do not trust that you could hire Federal employees under all of our fair employment practices, acts, all of our nondiscrimination acts, all of the law that provides family and medical leave? Why do you not think you can hire people who can do screening under those circumstances? In the private sectors Brinks, Wells-Fargo, Pinkerton, Wackenhut who provide security at weapons factories, they can hire security personnel that also have the right to the protection of our civil rights laws, to the protection of fair labor standards laws, to the protection of the family medical leave law. We know it can be done. You are giving us a sham bill that says you are going to do this under Federal law. You have to give the Attorney General the right to hire out from under all of the Federal employment laws that protect working people. It is an outrage.