Nancy Johnson

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. It absolutely does not undermine the collection system for interstate child support.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins). He and his wife have also been foster parents over many years, and his experience has been of great value to the subcommittee. (Mr. WATKINS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. The whole focus of this bill is to help kids look early at preparing themselves for work or education or both after they turn 18. From the time they were 14 the bill encourages career exploration opportunities, it requires coordination with work study programs and high school. These kids are often the last to have any access to the work study program when they should frankly be at the top of the list. So the whole goal of this is to help kids have an opportunity to work, develop a resume, develop recommendations, prepare for when they turn 18 to either go into the work force full time as a skilled, developed worker, or go on to college or a combination of the two. That is our goal, and that is going to be the main measure of these programs as we hold oversight hearings on them in the future.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman. I know from talking to him and his wife that his wife helped these kids learn how to be smart shoppers, how to clean, how to do laundry, how to stretch money, how to do all those things about budgeting and managing that will make them successful adults, and I thank him and his wife for their contribution to their lives. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).

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

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me briefly outline the contents of the manager's amendment. Most of the provisions are highly technical and are included simply to clarify meaning. Four provisions, however, require a brief explanation. One of these changes our policy on redistributing funds not used by States. We change the policy so that States will have 2 years rather than 1 year to spend each year's appropriations. HHS informs us that with the 2 years to spend the money, there will be no need for redistribution of funds. The second provision of the manager's amendment authorizes additional payments to States for increasing their rate of adoptions. The amount of bonus money we appropriated in previous legislation was inadequate because States have done such a remarkable job of increasing the number of adoptions of children in foster care. A third amendment is added to ensure that recipients of supplemental security income who lose their eligibility because of assets they hold in trust will not automatically lose their Medicaid benefits. A fourth provision broadens our provision on Filipino veterans of World War II that the committee bill allowed to return to the Philippines and still retain their SSI benefits. The new provision provides this option to all World War II veterans. We think these provisions of the manager's amendment make a good bill even better, and I urge adoption of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise not to oppose the amendment, but to point out that States do have an open-ended entitlement to Federal money for training, one of the real strengths of the underlying law. The match is only 25 percent in State money. But I accept the gentleman's amendment, because it does clarify and strengthen not only the underlying law, but the intent of this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Ms. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1802.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to rise in support of the comments of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) this evening in support of medical nutrition therapy. It is truly a tragedy that we seem unable to reorganize Medicare in such a way that preventive health measures like nutrition therapy can be adopted. In the first few years, $2.3 billion could be saved, which would offset the overall longer cost of $2.7 billion. After the third year, the savings outweigh the cost. And savings for patients with diabetes alone would total $1.6 billion over the 7 years. Since diabetes and cardiovascular disease affect 60 percent of the Medicare population, this is just clearly a good way to both save money and improve the quality of care. The Lewin Group recently completed a study for the Department of Defense that estimated that annual net savings could be developed of $3.1 million if medical nutrition therapy was included in the Tricare benefit program for our military personnel. The evidence is just growing out there. I believe it is overwhelming. I thank my colleague tonight for taking the floor in support of medical nutrition therapy as a covered benefit under Medicare, and I join him in supporting that.

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

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, this House has invested millions of dollars in establishing a national background check system, and it works. We have seen it work. It keeps guns out of the hands of criminals, of rapists, of abusers. That is a good thing. The only thing we are talking about here tonight is whether we should use that check system not only when guns are sold by dealers but when guns are sold at gun fairs. The only issue is whether it should cover all gun fair transactions or some gun fair transactions. I would say to my friend from Georgia, only in this House could ``all'' be defined as ``some.'' I just wanted to define ``all'' as ``all.'' It should cover all transactions at gun fairs. Where 10 vendors get together, clearly that is a gun fair. Why when nine get together, when thousands of guns are sold, is it not a gun fair? Why when eight get together is it not a gun fair? Why when seven, when six, when five, when four? Surely when two vendors get together, they ought to have background checks. It is all. It is everyone. It is children's lives at stake.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address an issue that concerns every parent in America and every child: school violence. The tragedy in Littleton, Colorado was a national wakeup call to all of us. Whether it is a form of rebellion, a means of revenge, intentional brutality and viciousness, or simply a way to make their voices heard, more and more students are resorting to acts of astounding violence and brutality, taking the lives of their fellow students and teachers. Fortunately, some students are trying to do something about this. Last week, I had the pleasure of visiting the Clara T. O'Connell School in Bristol, Connecticut. What I found there gave me a sense of hope that our children do not want to live in a world of guns and violence. Students at the O'Connell school recently completed a 10-week program entitled ``Bullyproofing,'' the purpose of which was to teach them ways of combatting bullying and avoiding violence. As part of this program, students conducted a survey of their classmates in grades 1 through 5, asking two important questions: First, do you watch scary or violent movies; and second, do your parents know you watch scary and violent movies? The results of this survey are unsettling. What the students did with them with you truly encouraging. Those kids wrote an open letter to their parents asking them for help: ``Dear parents and guardians: Do you know what your children are going through? We would like to talk about being afraid. Do you know what your children are watching? Do you want your children to watch scary movies? Do you know how late they are staying up? Do you think your children will get ideas from scary movies? Why do you let them watch scary movies? Do you make sure they are doing the right things?'' These are the questions we and our children might want to answer. One student says, ``Don't let your children watch scary movies. Please help us guard what we watch on TV, movies and videos. Our O'Connell survey shows 89 percent of CTO kids watch scary movies and 75 percent of O'Connell parents know they watch scary movies. We think these results are scary! Yours Truly, Mrs. Brooks' 4th Grade Class. P.S. Could you please guide us and pay attention to what we are watching?'' These children and so many more throughout America are crying out for help. They want guidance. They want to be told what is right and what is wrong. We parents have an obligation to give our children this guidance. We need to do a better job of watching what our children watch, talking to them about what they are seeing, and providing them with positive alternatives to watching scary shows. We need to follow the Ten Commandments as laid down by one of the grade schools in my district. These are their Ten Commandments: ``Read, read, read, read, read, read, read, read, read, read.'' They have those Ten Commandments posted throughout that school. I will tell the Members, instead of fear, instead of the stuff of nightmares, those kids are going to sleep thinking about the story they have read with their parents, the conversations that it has spawned, the adventures life offers to us all, the world and the exploration of that world through which they gain so much in knowledge and spirit. Yes, it is through reading together that we and our children can talk about bullying, about violence, about love, about opportunity, about freedom, and responsibility. Listen to these fourth grade kids of Mrs. Brooks' class. They are talking to all of us today.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding this time to me knowing that we do not agree on the subject. I just want to make a couple of points: First of all, these are privately funded, these are not taxpayer funded. Secondly, we have the personnel to perform these procedures because they perform them in the case of rape, incest and the life of the mother. Thirdly, our men and women under arms serve under American law and American command, and like it or not, they have the same right to legal medical procedures as women throughout America. And fourthly, this is terribly discriminatory. If someone is an officer, they can afford to have their wife fly home or their daughter who got in trouble fly home. If someone is a common enlisted guy, they cannot, and space available does not necessarily work. Do my colleagues really want them to go out on the medical economy of some of these foreign deployments where death is just about as likely as any other outcome? Do they not have a right as service men and women to have either their wives safe or, as women, to have a safe procedure? Mothers have a right to live for their children even if they have to elect this procedure.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, knowing that I oppose his amendment. And I do oppose his amendment very strongly. The law of the land is that abortion is legal, whether we like it or not. The law of the land and Supreme Court decisions have given women total control over the decision of whether they will get pregnant and carry a pregnancy during the first trimester. That right is compromised as the fetus grows and women have essentially no right to abortion except under extreme circumstances that are life-threatening toward the end of their pregnancy. Now, that is simply the law of the land. If my colleagues do not like it, bring a bill to ban abortion, and let us debate that on the floor as the representatives of the people. Let us see if America wants a policy that bans abortion. Italy has reversed their policy banning abortion because if we ban abortion, we just raise the number of women who die, who die getting illegal abortions. And we know that that was true in our history. When we first made abortions legal, the big change was not an increase in abortions, because there was not any increase in abortion. The big change was a radical, precipitous decline in maternal deaths. So, mark my words, this is about abortion. Women have a right to abortion and they have a right to a variety of safe, legal procedures. Women in Europe have had access to this method for 20 years. This is not about thalidomide. This is about something that women in Europe have used for 20 years. Our FDA has reviewed it on the basis of science. That is their job. And under that standard, they have found it to be an effective agent. And women have every bit as great a right in America to a pharmaceutical agent as they do to the surgical procedures. Why would men, in America particularly, want to make the decision for women that they have to go, in a sense, under the knife rather than taking a pharmaceutical pill? So this is, by gum, about a woman's right to choose and the right to abortion in the very earliest months when even there may not have been any fertilization of the egg. This is not necessarily an abortive phase. It depends on what happened and what did not happen, which they do not know at the time they take it. It is a very big advance. And to deny it and stop it on the floor this way is to indicate that we will approach contraceptive research the same way and that we will narrow rigorously the options available to women to manage their reproductive capability and, with it, their health. I strongly oppose this amendment. This Congress should not be banning by procedure methods of abortion.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation and its many provisions to improve the effectiveness of the Customs Office, but I will focus my comments on the provisions of this bill that strengthen Custom's ability to combat cyber predators. The Internet has revolutionized the way we learn, communicate, and even shop. It is making a reality of equal opportunity by providing truly equal access to information and the power that knowledge confers. But there is a dark side to the Internet that we must confront. Parents need to know that just as there are dangerous areas in every city, there are dangerous sites on the Internet. We need to do a better job of protecting our children from entering a website or chatroom that could lead them to harm. The old question of ``Do you know where your child is'' has a whole new meaning in the age of cyperspace. Most people are not aware that the Internet is now the number one choice, the number one choice, of predators as a means of preying on children and trafficking in child pornography. There are an estimated 10,000 websites maintained by pedophiles. Trading in images of child pornography on the Internet takes place 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Let us make no mistake about it, these people are out there lurking in cyberspace, and any child on the Internet could fall prey to these pedophiles. Roughly 12 million children use the Internet every day, spending an average of 8 hours a week in chatrooms where they can come into contact with online pedophiles. The danger of these chatrooms is that they provide sex predators with a forum to prey on unsuspecting kids who cannot see who is behind the screen on the other end of the line. When I go into fifth grade classrooms, I ask those kids, what does your mom tell you about talking to strangers? And they all know the answer. What do your folks tell you about getting into the cars of strangers? And their little faces just light up, because they know they should not do that and they will not do that, and that I can count on them, that they will not do that. It is a new world. We have to understand the new rules, and just as our kids will not talk to a stranger or get in the car of a stranger, we have to teach them not to go into the chatrooms, where everyone is a stranger. These cyber predators use their anonymity to lure our children out of their homes to meet people solely for the purpose of sexual assault. Sexual predators used to lurk around the schoolyard. Now they lurk in our living rooms, they lurk in our children's bedrooms, they lurk wherever we have our computer terminal. Listen to the Hartford Current of February 18, 1999: ``A 31-year-old Enfield man was arrested Wednesday on charges that he sexually assaulted a 12-year-old East Hartford girl he met on America Online chatroom. She told the police, and I am skipping forward, she told them that she had met Ed in the chatroom on America Online, and that they had graphic sexual discussions over the Internet. She identified herself to him as Veronica, which was not her real name. They would talk for hours at night while the girl's mother was at work and she was babysitting for her younger sister. On February 4, they arranged to meet in the parking lot of the East Hartford apartment complex so her mother would not know. Kids think this is a game, like so many other games they play on television. This did not turn out to be a game for this kid. This turned out to be a terrible experience. These cyber predators use their anonymity to lure our children out of our homes for the sole purpose of sexual assault. This legislation will help the Customs Service expand their work in combatting cyber predators and purveyors of child pornography. They have done a phenomenal job. They have gotten a conviction of every single arrest. But they need better funding, they need more people, and they need more authority. This Congress is working on all three of those fronts. This bill authorizes better funding of the child pornography and child sexual exploitation program that is designed to capture online pedophiles, and it would also better fund the operation of the child pornography cyber tip line run by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children that helps identify and locate online predators. As more kids go online every day, we need to ensure their safety. It is time to let online pedophiles know that they can no longer hide behind our computer screens. I urge support of this legislation, and full funding of the needed $10 million in the appropriations process. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for his long work on this and for his leadership.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to honor Dr. George R. Muirhead upon his retirement from Central Connecticut State University in my hometown of New Britain, Connecticut. Dr. Muirhead begin teaching CCSU students in 1949. During his many years of service to this fine university he has been Director of the Division of Social Sciences, Dean of Instructional Services, Acting Dean of the School of Business, Acting Dean of the School of Arts and Sciences, Assistant to the Vice President for Academic Affairs, Executive Director of the Experimental College, Co-Director and Administration for U.S.A.I.D. Program for Management Training and Economic Education in Poland and Vice President for Academic Affairs. Dr. Murihead has provided outstanding instructional opportunities to generations of students in the academic areas of history and contributed significantly to scholarships through his research and publications. He has been a leader in establishing Central Connecticut State University's Center for Excellence in International Education and the chief architect of the University's nationally recognized General Education Program. Few educators have the vision, intellect, extraordinary level of curiosity or ability to set forth complex matters in an orderly and memorable way that Dr. Muirhead possesses. He has taught, mentored and influenced generations of scholars and inspired students of all ages to better understand our world and prepare for the challenges of the next century. His work to establish CCSU's international program over many years was truly visionary, preceding today's acceptance of the importance of international experience and understanding. Following are quotes from tributes to this remarkable teacher and leader marking his 50 years of service. From Richard J. Judd, President of CCSU (and class of 1959): ``George Muirhead is a quintessential academic. He has guided with great enthusiasm countless thousands of students. His intellectual astuteness is boundless and he is among the great teachers of this university which he has served so selflessly for 50 years. I, as his one-time student, cannot begin to say the multifold ways he has influenced my life. He once told me not to try to be Tom Paine. I never forgot that admonition. As the current President of Central Connecticut State University I am deeply honored to have George Muirhead serve along side of me but more so to have him as a dear friend.'' From Arturo U. Iriarte, Vice President of Academic Affairs at Lasselle College and former Professor of Education, CCSU: ``You taught me to lead, to accomplish goals, to effect change, and to laugh. Thanks for always being there when I call to ask for your guidance and advice. To you I lift a glass of the Grouse in a toast to your continued good health and happiness.'' From Timothy Rickard, Professor of Geography: ``George Muirhead's keen interest in student and faculty international exchanges laid much of the programmatic groundwork for CCSU's designation by the state legislature as a Center of Excellence in International Education in 1987. His exchange with a professor at Bingley College in Yorkshire for the 1973-74 academic year was the blueprint for a series of year long faculty exchanges with British institutions and later expansion into a variety of worldwide opportunities for faculty visits to CCSU liaison institutions. Also, as Dr. Muirhead's special legacy, four CCSU students on exchange in the United Kingdom are supported each year by Muirhead scholarships and the country is the destination of choice for about half the students in a greatly expanded study abroad program.'' From Eileen Groth Lyon, CCSU Class of 1987, Assistant Professor of History at Florida State University: ``By the time I arrived at Central Connecticut University in the fall of 1983, George Muirhead was already something of a legend. My parents and aunt, who attended the university in the late 1940's and 1950's, had spoken of him as one of the finest and most charismatic professors they had known. Dr. Muirhead's encouragement and careful mentoring extended beyond my graduation from Central to a Fulbright scholarship, Cambridge Ph.D. and an academic career. I will always remain grateful for all that he taught me, about both history and life.'' From Amy B. Grass, CCSU Class of 1999: ``These are the memories I have of Dr. Muirhead: a teacher, a mentor, a practical joker, a tea maker (and occasional waiter), a volume of knowledge and a friend. Those of us at Central, but especially I, can say that knowing him has been a rip-roaring, firecracking roller-coaster of a ride . . . and we're all the better for having bought a ticket.''

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of this resolution. One of my colleagues earlier described as the inconceivable acts of violence some of the things we have witnessed in America's high schools recently, but that people like my colleague from Ohio witnessed day in and day out from adults in America toward children in America. And, indeed, what children in America, what some children in America are suffering at the hands of their own parents can only be described as inconceivable acts of violence. It took this Nation a number of decades to understand the significance of domestic abuse and to actually change the laws so that beating one's wife was treated under the law exactly the same way as beating a neighbor's wife; that, in fact, assault and battery, whether it was against one's wife or anyone else was equally a crime. And as we came to understand that, we had to change many, many laws and we had to change the way emergency room personnel talked to women who came into emergency rooms and police responded to domestic abuse calls. We have come a long way now in integrating into our understanding the early warning signs of domestic abuse and we are better at responding and better at early intervention, but we have not done this in the area of child abuse prevention. We have passed laws about mandated reporters, we have tried many things, but we do not integrate into our everyday lives a sensitivity to the needs of families where abuse is brewing or present. And so this resolution that points to legislation that these leaders are going to bring to this floor and that our Committee on the Judiciary is going to consider and discharge will begin to look at every crime prevention program and assure that crime prevention includes child abuse prevention because, essentially, none of that money is being used for this very, very important purpose. And there are many other things we can do. This Congress passed the Safe Homes and Adoption Act a year and a half ago. We just had an excellent hearing on that. And it has helped to focus on these families early on and helped the families either deal with their problems or infants to be discharged for adoption where there is no hope that the family can deal with its problems in such a way that abuse will not be recurring in a long-term part of a child's growing up. So we have made progress. But there is so much more to do, not only in our criminal statutes and in our crime prevention statutes but also in those statutes that govern how this Nation funds child abuse and prevention. As chairman of the committee that has responsibility for those funds for our child protective services program, I can say we have a lot of work to do. We have got to change the way we fund these services so that money does not follow placement into foster care, which represents failure to prevent, failure to restore, and failure to intervene when a family has an opportunity to become whole not only for that one abused child but for others who may be affected but maybe not as clearly and, therefore, not removed. So we have to change the way we deal with this problem, to move to a far more holistic approach, and the opportunity is there for us. When we look at what we have done in welfare reform, it is really a model. We have provided more money for services to welfare women coming off welfare than ever in this Nation's history by providing much greater flexibility and a more responsive Federal program. And that is my goal in child protective services funding. I look forward to working with women of experience and men of experience and deep concern in this body, and I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Tubbs Jones) for her experience, interest and dedication to this matter.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, April 15 and lights are burned late across America as people have completed the agonizing task of paying their taxes, and believe it or not, at a time when taxes are at an all-time high in America, the President has proposed to increase taxes $172 billion on the American people. Believe it or not, at a time when surpluses are projected out as far as the eye can see, the President has proposed increasing taxes on the American people $172 billion. The Republican majority fought and won a balanced budget in order to discipline spending and to prevent tax increases. We have now created a level of economic growth unprecedented, and this is the opportunity to now lower the tax burden on our hardworking citizens. I oppose the President's tax increases, and I support disciplining spending in order to reduce the tax burden on our folks.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, most Americans think that we have the ability to defend ourselves against incoming missiles. America has no ballistic missile defense capability. None. Today we take the right first step to address that extraordinary vulnerability. I just want to take a minute to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), and that band of dedicated Members who over many years now have focused on America's need for a missile defense system. It is too bad they were not heard sooner. Now rogue nations do have intercontinental missile capability. Easy- to-have chemical warhead capability. Not hard for some to reach biological warhead capability. And soon it will be nuclear. Too bad we did not hear sooner. I urge strong support for this legislation.