Nancy Johnson

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. I think it both secures current jobs, will lay the groundwork for bringing people back into jobs they had recently, and will open up new job opportunities through all of the provisions that stimulate growth in the economy. But it is also a bill that is about people, the help that they need right now through the unemployment compensation system and help with their health benefits. This is an immediate stimulus bill, and under our provisions within 10 days States will get $9 billion back. They will not be able to spend it on just anything. They will be able to spend it to pay or increase unemployment benefits. They will know whether their people need double benefits in the short term. They can use it to extend benefits instead for those who have exhausted their benefits, or they can use it for better employment services. Some States will know exactly where their unemployment problems are and where they have openings, and they can use this money to provide customized training to move people from unemployment into employment. This is $9 billion within 10 days to help people who are unemployed get jobs, get better benefits, get the help that they need. Secondly, it is $3 billion more that again can go out very rapidly right to the community themselves through our community services block grant dollars where it is most sensitive to local need, and anyone who is unemployed will thereby be eligible for health insurance. But it will not just be subsidies for COBRA, which are the most expensive health insurance plans, often with premiums of $350 a month, unaffordable to people unemployed, but unaffordable even with subsidies. This will give States the money to help uninsured people enter CHIP, enter the State Employee Benefit Program or however States want to do it. It needs no new legislation. It helps people now, and that is what a stimulus bill should do.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill that will provide the resources to enable us to study these trails, many of which go back hundreds of years, well before independence, and to study the possibilities they hold for future generations of preservation and restoration. It will be a great benefit to New England as well as to the whole country to be able to have the information to preserve these trails and to make sure that they will be there to serve future generations. In New England, of course, it is a different matter than other parts of the country. These trails go in large measure through private lands and have a long tradition of being open and available to the public. So we look forward to the results of the study, and we thank the Speaker for considering this today. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) for his leadership in this matter. Without his personal involvement and the fact that he has hiked all these trails personally, I think this bill would not have moved along as rapidly as it has, and I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his leadership.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I would hope that the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) would really reconsider their opposition to this amendment. It is absolutely true that more analysis needs to be done, no question about it, and questions have to be answered. But this amendment has some at least real potential for resolving an issue that has deeply divided this House and deeply divides America on farm policy by region. Now, I would like the amendment to allow much more opportunity for consumer-based boards to have a say in this process at the regional level. That has been one of the strengths of the compact approach. I think when a State decides to enter this program, they should also set up a board that has consumers on it to begin to watch the price and see how much this helps their farmers. Mr. Chairman, I regret the fact that the chairman of the committee and others on it who have a great deal of influence on policy cannot be bothered to listen. Because I heard passionate speeches all day about how much your farmers need the subsidies in this bill. Do my colleagues not understand that our dairy farmers are in exactly the same position in New England and they get nothing. And they are going to go under if we cannot either extend the dairy compact or find a different way for our region?

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

Ms. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Ms. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I must reclaim my time. The Constitution was finely written when they found a way for small States to be able to have a voice equal to big States. So I understand the gentleman represents more farmers than I do, but it does not make the survival of any individual farm in Connecticut of any lesser value than the survival of a farm anywhere else in the country. That is all I am saying. What I want my colleagues to think about is that this approach, integrating this issue and solving it through the existing marketing order through a system that is voluntary, that I think could be made more flexible and responsive to consumer interests as we work on it and analyze it, offers the best hope that we have had so far to really recognize the needs of dairy farmers across America. The marketing order system is a one-size-fits-all. The reason we fight about dairy policy is because one size does not fit all anymore, and this amendment does offer us the opportunity, within a national umbrella, to begin to find a way for regions to manage in a way that supports farmers. That is our interest, to support farmers. So I am pleased that we do have a supply management provision in here. The compact has been successful at that. Most dairy policies nationally have not been successful at managing supply, and it has not cost the national taxpayers a dime. I urge my colleagues to give it a chance. Let us talk this out. Perhaps we can deal with it in the conference.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recognized on this point of order.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is as black and white as the gentleman from Wisconsin maintains. There is genuine ambiguity about the germaneness of this amendment. Because while the statute the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) cites in terms of regional compacts is one consideration, the other consideration is that the agricultural bill and the Department of Agriculture do establish the whole milk marketing system, which is a market governance mechanism that if you were going to be consistent, should be under judiciary, if your point of order were to hold. This is merely a variant of the milk marketing order to accommodate it to meet the goals that the Department of Agriculture has set for its milk marketing system, which goals that milk marketing system does not meet. The milk marketing system's goals were to assure regional production, but within that system were also mechanisms to prevent overproduction. The national system is not working. This regional system is working. Under the national system, there was a 7.4 percent increase in production over the period of the compact, and in the region of the compact, production actually went down. Why? Because we have an incentive system that discourages overproduction. It is something the Federal Government has desperately tried to develop in every one of its ag subsidy programs and has failed. Our incentives to control production, which is a Department of Agriculture goal, part of the milk marketing order policy contained in this ag bill is a goal that is better achieved through this adjustment to the milk marketing order system than through underlying national policy because it does adjust that policy for regional concerns and puts in place not only a system that can address supply, but one in which consumers are represented. So it is a far more democratic process than the Federal milk marketing order process. So I would say that the issue of germaness is not black and white. It is ambiguous, and we have every much as good a case that this is germane as the gentleman from Wisconsin has that it is not germane, and what should influence the Chair is not only that ambiguity, but the fact that the Committee on the Judiciary has refused to give this matter consideration, to hold hearings, to give us our voice, to even bring it to the floor with a negative recommendation or choose one of the other processes available. We should not be muffled. The interests of our people in national agricultural policy are very real, and this bill establishes national agricultural policy and has within it a market structure that is the market structure that we wish to adjust to regional interests. So I would say the issue is ambiguous, and I would urge the Chair to rule in favor of all those regions of the country that get no other benefit from the ag bill but would benefit in supporting the farm income in exactly the same way they want to support the income of other farmers under the ag bill. So I urge Members' support of the Sherwood amendment.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. If I were not such a civilized soul, I would have objected to this agreement. I have been in and out of this Chamber all afternoon waiting a chance to speak and I have 5 minutes' worth to say. Now I have my 2 minutes to say it in. I just want all of my colleagues to know that the Committee on Agriculture did not hold a single hearing in New England; that its membership does not include any of us; that my friend, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), could have made exactly the speech he made word for word and had the final sentence say, and that is why I support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues do not understand. Members want a farm subsidy program for their farmers. Members want it to be countercyclical. The compact is countercyclical, and it does control production, and get Members will not even give us a chance to do for our farmers what they so desperately want to do for their farmers. My colleagues increase the conservation money. I am glad this bill does that, but it will take $60 million of EQIP money to help my farmers, just the ones that have projects lined up, because we are the first State that is going to comply with those AFO/CAFO regulations that were put into place in this House to address nonpoint source pollution. It has to be done but it's very costly. Though my small farmers have no margin. It will cost a million dollars a farm for the ten biggest farms in Connecticut and sizable dollars for every farm. Where are they going to get it? So increasing the funding for EQIP, I appreciate that, but it is not enough for even Connecticut. Doubling the money for WHIP from $25 million to $50 million helps but currently 12 of our landowners are served. There are 46 applicants unserved right now. My colleagues have got to pay more attention to New England and parts of the country where we have small farms where people are spending full time farming. These are not hobby operations. These are farmers who want their kids to take over their farms. And they are creative entrepreneurs. For example, we have the most progressive manure management program in the Nation, and the agricultural research funds will not allow us any money because it is an integrated system, and all of our research monies are in silos. Old- fashioned. Mr. Chairman, it pains me as a Republican that my party cannot even hear New England farmers. I am going to support this amendment because it is the only way I can help the people who depend on land for their living.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I would like to just share three thoughts, most of which have already been shared this evening. My first is simply to express my heartfelt sympathy for the families of the victims of this mindless terrorism. May we each help you as you face the pain of your loss. May our prayers, our thoughts, neighborly gestures, that long line of people willing to give blood, letters from those who knew your sons and daughters, grandchildren, relatives, friends and coworkers, be of some small comfort to you for paying this terrible price of living in a free society in a troubled world. Secondly, I want to say how proud I am to be an American, to witness our ability to rally, to help each other, to stand tall in the face of senseless, cowardly, vicious terrorism. To all of those policemen, firemen, volunteers, health care providers, folks of all sorts who have come out to help to save lives, to rebuild, we are strong. Thirdly, and hear this, our friends around the world, America is now at war. It is the first war ever fought against a non-nation entity, but it is war nonetheless, and again a well-organized, well-funded, focused enemy. While its energies are focused against America now, terrorism is everyone's enemy. The weapons it is developing can be used by any terrorist group, against any object of one's hate. So while it is terrorism against the United States today, its success strengthens the name of terrorism and will enable others to use this weapon, even against sponsoring nations in the future. Terrorism is not rational, is not just, is not honest; but it is passionate and powerful. Differences between nation states can be reconciled. Diplomacy, U.N. peacekeeping forces, intervention by allies are all tools we have developed to help nations resolve differences peacefully, to preserve the lives, hopes and dreams of all of their people and the prosperity and the hope for the common good of all. These tools cannot be used against non-nation states. That is why they are the ultimate danger. Terrorism endangers us all, for it allows only one answer: violence. So we are at war. It is a war we must win, and it is one all of our allies have an interest in joining us to win.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce the bipartisan Medicare Regulatory and Contracting Reform Act of 2001. Over the past several months, I have been working closely with Pete Stark, Ranking Member of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, to assemble this much needed package. This legislation is the product of months of bipartisan consultation with health care providers and with the Department of Health and Human Services. Our bill will go a long way toward alleviating the burden of unreasonable and unnecessary regulatory paperwork from the nation's doctors and other health care providers. I am pleased that every member of the Health Subcommittee has decided to join me and Congressman Stark in introducing this important legislation, along with several of our colleagues from the full committee. This interest tells us that Members of Congress are hearing from doctors, from home health workers, from hospital administrators, from nursing home aides that change is needed. Good health care is about patients, not paperwork. America's health care providers must be freed from the flood of forms. My Subcommittee has been taking a serious and honest look at the problems of providers throughout the year. And I have to tell you--the problems are real. At a hearing in March, Susan Wilson of the Visiting Nurses' Association of Central Connecticut testified about how difficult it is for a provider to respond to a technical denial of a claim. For example, a patient must be homebound in order to be entitled to benefits. A physician must certify, in writing, that the patient meets the homebound requirement. However, if the certification is not signed and dated prior to billing for coverage, a claim denial is issued. At this point, a provider has to pursue a formal appeal. Our bill requires the development of a system to allow easy corrections of technical problems with claims without having to go through the appeals process--saving time for providers and for the appeals system. At a recent meeting of my Subcommittee, Congressman Camp told us that he spent an afternoon working in one of his local doctors' offices, filling out the forms that need to be completed before Medicare can be billed for a health care service. He was confronted with several books, each as large as a phone book, that needed to be consulted in order to properly code the claim. It just should not be that difficult. I have visited a wide cross section of Connecticut's health care providers--and they raise a common theme with me. They are frustrated. These are good people who want to take care of the patients they see. And yet they are inundated by forms, requirements, second-guessing, and heavy handed oversight. We have to take action, or we run the risk of driving from the Medicare program the very providers we need to ensure that seniors have access to high quality care. An eye physician from Torrington Connecticut contacted me earlier this year to express his frustration with a system that subjected him, in his words, ``to a star-chamber proceeding . . . for the crime of serving the elderly.'' This is unacceptable. We must act. My bill will diminish the paperwork load required to meet complex and technical regulatory requirements and immediately free up for patient care time that providers now spend completing and filing federal forms. Specifically, my bill streamlines the regulatory process, enhances education and technical assistance for doctors and other health care providers, and protects the rights of providers in the audit and recovery process to ensure that the repayment process is fair and open. At the same time, the bill has been carefully designed to protect ongoing and necessary efforts to reduce waste, fraud and abuse from the Medicare program. In addition, under this bill, the Secretary is given the tools to manage Medicare program operations competitively and efficiently. For the first time, the new Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services will be able to contract with the best entities available to process claims, make payments and answer questions. And the Secretary will be free to promote quality through incentives for the Medicare Administrative Contractors to provide outstanding service to seniors and health care providers. The bill includes a section I am particularly excited about that will create a demonstration program designed to make intense and targeted technical assistance available to small health care providers. This demonstration will offer technical experts to work with small providers on a voluntary basis to evaluate systems for compliance and suggest more efficient or more effective means of operating their documentation and billing systems. This demonstration is modeled on successful work undertaken by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to promote compliance with complicated requirements. Through this demonstration, we are going to help small providers overwhelmed by the complexity of Medicare's rules by showing them what they need to do to comply. We also create an ombudsman to help providers solve problems they encounter with the Medicare program. Too many doctors tell us that they operate in fear of making an innocent error and ending up with the very viability of their practice in jeopardy. We need to change that mind set--Medicare should help providers comply with rules--it shouldn't drive them away from the system. Passage of the Johnson-Stark bill will take a long step toward making that goal a reality. I look forward to working with my colleagues and with the Administration to see our bill become law this year.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me set the record straight on a couple of specific things. First of all, there is nothing in the amendment at all that changes the standard of care, and all of the heated speeches of the other side that implied that were simply wrong. We do not change the standard of care. Secondly, according to a Department of Justice letter, both the Norwood language and the Ganske-Dingell language contain express provisions which preserve certain traditional State law causes of action concerning the practice of medicine or the delivery of medical care. The language of both these underlying bills, both the underlying bill and the amendment, indicates that these provisions would allow, for example, claims under the Texas statute as interpreted in corporate health to go forward. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Norwood amendment, and I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his leadership. There has been no Member in this body who has been more dedicated to the issue of patients getting access to care and having the right to sue when their HMO denies them access to needed care. I commend the gentleman for that. Mr. Chairman, I commend him particularly today for having the courage to help this House find a way to not only provide these rights to patients, these critical rights to access to specialty care, access to emergency room care, but also access to the right to sue, to provide these critical rights in a way that does two things. First, it restores power and control over our health care system to the doctors of America. That is what patients want. They want to have the right to the care their doctor recommends. The Norwood amendment makes very clear that patients must exhaust the external panel review process so that the record shows doctors' review of doctors' decisions. In this era of exploding medical options, increasingly complex care, frankly we are going to need to have doctors reviewing doctors' recommendations to ensure that the patients' interests are best served. Mr. Speaker, exhausting that panel review before patients get lawyers involved is critical. Otherwise we will do what the Dingell-Ganske bill does: We will simply take power from HMOs and give it to lawyers. This is not progress. This is not progress. We want to return that power to doctors, and the Norwood amendment does that very clearly and very directly, and backs it up with a system that has two advantages. First of all, it shields the employer far more effectively than any other bill, by clarifying that patients can sue only the dedicated decision-maker who must be bonded. Therefore, employers can have confidence that they will not have to drop their plans out of fear of being sued. That is a tremendous strength of this Norwood amendment. Second, the Norwood amendment is a simpler judicial process, a simpler legal system so that the costs do not explode. If the costs explode and the price of access to care and access to the right to sue is losing your health insurance, this is not progress. Already premiums are rising rapidly. We see that: 15 to 20 percent this year when a 10-13% increase was expected and after double digit increases last year. In good conscience we must not add costs that do not benefit patients. We know from the history of malpractice insurance with doctors that until States controlled costs by adding tort reform or committees through which these proposed suits had to pass for approval, costs were extraordinary. Premiums leapt every year. And who paid? The employer and the employee. That is what is happening now. Employees are facing higher costs. So the Norwood amendment not only guarantees these rights of access that are so critical to the quality of care and the right to sue, but it does it in a way that restores power to the doctors of our health care system. It does it through a legal structure that controls costs and protects employers who don't make medical decisions. Mr. Speaker, those are my goals. The Norwood amendment fulfills them, and I commend the gentleman for his hard work. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support the Norwood amendment. It puts in place strong patient protections in a responsible way. Our goals are twofold: to guarantee patients access to the care they need and to guarantee patients right to sue if they are denied that care by their HMO. These patient rights are critical. Critical--but we must guarantee them without causing health care costs to skyrocket. Even without this legislation, premium costs are rising 15 to 20 percent a year and employees are carrying higher and higher copayments and deductibles. We must not, indeed we cannot, in good conscience further increase costs without knowing for certain that the benefit will be directly realized by patients. I support the Norwood amendment because it guarantees the rights patients need to access specialists and emergency room care, to elect an OB/GYN or pediatrician as one's primary care physician, and other rights of access. It also provides the crucial right to sue one's HMO, but it would do this in a way that we know from experience with certainty will contain costs. Under this amendment, patients will have the ability to hold plans accountable for poor medical decisions. But it is designed in a way that is straightforward and provides limits on liability, which allows employers to plan for their obligations and continue to offer health care coverage to their employees. In the end, this is the best result for patients. The Ganske-Dingell liability construct is completely unworkable and will promote litigation years into the future that will only benefit trial lawyers, and not patients. We must learn from history, when malpractice liability skyrocketed, it drove good doctors out of certain practices and sent premiums skyward. Only when states stepped in and limited liability did costs come under control and Americans no longer faced prohibitive increases in health care costs. Unless we limit liability in our Patients' Bill of Rights, we will set off a similar cycle of escalating costs. Even before we get to the issue of the size of malpractice judgments, there is the problem of limiting other litigation to which health plans, providers, and employers are exposed. Under the Ganske-Dingell bill, there will be a virtual explosion of litigation activity, because the language of the bill is so complex and subject to so many different interpretations! In contrast, under the Norwood amendment, the rules are clearly written, the lines of liability are clearly spelled out, and most importantly the causes of action available to patients are very clearly defined. On this last point about causes of action, I would like to point out that under the Ganske-Dingell bill the availability of a cause of action depends on the interaction of state law and the 19 pages of requirements outlined in the bill. That alone will result in years of litigation just to determine jurisdiction and the elements of a cause of action. And that's before we even get to the patient's case. I want to make one other point about simplicity versus complexity. Under the Ganske-Dingell approach, there are two groups that can be held liable for plan decisions--the `'designated decisionmaker'' and a ``direct participant'' in the decision. There are two separate processes for holding these different actors liable, and they are inconsistent. This alone will foster litigation, because plaintiffs will name everyone possible and the courts will have to sort out the liability. In contrast, the Norwood amendment requires the naming of a designated decisionmaker and requires that the decisionmaker be bonded so that a plaintiff is assured of being able to recover damages. The Norwood amendment is better for patients for another reason. Under the Norwood amendment, an external appeals process is used and it must be completed before filing suit. There is an exception that allows the patient to get an injunction from a court if irreparable harm will result from delay. The benefit of requiring this external review is that doctors will be reviewing doctor decisions. The process is faster. In the end, if the external reviewers agree with the treating doctor's decision, the patient gets care immediately. Isn't that what this is all about? Getting the right care to the patient? And if the plan still refuses coverage, the patient has a good medical record to use in litigation, while still being able to get care and hold the plan liable for payment in the end as well as damages. The message I have is quite simple: we can improve the health delivery system and protect patients; hold health plans accountable, and provide relief to the uninsured. To this end, the Norwood amendment puts patients first. It will: ensure patients have a process to address benefit denials through an internal and external appeals process; grant access to emergency care services, regardless of cost; provide clear information to plan participants about their benefits and rights; allow parents to determine their child's caregiver; ensure women have hassle-free access to their obstetrician or gynecologist; allow sick or disabled individuals hassle-free access to the specialists they need; advance the goals of FDA modernization by granting access to approved, lifesaving products; ban gag clauses and incentives to deny care; treat cancer patients with new technologies, drugs and biologics; and hold health plans accountable for the decisions they make. Let's stop the partisanship. Let's stand up for patients, not Washington divisiveness. Consider your options and then make the right decision. Vote for the best choice. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn).

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. I would like the record to note that actually we have more physicians and direct providers of health care supporting our bill and who were involved in the writing of the Fletcher-Johnson bill than in the other bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane). (Mr. CRANE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to point out to my colleagues that in this bill there are solvency standards and a number of reforms that were not in there a number of years ago. What is exciting about the Association Health Plan option is it provides to small businesses the opportunity to offer health plans out from under State mandates, which is exactly what the larger employers have done. My constituents tell me that if they could organize their small business plans under the ERISA law, they could lower premiums 10 percent.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I support this bill; and I particularly want to recognize its understanding of the importance of renewable, clean sources of energy for the future. I firmly believe that a national energy policy must include promotion of alternatives to traditional energy sources. Doing so will reduce our reliance on imported oil, give consumers greater choice, stabilize energy prices, and benefit the environment at the same time. The reason our constituents find themselves faced with out-of-control heating oil and fuel prices is because our nation has no long-term energy policy. I am pleased that the tax portion of this package includes my legislation to promote the use of fuel cells which remove the hydrogen from fossil fuels to create energy with virtually no pollutants. They function must like a battery except fuel cells do not require recharging and are far more efficient than a combustion engine or power plant. H.R. 4 proposes a fuel cell tax credit for five years to create a market incentive for this revolutionary technology, which is reliable and will provide economic and environmental advantages to traditional fuel sources. The bill will accelerate commercialization of this technology by providing a $1,000 per kilowatt credit for efficient, stationary fuel cell systems. Stationary fuel cells capable of running 24 hours a day, seven days a week for five years with only routine maintenance are currently in operation today. As a distributed generation technology, fuel cells address the immediate need for secure, efficient, clean energy supplies, while reducing grid demand and increasing grid flexibility. First used by NASA in the space program, they are now in hospitals, schools, military installations, and manufacturing facilities and may be available for homeowners by the end of this year. Although these early products have proven energy efficiency and environmental advantages, help in accelerating volume production is essential in realizing lower prices for consumers and the full benefits of fuel cells. I am also a strong supporter of another provision included in this energy package to encourage the development of projects that capture landfill gas (LFG) and use it as an alternative energy source. LFG is produced as waste decomposes in landfills that serve our communities. LFG projects capture and use the gas to generate electricity or directly as an alternative fuel. H.R. 4 would extend the Section 45 tax credit for wind energy, closed-loop biomass, and poultry waste to LFG projects. It is estimated that an additional 700 landfill gas-to-energy projects could be made economically feasible with such an incentive. Helping to bring these projects online would help the nation save more than 40 million barrels of oil annually. With that kind of potential, we must ensure that we are tapping into LFG, which is available in nearly every community in America. It is technologies like fuel cells and landfill gas projects that will help us decrease our dependence on foreign oil, conserve existing oil supplies, and reduce air pollution.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, this is the most important environmental vote we will cast because this is about total protection of the ANWR. Mark my words, my friends. We cannot explore this area and drill in this area without permanent and severe damage to the environment. Just the mapping that geologists from every single company would have to do would be very destructive. Every 1,100 feet, they map. Each caravan takes eight vibrating and seven recording vehicles accompanied by personnel carriers, mechanic trucks, mobile shop trucks, fuel tankers, an incinerator, plus a crew of 80-120 people, and a camp train of 20-25 shipping containers. This is intrusive and the scars are permanent. Once the mapping is done, pads need to be built that will support rigs that weigh millions of pounds. How is that done? With water. In Prudhoe Bay, there is lots of water. In this area, there is very little unfrozen water during the winter. If that water is drawn out, it will have a devastating effect on the fish life in this area, and on all kinds of natural life the migratory bird populations depend on. Mr. Chairman, I do not have time to go into all of the animal and plant impacts, but we cannot develop this area without impact on the fragile ecosystem, the only sub-Arctic ecosystem under preservation at this time. Is this necessary to oil dependence? Absolutely not. OPEC has 76 percent of the world's oil reserves. We have 2 percent. We are going to drill on 95 percent of the North Slope in Alaska. We are drilling in other places in the United States and offshore. We will never be oil independent. We can do more about reducing our dependence on foreign oil by raising the miles-per-gallon standards, by laying that gas pipeline from Prudhoe Bay. Stop drilling in the ANWR, preserve this important area.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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 rise in strong support of the Boehlert-Markey amendment to increase CAFE standards for SUVs and light trucks. America controls 3 percent of the known world oil reserves, while OPEC controls 76 percent! We need to make our economy less dependent on oil by becoming more energy efficient. According to the 2001 National Academy of Sciences report, ``Improved fuel economy has reduced dependence on imported oil, improved the nation's term of trade and reduced emissions of carbon dioxide, a principal greenhouse gas, relative to what they otherwise would have been.'' If fuel economy had not improved, gasoline consumption (and crude oil imports) would be about 2.8 million barrels per day higher than it is, or about 14 percent of today's consumption.'' The National Academy report states that ``Had past fuel economy improvements not occurred, it is likely that the U.S. economy would have imported more oil and paid higher prices than it did over the past 25 years.'' ``Fuel use by passenger cars and light trucks is roughly one-third lower today than it would have been had fuel economy not improved since 1975 . . .'' Congress must continue to increase CAFE standards because the auto manufacturers will not do so on their own. The technology does exist to further improve the fuel efficiency of cars, trucks and SUVs. If we do, we can save consumers' money at the gas pumps, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and improve air quality. I urge support for the Boehlert-Markey amendment.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. ``What big eyes you have, Grandmother,'' said Little Red Riding Hood. That map represented what 2,000 acres of drilling platforms would look like in this ANWR plain plus the areas affected by the drilling and the roads needed to connect the drilling platforms. Because everyone knows that ANWR, this pristine part, this small coastal plain, has no deep wells. It may have several shallow wells. So you are going to need a number of platforms. Each one of those platforms is only a hundred acres. It only takes a hundred acres for a platform and an airstrip. So this amendment allows 15 to 20 platforms. Nobody has ever suggested that more than 16 were needed. But by the time you string those platforms together with all the roads, which this amendment does not count, and the land that will be affected by the people on those platforms, the waste disposal, the animal response to the inhabitants, that is the kind of footprint 2,000 acres in practice will have on this coastal plain. This is a wolf in sheep's clothing. This is 2,000 acres of 100-acre per drilling pads. That adds up to have, with its roads, a huge impact on this area. That, of course, does not include the destruction wrought by mapping and waste disposal. Vote no on the Sununu amendment.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.