Nancy Johnson

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

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

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, if we followed the course of action that the gentleman is suggesting, and no one would like to do that more than I; I think we have to address all of these issues; that is what we did in the payer package and that is what we have to do in the beginning of January. But if we follow the course of action the gentleman is suggesting, the Senate simply will not go along and then we will leave this place with nothing done. The physicians uniquely suffered a 5 percent cut last year, and if there is anything we can do to enable the administration to follow ordinary administrative procedures to prevent an additional cut, we should do it. We do not know this will work, but we do know, because we have been trying, that the Senate will not agree to a package and we have not been able to negotiate that package. So if we follow the gentleman's proposal that we come back with his package to recommit, they will just not accept it, and we will be nowhere. That is what has happened ever since July. Since July, we are nowhere, even though we did our part. We passed a payer package. If they had sent anything over, if they had sent the merest dribble over, we would be able to negotiate a package. I am sorry to have taken the gentleman's time.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I appreciate the comments of my colleague from Florida who says we have things that need to be done, and also the sentiments of my colleague from Wisconsin who says we need to get things done. Mr. Speaker, I rise because we have gotten things done. We passed a budget resolution. The Senate did not act. We passed a number of budget bills. The Senate did not act. We passed a prescription drug bill, the biggest expansion of Medicare in its history; the Senate did not act. We provided prescription drugs for 44 percent of our seniors, essentially free, only a $2 copayment for generics and up to $5 for prescriptions; the Senate did not act. We passed a payer package, because if we do not fix the problems of how Medicare pays physicians, we will see physicians dropping out of the program. They are facing the most startling and incredible increase in malpractice costs that we have ever seen in a single year. And the current law is going to cut their reimbursements by 5 percent, when they got cut last year 5 percent last year. The House has acted. We passed a package that changes the law so that our physicians will not be forced out of Medicare. And we are already seeing the effects of our failure to act at home. Doctors are taking fewer new patients and they are reducing the number of operations they will perform, avoiding the high-risk ones so that they can keep their malpractice costs under control. This House passed malpractice reform; the Senate did not act. This House passed payer reform for hospitals, for doctors, for home health agencies, for nursing homes; the Senate did not act. This House passed regulatory reform, bipartisan. All but three or four people in the whole House of Representatives voted for this bill that will take an enormous paperwork burden off our providers, free time to care for patients, reduce paperwork costs, and, by gum, provide a much fairer regulatory environment for a lot of our smaller providers who will simply be pushed out of the system if we do not reform the way we manage Medicare. It was totally bipartisan. The Senate did not act. The House passed a bill that will cut prices for prescription drugs to our seniors more dramatically than any bill that has ever come to the floor of this House, because we inserted a provision that allows the negotiators to go below the best price rule. That alone, just that one provision, $18 billion off the price of drugs for our seniors. The Senate did not act. I support the bill, and I support adjourning at the call of the Chair. Because if the Senate acts, then we can come back on homeland security, on prescription drugs, and on anything else that they find at their convenience to do.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of this motion. Nothing is more humiliating to me than to sit with a constituent whom I know is being treated in a grossly unfair manner, and I have sat with disabled veterans who have high costs associated with their disability, health care costs, accommodation costs, and their disability has imposed limits and hardships on their families. For them not to receive both their military pension and their disability pension is indeed simply unfair, and it is time we corrected that injustice; and I commend the members of the committee on doing that here tonight.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the 76th Anniversary of Congregation Tephereth Israel in New Britain, Connecticut, and the achievements of Rabbi Henry Okolica, who is celebrating 42 years of dedicated service to the congregation. I congratulate Rabbi Okolica, the congregation and all their friends. We are proud of their dedication and grateful for their many decades of service to our community and acknowledge with gratitude their successful refurbishment of their beloved temple, one of our city's landmarks. It was 76 years ago that Governor John H. Trumbull laid the cornerstone at 76 Winter Street. Since that time, Tephereth Israel has been a center of rich, spiritual devotion and always encouraged and recognized service to the community. The congregation became the first in Greater Hartford to make religious education available to students regardless of their financial circumstances, and over many years provided an environment for spiritual growth that gave our city many valued leaders. Perhaps the most famous was Governor Abraham Ribicoff. Governor Ribicoff, whose father was one of the early presidents of Tephereth Israel Synagogue, became the first Jewish governor of the state of Connecticut, and served as Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare as well as a United States Senator. When the sanctuary's interior was destroyed by fire in 1963, the New Britain community was moved to help rebuild it, so great was their admiration for Rabbi Okolica and Tephereth Israel. Today, 370 people are memorialized upon the walls of the Synagogue, a fitting tribute to past members and a reminder to the congregation's contribution to our community. Since 1960, Rabbi Henry Okolica has been devoted to his faith, his congregation and to helping countless people in need. He has been a friend to innumerable individuals and an inspiration to families throughout the state. For 40 years, Rabbi Okolica hosted the television show, ``Jewish Life,'' welcoming as his guests all religious persuasions on a wide variety of topics. The conversations reflected his thoughtful, generous character. he would conclude each broadcast with a plea to viewers to be generous in their contributions and mindful of those less fortunate. I am proud to share my hometown with Rabbi Okolica and Congregation Tephereth Israel, and honored to represent them in the United States Congress. On October 13, 2002, the congregation and community will be celebrating their history and a dramatic renovation of their temple with a ceremony at Tephereth Israel. Past and present clergy will be honored at the celebration, including Reverend Elias Rosenbeger, Rabbi Joseph Aronson, Rabbi Jacob Weitzman, Cantor Sholom Nelson, Reverend Max Prager, Reverend Elifant Rabbi Arnold Heisler and Cantor Melvin Etra. This special event will be more than a celebration for the congregation. It will be a remembrance by the whole community of the history of New Britain, for the founders of Tephereth Israel represent some of New Britain's most active citizens and friends of the community. Many came to America in search of relief from persecution in their native lands in Eastern Europe and Russia. These were highly learned individuals, having studied in acclaimed Talmudic schools throughout Russia, Poland and Lithuania. One such early New Britain resident was Benjamin Marholin, a grocery store owner and man of culture who was the uncle of celebrated American composer Irving Berlin. Another was Jonas Goldsmith, whose daughter Anna would become one of the organizers of the New Britain Chapter of Hadassah. Dr. Morris Dunn became a tireless advocate on behalf of Zionist causes, helping New Britain to become one of the most active centers of Zionism in the nation. All of these men and women overcame the odds through their belief in this country and their unfaltering faith. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Rabbi Henry Okolica and Congregation Tephereth Israel on their respective anniversaries and the renovation of their spiritual home. I ask the House to join me in wishing them the very best for the future.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker this is the most important vote I will have cast in my 20 years in Congress. I was here to cast my vote to go to war against Iraq in 1991. That was a definable conflict involving an aggressor who had to be stopped by the international community. America provided the leadership both to develop the coalition effort and provided the military power needed to win the war decisively. Now we face a far greater threat: the threat of a government dedicated to methodical, committed development, production, and stockpiling of chemical and biological weapons, and ultimately to the development of a small transportable nuclear weapon. This threat is spearheaded by Iraq, but not posed by Iraq alone. I firmly believe that if we fail to develop an international response to turn back this new threat of far more mobile and potent weapons, the cost will be extraordinary in the sacrifice of innocent lives and the crippling effect on the world's economy and on the stability of governments throughout the world. We cannot allow nations, as a matter of their public policy, to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons that can be delivered in lethal amounts all around the world. Whether it be delivery through terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda or hard-to-detect drones with sprayer nozzles, there are now the means to deliver these weapons of mass destruction into the very hearts of our cities and towns. The attack of September 11 was only the most vivid and terrible demonstration of the power of hate to deliver death and destruction of incredible dimensions by stealth means. Make no mistake, for 4 years, ever since the arms inspectors left Iraq when they were prevented from doing their job, Iraq has been increasing its research, development, and production of chemical and biological weapons despite their international agreements not to do so. I believe the evidence on this matter is clear and convincing and that there is sufficient evidence of an accelerated effort to develop nuclear weapons to make action the only realistic course. We and the international community must act, not only to stop Iraq, but to demonstrate to other nations that are starting down the same path as Iraq that are developing chemical and biological arsenals that the international community will not tolerate such a development because it poses such an extraordinary threat to all nations' economies, governments, and the very fabric of human communities. I will vote ``yes'' on this resolution, and commend the President, Secretary Powell, and Secretary Rumsfeld for working to unify the international community in the face of this new and unprecedented threat. I firmly believe, as the President has said, that war is neither imminent nor unavoidable. But I believe that the passage of this resolution will make an effective peaceful multilateral response more likely because it represents the depth of our commitment to the goal of Iraqi disarmament and the elimination of the threat of chemical and biological weapons in tandem with the power of terrorist organizations and the stealthy delivery systems so clearly under development in Iraq. Failure to act as we have for 4 years is no longer an option. We must prevent the accumulation of chemical and biological weapons and the development of increasingly stealthy means of delivery before these weapons are used against us and others. I thank the Speaker for this opportunity to be heard on this historic occasion.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. If we are out there talking to our constituents, if we keep in touch with the medical communities, not just the doctors but the hospitals, the little home health agencies, and if we listen, we will know that our Nation is galloping toward a health care crisis of dimensions we have never faced before, a crisis of cost and a crisis of access. There are whole States in America where a woman cannot find an obstetrician who will take a high-risk pregnancy. If we talk to the specialty surgeons, many will not take the high- risk cases. Very quietly, access to sophisticated, high-risk care is declining in America. That is the unique strength of the American medical system and it is becoming inaccessible to more and more Americans. Just in going about my rounds, a five-town area is losing its ENT practice. ENT is a relatively low pickup specialty. Their liability premiums last year were only $22,000. Next year they are going to be closer to $50,000. There are not enough hours in the day for these physicians to see enough patients to pay the increase in those premiums. They are being forced to leave practice. I had a meeting at a senior citizen center in Brookfield, Connecticut. A gentleman came in and sat all through the senior citizens' questions, and then rose to say that in fact he could not stay in practice after 14 years invested in education and training. He was leaving in 2 years because there were not enough hours in the day for him to see enough patients to pay a $150,000 malpractice premium over this year's $100,000. My home hospital, in a small little urban community, has all the uncompensated care costs and all the difficulties urban hospitals face: this year, $300,000 malpractice premiums; next year, $1 million. We cannot close our eyes. If this House and our Senate can send a malpractice reform bill to the President, we will lower premiums. The evidence has been given from California. In California, OB-GYN premiums across the board on average are $43,000; nationally, $107,000. How can doctors continue, how can hospitals continue, without pushing costs up tremendously when their premiums are going to double and triple? One practice in Waterbury, in the last 7 years the doctors have taken a 50 percent pay cut. Why? Because they are paying their people more, they are investing in technology and medical supplies. They are doing all the right things to provide quality care, to their people. This is in Waterbury, Connecticut. They are doing all the right things. Their own pay has gone down 50 percent. We in this House were unable to protect them from a 5 percent cut last year, and the Senate is refusing to act, to protect them from another 5% cut this next year. We must protect them from extraordinary malpractice increases that will reduce their ability to provide care to the women of the Waterbury region. Madam Speaker, this is not something Members can close their eyes to. It does not do any good to say on a grand scale that we have to reform our insurance laws; this is today. It is today women cannot find obstetricians to cover high-risk pregnancies. It is today doctors are being forced to retire by our failure to provide common sense malpractice reform legislation! Mr. HASTINGS in Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I still point out to the gentlewoman that there is nowhere in this bill that says that insurance premiums are going to go down as a result of this. We could have passed the measure of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and would have accomplished that. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I know this is a difficult issue for everybody and I regret to have to rise in strong opposition to this rule and to encourage the Republicans and Democrats, pro-life and pro-choice, to oppose this rule. I do not know how many of you know women in America who use prescription contraceptives to plan their families, to manage their reproductive capability, but in my experience of the women who are of childbearing age, 99 percent, 95 percent, a very large percent of women in America use prescription contraceptives and many States require that any health plan offering prescription drugs include prescription contraceptives in order to be a nondiscriminatory prescription drug plan. This bill for the first time explicitly says that any HMO CEO, who personally defines prescription contraceptives as an abortifacient, can alter their plan to deny women the right to coverage under their prescription drug plan of prescription contraceptives. Ladies and gentlemen, that is wrong. Never have we given, and here it is right in the bill, a provider sponsored organization, (that is a PSO), a health maintenance organization, (that is an HMO), a health insurance plan the power to deny legal benefits. Health insurance plans and the standards they must abide by are set by State law. This is a massive override of State law that regulates health insurance plans and benefits. I have personally stood on this floor and voted against some very popular health mandates that have frankly come back to haunt me politically because the Federal Government should not be mandating health benefits on States and State plans. This is doing exactly that and it is giving this power arbitrarily to an individual HMO CEO to override State law. We have never done that. We have never stood on this House floor and allowed individuals to say in conscience, when it might well be not in conscience but in cost, the right to make such decisions in opposition to State law! Are we going to allow the conscience clause now to be polluted as an economic instrument? The protection in conscience is clear. Forty-five States have laws protecting doctors, nurses, all health care professionals, so they do not have to provide sterilization, abortion, or any procedure that in conscience they do not agree with. Furthermore, Catholic hospitals do not have to provide facilities. No institution that in conscience does not agree has to provide services or facilities. They not only do not have to do it if there are doctors or nurses that do not agree, but the institution is protected. All this does is say CEOs are protected as well. Did you vote for a patients' bill of rights? I do not care whether it was the Democrat's Patients' Bill of Rights or the Republican's Patients' Bill of Rights, the whole goal of that was to allow patients and doctors to make decisions about health plans and not HMO CEOs. I urge you to vote down this rule. We need a much greater discussion than to bring this up in the waning days of a session that has not passed its appropriation bills.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 527, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 525) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the 107th Congress should complete action on and present to the President, before September 30, 2002, legislation extending and strengthening the successful 1996 welfare reforms, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Twelve days, 12 days. In 12 days, the welfare reform legislation expires. Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious matter. This House passed reauthorization of the welfare reform legislation on May 16. The Senate has not acted. We have 12 days, yet welfare reform has been an unprecedented success. Never have we passed a reform of a program that has resulted in a decline in child poverty. This bill has resulted in the largest decline in child poverty ever, and in not just 1 year but in consecutive years; and the most dramatic decline in child poverty has been among African American children. Nearly 3 million children have left poverty since welfare reform, and this is not just because we had a good economy. During the good economy of the Reagan years, when hundreds of millions of jobs were created, welfare roles increased about 12 percent. It is the result of welfare reform that children are leaving poverty, that there has been a substantial reduction in the number of children living in poverty several years consecutively. Secondly, the most exciting and wonderful news about welfare reform is that of the women on welfare, 33 percent are now working. The percent of those on welfare and working has tripled. It has gone from 11 percent to 33 percent. Many of those women are still receiving some welfare benefits as they make the transition to complete independence, but 33 percent are working. That is incredibly good news and it will strengthen those families economically and emotionally. But that also means that 67 percent are not meeting the State definition of working, which does not include complete independence from welfare benefits. So we do have a lot more work to be done, and I am proud to say that the reauthorization passed by this House recognized that those women who were not meeting the standards of work need more education. They need more training, and it creates tremendous flexibility for the States to not only help women get into that first job, but enable them to have the time they need for the education, the skill development to deal with all those problems that we know from our research which represent barriers to women getting into the workforce and barriers to their rising up the career ladder so that the salary that they earn is a salary that can honestly support a family with children. The reauthorization bill represented a giant step forward, building on what we learned from the old program, enabling the new program to be far more powerful in the lives of the women and children in America who are on welfare and basically living on extremely low incomes, if not in poverty. Mr. Speaker, I am proud that the House acted. The Senate has not acted. I call on my colleagues to lay out to the other body the importance of reauthorizing welfare today as it expires in 12 short days. That is not even 2 weeks. In 12 short days, this program expires. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I remind the body, the Senate has not acted. We must go to conference. We can conference this bill and get it to the President's desk in 12 days. The Congress owes that to the American people. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. The gentleman's recollection of the process of our subcommittee is, in my mind, completely faulty. Remember, one of the primary goals of the other party's approach, the Democrats' approach on that subcommittee, was to include as a major goal of the new welfare reform bill to reduce poverty and, indeed, we did that. Second, They were very interested in more education and training and we do that. So it was a very good bill. It got through the House with a bipartisan vote. The Senate has not acted. We need to go to conference to get this bill to the President's desk. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would remind the preceding speaker that the Senate has not acted on welfare reform and the Senate has not acted on prescription drugs. The House has reauthorized welfare reform and the House has passed a very strong bill providing prescription drugs to seniors as an entitlement. It is very disturbing that 12 days before this bill expires, before the welfare reform bill that has reduced poverty among children more dramatically than any change in public policy in my lifetime, that it could languish unauthorized. The House has acted. The Senate has not. The fact is there are 12 days and that this Congress cannot complete work on welfare reform alone. Mr. Speaker, welfare reform has helped women and children in America. It has been a good thing in their lives. We need it. For the preceding speaker to have said that we have cut work education and training is simply wrong. It is true we do not allow 12 months of vocational education, but for the first time we not only allow 4 months of any kind of education, whether it is vocational or not, but then 2 full days for 5 years. So we allow ongoing education which not only can help you prepare yourself for a job but through which then you can develop the skills to advance your career and move up the salary and career ladder. It is the most generous inclusion of education and training and opportunities in welfare reform that we have ever passed. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield my remaining 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) to control.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Improving Access to Long-Term Care Act because it is an important first step in encouraging personal responsibility for planning for and financing one's own LTC needs. Nearly 40% of us will need some form of LTC during our lives, but few of us plan for its costs. If we are going to slow the growth of Medicaid spending--currently, the primary payor of LTC expenses--and ease the burden of government on our children's generation, we must focus on developing sound private insurance products so families can provide for their own futures by protecting their assets to support them and giving them choices in LTC services. This bill will encourage the expansion of the LTC insurance market and strengthen consumer protections in LTC insurance policies. The market in this area is not mature, and these protections are extremely important to its development. Qualified LTC policies will have to meet requirements designed to protect purchasers, particularly seniors. Suitability standards, for example, attempt to assure that policies are suited to the purchaser's resources and needs. One aspect of this bill caused me concern and it is my hope that we will be able to re-evaluate the income guidelines for claiming the deduction and the limits on the deduction amount. For example, when this bill is fully phased in, a person with $20,000 income will get 7.5 cents in subsidy for every premium dollar spent on LTC insurance. That's assuming they meet the asset test under the suitability requirements and that--at $20,000 income--they have sufficient tax liability for a deduction to matter. Because of the looming tidal wave of baby boomers that will age into the need for LTC services, I have been introducing LTC insurance premium deductibility legislation for over four years. My previous bills have also included a tax credit to offset the costs of caregiving for families that provide LTC assistance for a family member. HIAA and the AARP have been strong supporters of that legislation. They have educated Members and 205 of you have co-sponsored that bill. While I will continue to fight for passage of a deduction that is not limited to lower income, and for a full credit for caregiver expenses, I support H.R. 4645 tonight because it is a first step toward that goal. In addition, it will put in place the consumer protections we need in the LTC insurance market, and these protections will be available to all purchasers of LTC insurance who access one of the other tax code incentives that incorporate the definition of ``qualified LTC insurance policy''. This bill will encourage personal responsibility for private financing of LTC expenses and support the development of the LTC insurance market.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. First of all, there are no third-term abortions of healthy babies in America. It is illegal. But it is an absolutely horrendous insult to the women of America to think that we would carry an infant through pregnancy and arbitrarily and lightly choose to take that infant's life. It is not done. Women do not do it. As one who has carried children, four children full term and experienced both the joy and the pain of childbirth, I know of no woman who is not transformed by pregnancy and does not value that life she carries within her; and the implication that we do not is so offensive to me that I am astounded that my colleagues can get up here and present the image of women, for convenience sake, choosing a late-term abortion. There are no late-term abortions of healthy babies that are legal, and this bill does not ban late-term abortions. This bill attempts to ban a specific procedure, and it does it so clumsily that it does not differentiate between the constitutionally prescribed pre-viability and post-viability procedures and, therefore, tramples on the rights of women to make choices about the responsibilities they are going to take throughout their lives. We have in America the right to make that choice early in a pregnancy. We need that choice. We deserve that choice. We have that right, and we have the right to do it in a medically responsible way; and this bill abrogates that right because it does not differentiate between the normal surgical procedure that is used early in pregnancy and the specific procedure it is trying to eliminate. This legislation, as introduced, applies throughout a pregnancy and disregards the crucial constitutional distinction between pre- and post-viability abortions. Furthermore, it completely disregards the issue of the woman's health. It does not matter in this bill whether she has two, three, or four children depending upon her; the government is going to make the decision about how her health should be managed. In 2000, the Supreme Court ruled in Stenberg v. Carhart that a Nebraska statute banning so-called partial-birth abortion was unconstitutional for two independent reasons. The statute lacked the necessary exception for preserving the health of the woman, and the definition of the targeted procedure was so vague it could prescribe other abortion procedures. Well, these arguments apply to this bill, both of those arguments. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4965 contains no exception to preserve the health of the woman; and it is so vague it can be applied to the D&E procedure. Its prohibition can be applied to that and, therefore, does, without question, abrogate the right of women to handle their reproductive capabilities responsibly. This is, in my estimation, the worst bill that has come before this Congress. I have wanted for a long time to just say how deeply offended I am that my male colleagues and some pro-life colleagues whose views I deeply respect could assume that American women would choose to abort a late-term child that they have carried within them. I know of no woman who ever has; I know of no case that shows a healthy child being aborted for the purposes of destroying that child. I hope that this will be the last time we will debate this, and I hope we will defeat this issue.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman very much for yielding me time, and I thank him for his efforts in bringing this resolution to the floor. I rise in strong support of H. Res. 496 and urge its unanimous adoption. I am not an expert on baseball, though I have played the game enthusiastically at many periods in my life. I am not an expert on baseball's contract disputes either. If this were merely an issue between the players' union and owners, I would not have introduced this resolution. But I am an expert on kids, and I know that children look for heroes and emulate their heroes. Nearly three million children worldwide play Little League baseball, and these children look up to the players of the big leagues. Yet baseball's failure to test for steroids, coupled with media reports of steroid abuse in baseball, tells young people that drug use is not only permissible, but desirable. This is exactly the wrong message to be sending to our children, but it is getting through. Recent studies have shown an alarming increase in steroid use among children. One report said steroid use by high school boys was as high as 12 percent. I am here today because Major League Baseball needs to step up to the plate and put an end to steroid use for the sake of our children, if not for the sake of the game. Steroids are dangerous drugs with deadly consequences, such as heart attack, stroke, and liver cancer. It is dead wrong to send the message to our children that steroids can be used safely, when they are dangerous to a person's health. It is dead wrong to send the message to our kids that it is okay to cheat, and using steroids is cheating at sports. It is time for our Nation's most popular national pastime to send the right message to our Nation's wonderful kids. Instituting mandatory, random drug testing, as football and basketball have already done, is the only way to signal that steroids have no place in professional sports and no place in our kids' lives. The Members of the House of Representatives represent more than 250 million Americans. Passing this resolution will send a wake-up call to baseball that they need to clean up their act.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and in support of the proposal for a commission in this bill by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). I fail to understand why we do not need this kind of study. In 14 years since the 1988 bill, we have seen enormous problems of poverty, school dropout, disease, infant mortality and unemployment. Since 1994, because we passed a more enlightened policy for the rest of America, we have reduced poverty among children in American 3 consecutive years. We have never done that. And the deepest reductions in poverty were among black kids. Why is it that we just ignore the fact that poverty among Indian children is terrible? Why do we not notice or study the impact on families of the level of substance abuse on the reservations. We have known it is there. Why do we keep appropriating dollars when we know they are not changing lives? I see no reason to fear this commission, and I see every reason to look at what is Federal policy in regard to our reservations, and how does it compare to Federal policy in regard to the rest of Americans. Why is it Federal policy has reduced poverty in America but not for reservations? Why is it we are making progress on some of the child- abuse issues in the States and our Federal level, and we are not strengthening families on the reservations? Why is it that the school dropout rate is so extraordinary? What are the policy comparisons? What are the policies that we as Federal lawmakers are supporting in these different areas? As one who is increasingly affected and frankly more aware of and knowledgeable about Federal policy toward tribes, I would have to say it is distressing to watch outsiders come in, finance big-stakes casinos, and watch the people in the surrounding towns pay for the hospitals that everybody has to use. I do not see the little guys getting the same benefit as the big guys. It is time to look at this. I do not see that it is a danger, and I do not see that it is duplicative. Recognizing that on Indian issues I am not one of the more knowledgeable Members, but seeing Indians from my perspective in a community where they have benefited from all these resources, and we do not have the poverty, but seeing the big money going to some and not others, we need this study. It is disgraceful not to do it.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment, and I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Let me just tell my colleagues why we are introducing this amendment that I am a coauthor of. The National Endowment for the Humanities will get 5 million more dollars because they carry enormously important national responsibilities, like dealing with brittle books and the problem of documents that are critical to our heritage and to future generations, needing a lot of care and a lot of restoration. They are also in libraries in very small towns, bringing experts on poetry to do readings and workshops, and provide inspiration and guidance for those who want to learn to write poetry or short stories or get acquainted with the body of literature that has developed the culture of the Western world. In the arts, we put $10 million more into the Challenge America program. That is the grassroots. Let me tell my colleagues what grassroots sounds like and looks like in my district. I walked into a HOT school the other day. Now, HOT schools are funded by national NEA money flowing through our Connecticut Commission on the Arts. And I asked this young girl who was touring me around, a 5th grader, I said, what is a HOT school? She said, well, it is a Higher Order of Thinking School. And as we went through the school, there was a kid who was drawing everything we did, and there were several kids who were scribing down everything we did so they could do a report. We saw the exhibition of art, portraits done by the kindergartners in the style of Miro. How wonderful for these kids to see the abstraction of portraiture done in that very modern style, so they could begin to think about who they really were, who the next person was, and how do we conceptualize the world around us. There is just overwhelming evidence that strong arts develop higher test scores on math and reading. Why? Because it develops the mind, not just the tables, but the abstraction of mathematics. Then we went on to the older grades where they had studied the Lascaux caves and how those drawings in the caves represented the history and the way people lived in that era, and they thought about it. They thought about not only the substance of life, but the artistic expression and how we communicate. Then, every month, they have an assembly in which they have a competition for the best poetry, the best drawing. This has changed the lives of these inner-city children. It changed their lives and elevated their thinking. It has made them think that education is fun and powerful. So let us not neglect to fund the arts. My Governor, a Republican in Connecticut, put more money into the arts than had ever been invested because the arts help revitalize our cities economically. So this is about education, it is about achievement, it is about excellence, it is about communication, it is about history, it is about culture, it is about inspiration, and it is about the dollars and cents of a strong economy. Support the amendment to increase funding for the arts.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4954 because it provides prescription drugs for all seniors as an entitlement under Medicare. Equally important, it prepares Medicare to deliver state-of-the-art health care to our seniors in the decades to come. Without passage of this bill, Medicare will continue to deny seniors the care they need and will continue to force the diversion of critical care hours from patients to paper work. Seniors would continue to be held hostage to an antiquated benefit structure while the rest of America benefits from advances in medicine, technology, and best practices. First, in the area of prescription drugs, this bill captures deep discounts on drug prices, and then further reduces the cost of drugs to seniors through direct subsidies of 50 to 80%--up to $2000 of costs. Two-thirds of seniors use less than $2000 in prescription drugs a year, so this bill will provide them with tremendous relief. For low-income seniors--up to 150% of the federal poverty level (in 2005, $15,065 for individuals and $19,392 for couples)--drug costs will be paid 100 percent up to $2000 a year (this includes premiums, co-pays, and the deductible). I want to stress that because twice as many women as men have low incomes in their elder years, this is a tremendous boon to women's health and does what Americans want: helps those most who need the most help! The bill also provides catastrophic protections to all. It assures that no senior need fear that cancer or another dread disease will consume their life savings and leave them destitute. You've all been hearing from pharmacists. This bill recognizes the expertise of pharmacists more specifically and constructively than any legislation ever has. It requires that drug plans establish medication therapy management programs for patients with chronic health conditions. Pharmacists must be paid adequately to provide their services. Pharmacists must be involved in developing formularies. And access to local pharmacies is encouraged, not discouraged. To encourage face-to-face visits, all drug plans must provide convenient access to a ``bricks and mortar'' pharmacy in their network, as defined by Medicare; all drug plans must offer a point-of-service option that allows beneficiaries to go to any pharmacy they desire (for an additional charge); and no mail-order only plans are permitted. Second, this bill provides better access to preventive health care by offering an annual physical on entry into Medicare, cholesterol screenings, and new choices in Medigap plans that have no co-payment for preventive care. In addition, the bill revitalizes Medicare+Choice plans that have the flexibility to cover far more preventive services than traditional Medicare, from simple, useful annual physicals to disease management programs. Third, by strengthening the Medicare+Choice plans so that they can once again grow, this bill prepares Medicare to meet the growing challenge of helping seniors manage chronic illness--to dramatically improve their health and quality of life and manage their health care costs. As the majority of our seniors have multiple chronic illnesses and the M+C plans alone have the technology to offer disease management, this alternative must be available to seniors nationwide. Acute care coverage is simply no longer enough. Fourth, passage of this bill will reduce medication errors that are causing injury and death, because it requires adoption of computerized prescription ordering that will flag drug interactions and provide health care professionals better quality data to improve clinical care. Fifth, it will enable Medicare to compensate provider more realistically and fairly. Without action, Medicare will continue to follow the path of Medicaid, undermining both the quality of our health care system and access to services by underpaying providers and driving them out of serving our seniors. Last, this bill will enable Medicare services to be delivered more efficiently and cost-effectively. At long last, in fact for the first time in Medicare's history, this bill will radically reform the bureaucracy that has grown substantially as our laws and payment structures have exploded in number and complexity. In fact, the Medicare bureaucracy is in crisis. Medicare is governed by over 125,000 pages of regulations--more than the IRS regulations for the entire tax system. The error rate in carriers answering basic questions from physicians was 85%, dwarfing the problems at IRS. This problem is so great that it threatens to force small providers out of Medicare, be they physician practices, small visiting nurse providers, small nursing homes, or small hospitals. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the impact of such a consequence on rural America or our urban neighborhoods. So while the words ``regulatory reform'' don't have the power over seniors' attention that ``prescription drugs'' have, in the long run they are equally important. This is a good, solid, balanced bill. It modernizes Medicare to meet the future. It provides prescription drugs as an entitlement to all seniors under Medicare. It provides total benefits to those on Medicaid and--with states--will provide such total coverage to seniors under 175% of the poverty level, 44% of the population over 65. And for all others, this bill provides deep discounts, generous subsidies, and the peace of mind of catastrophic protection against high-cost drugs.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, we have had a parade of my colleagues from the other side claim that this legislation is harmful to senior women. I wonder how they could have so lost touch with the lives of women in America and women in their districts. This bill represents the greatest leap forward in women's health since the passage of Medicare. I was polite to you, and I ask that you be polite to me. For the very first time, women, particularly low-income women, will have their prescriptions covered. Perhaps you did not read the bill. You know and I know that women live longer than men. The great majority of seniors are women. Perhaps you did not know that retired women are living on half the income of retired men, that the average income of retired men in America is $30,000 and the average income of retired women is $15,000 and of retired women over 85 is $10,000. Under this bill those low-income women will receive 100 percent of the costs of their drugs, of their premiums, of the deductible, and of the co-insurance up to maybe 2 to $5. They will have a right to charge that much co-insurance. That is an incredible boon to these women. They will have the security of knowing that every dollar of their prescription costs up to $2,000 will be covered if your income is under 175 percent of poverty, and that is 44 percent of all seniors. Yes, this is a wonderful thing for women in America. Yes, this bill is a giant step forward for seniors in America. Yes, this is the greatest leap forward for women in health care since the founding of Medicare. And once you have read the bill, I will be happy to talk with you about details. But there can be no arguing with the fact that the first $2,000 of drug expense for people under 175 percent of poverty is completely covered and, by saving the State $40 billion, they will be able to go up that ladder of income. So let us try to talk about the facts tonight, let us have a little less theater, let us have a little more discussion about the details of the legislation, and let us try to do America proud as we talk about the need for prescription drugs in Medicare.

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

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. We certainly do. We fix all the problems with reimbursements for mammography so they will be more accessible to the women of America. Furthermore, we provide access for something that is extremely important to women, more important to women than men, and that is access to disease management plans to manage chronic illness. It is women who are plagued with four, five, and six chronic illnesses.

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

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Absolutely.