Nancy Johnson

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that they will be able to work out the language to reflect the agreement that they came to so that this House could move forward. But I think it is very important, too, for the body to think carefully about what is at stake in these ergonomic regulations because this controversy does go to very fundamental principles and it is true. Those fundamental principles are part of the Presidential election going on around us. I do not believe as a Republican, and I am proud of this but I also know that there are many Democrat friends of mine who agree with me, that the Federal Government should mandate on State governments that somebody injured as a result of an ergonomics injury should get 90 percent of wage replacement and full benefits when someone working right beside them but injured by a piece of steel falling on their foot and crushing all the bones in that foot gets the State compensation under workmen's comp rules, usually about 75 percent, I believe, in Connecticut. Why would we mandate inequitable compensation rules? Why would we mandate compensation rules that depend on what kind of injury you got? I have had ergonomic problems. I have had carpal tunnel syndrome in both my wrists, and I have had operations on both my wrists and, thank you, it worked beautifully. But why when I was home recovering should I get 90 percent of wage replacement when my friend severely injured in a fall at a construction site would get the State's rate which is always in every case at least below that 90 percent? Why would we mandate inequity on working people? Why would we do that? Furthermore, one of the plants in my district was a research site for these ergonomic regulations, and the researchers from the government as well as the workers as well as the management found certain repetitive motion problems that they could not find a solution for. Yet under these regulations you do not even have to have a pattern of problems. You can have one single incident and then you are mandated by law to adopt an incredibly costly and burdensome administrative process and fix the problem. Now, if we have already seen problems in the research process that we do not know the answer to, why would we penalize every small business in America? This is going to be extraordinarily costly, extraordinarily burdensome to small business. This is not only a very good example of the difference between the parties on the issue of local control and respect for State and local government but it is a very good example of the difference between the parties on the issue of small business. Small business is the engine of America's economy. It is the job creator. It is the inventor. It is our strength. Yet we would lay over it this program that would begin to suffocate it. I have to say that this President has been absolutely blind to the value of small business. He wanted to go in and inspect your home office, have the government come in and inspect your home office to be sure that you had a correct chair. He has no respect for privacy, no respect for small business, and these ergonomic regulations are about fundamental principles of the role of the Federal Government and fairness to working people in America. They are a big issue. Ironically, this President has fought against riders on appropriations bills. Riders are legislating on appropriations bills. Often I have agreed with him on those riders and said, Let's get the riders off the appropriations bills. This is a big issue in environmental areas. This is a big issue in choice areas. But now in your areas you want riders. You not only want this rider, you want a mammoth health program that has received not one single hearing and that is going to knock the stilts out from under private sector health insurance. Mark my words. Already employers in my district are beginning to drop family coverage because now it is $7,000 a year because their kids can go into our Huskie program under CHIP. That is not a bad solution. But not even to have a hearing on whether your big expansion of CHIP to all families in all situations, what impact that is going to have on the private insurance system, how much weight that is going to transfer from the private sector to a taxpayer-funded program is grossly irresponsible. Mr. Speaker, this is about principle. It is about the principle of local control and State responsibility in our society. It is about the principle of a sound legislative practice governing authorizing of major programs. It is about the principle that a free market depends on that allows small business to be inventive, nimble and strong. I stand firmly behind our leadership in negotiating appropriations bills and not legislating new programs and creating standards that vary and treat working people unfairly. I would call on all of us to move forward. We should have overridden the President's veto. We should resolve the issues on HHS, and we should move forward and go back home and campaign and let this be fought out on the level that it should be fought out, on the Presidential level.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I think the people of this great and free democracy need to understand what is going on here tonight because it is unprecedented. No President, at least in my 18 years as a Member of the House of Representatives, has ever vetoed a bill he supports. And I have never seen the Members of his party vote to support a veto of a bill they support or one whose every part was agreed to on a bipartisan basis. Of course, not every portion of it is perfect. They do not love every portion. Neither do we. But this was a bipartisan bill where every number was agreed to by Republicans and Democrats working together and where the President agreed to it as well. It is unprecedented to have a veto message in which the President says he supports the bill. I do not know how in good conscience my friends on the other side of the aisle say they are working to conclude the business of this Congress when they support the President in preventing the very bills that have to pass to wind up this session from passing. Here is an appropriations bill that we must pass to wind up our business. It is one we have agreed on. How can my colleagues in good conscience say that they are doing anything but filibustering and involving themselves in obstructionist actions for purely partisan reasons when they oppose a bill that they have agreed to and that the President agrees to? Now, let me look at the rhetoric that the President brings to the table in his veto message, because it is not unlike what happened on the floor last week, which I think is so fundamentally destructive of our democracy. His rhetoric intentionally mixes information from one bill to another until the public cannot understand and follow what is happening in their own democracy. To say that this bill has to be vetoed because we need more money for teachers is ridiculous. This bill doesn't fund education. That is the issue of the Health and Human Services, Labor, and Education appropriations (HHS) bill. It is not the issue of this bill. We will argue about whether or not we need more money for teachers when we discuss the HHS bill. And I am proud to say, as a Republican, that we put $2 billion more in the education function in that bill than the President even asked for, and we allow districts to use it for teachers if they want to, if that is what they need. But some of my school districts do not have classroom space, they cannot use this money next year for teachers, but they know exactly what they need it for, preschool, summer school, lots of kinds of things to help kids who are below grade level to catch up. What is wrong with flexibility? Do you not trust local government? Do the Democrats not trust the people of America? Is that why they have to uphold this veto of a different bill on which they agree and the President agrees because they want to hold the other bill hostage and make sure that local government in America has no right to say whether they need summer school to help their high school kids who are behind a grade level to catch up? Let us go on to their other issue here of worker safety. I am a strong advocate of worker safety. I voted with my Democratic colleagues to make sure that the ergonomics research went forward. How many of my colleagues, and I am looking at some of them from parts of the country for whom this is an absolutely incredible reversal of everything they ever stood for, how can they vote, how can they hold hostage a bill we all support to a Presidential position that will mandate on our States 90 percent reimbursement of salary and benefits for someone injured by an ergonomics problem? I have had two carpal tunnel operations, both wrists. If I had been out, should I have gotten 90 percent of salary and benefits when my friend next to me got his foot crushed with a piece of steel and he gets the State rates, which is somewhere between 70 and 75 percent, depending on the State? Are you, my colleagues, out of your minds? I mean, I am for worker safety, but I am not for unfairness. It is wrong. This is really important. I brought this up when we debated this. Unfortunately, it was midnight and most of my colleagues were not here. But I asked them to go back and check with their small businesses to see how they can survive or check their State laws and see what it would do to have that inequity among workers. One can get terribly, terribly injured through a construction catastrophe and that injured worker would get the State's 70 to 75 percent, whatever their State offers, in Workmen's Comp. But, under the President's proposal, if they get carpal tunnel syndrome, they'd get 90 percent of salary while they are out of work. Why are you holding a bill up on which we have agreed to every single number for a new and extremely unfair and unaffordable mandate in another bill? Look what this bill does. I mean, my gosh, it adds $475 million so we can expand the anti-forced child labor initiative, attack drug smuggling, $10 million more for drug free communities, more money for the Secret Service's National Threat Assessment Center to help prevent school violence, better funds for the Terrorism Task Force, much more money to enforce the Brady bill. Let us put aside the partisan games. Let us override the President's veto. Then let us move on to the HHS appropriations bill and work these things out. That is what we are tasked to do by the voters of America.

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

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I am sure the gentleman from Wisconsin, for whom I have very great respect, is aware that many years the President has signed this bill before he has had the opportunity to sign the HHS bill. So this is a matter of politics. It is not a matter of principle. He has never before said, I must hold the funding for the executive office and for this until that is done. That is just complete Presidential politics.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, as the 106th Congress comes to a close, my colleague Mr. Shaw and I pay tribute to Dr. Ron Haskins, Staff Director of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources. Ron will leave the Committee at the end of this year and he will be sorely missed by the Members of the Committee and the many staff who have worked with him over the years. Since joining the Ways and Means staff in 1986, Ron's hard work, intelligence, quick thinking, and unique personality have made him a strong force in the Congressional process as we have worked to improve the lives of children and families. His ability to truly understand the diverse points of view of people intensely interested in a problem has made action possible where others would have failed. Once he became Staff Director in 1995, Ron put his extensive knowledge of the nation's welfare system to use by working with Chairman E. Clay Shaw to develop and pass legislation overhauling the system. Despite two Presidential vetoes, Ron successfully urged Republican Members to continue to push for welfare reform. On August 22, 1996, the welfare reform bill finally became law (P.L. 104-193). The sweep of this reform has been spectacular, resulting in dramatically reduced child poverty, increased numbers of working single parents, and families living improved lives with both more income and real hope. Three years later in 1999 the Speaker of the House, J. Dennis Hastert, spoke of the accomplishments of welfare reform: ``we've broken the mold from a lifestyle of generational welfare dependency. In turn, we've created a path to the American dream which holds more personal security and more control for individuals over their own lives.'' In 1999, Representative Nancy L. Johnson took over as Subcommittee Chair. Since then Ron has continued to have a major role in developing important legislation including the Foster Care Independence Act (P.L. 106-169), the Fathers Count Act of 1999 (H.R. 3073), and the Child Support Distribution Act of 2000 (H.R. 4678). The positive influence of Ron's presence here on Capital Hill will be felt long after he's moved on to new endeavors and by millions of families who will never know his name. Before joining the Committee staff, Ron was a U.S. Marine, a high school teacher, and a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In addition to working for the Committee, Ron is a devoted father and husband, a prolific writer, an outstanding public speaker, a man of strong principles, one of the most honest people either of us has ever met, and a true friend. As he embarks on the next chapter of his life, we wish Ron well and know that he will be a great success in any endeavor he undertakes. We will always be grateful to him for his fine service, his good cheer, his high energy, and his excellent advice.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to my colleagues in their discussion on rural health care. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to say that in this Medicare bill that the House voted on recently, we had put more money into rural health care than at any time in the existence of Medicare. For the first time, we dramatically increased the floor for rural health payments to a degree that the President never proposed, never anticipated, and, frankly, this house has never proposed in the past either. My colleague from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) did propose in the Committee on Commerce to raise those thresholds to very high levels so the rural areas will be able to provide the quality health care that those people deserve, and that should be the standard of care throughout the Nation. I am proud of what this bill did, and I am disappointed that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not recognizing that this is a unique bill in its generosity to rural areas. That is why the rural providers all support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I would point out under current laws these plans would get a 2 percent increase. All we are doing in this bill is a 3 percent increase. This is not big stuff as it goes down here. This is not worth vetoing. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. The Committee on Commerce was a unanimous vote, but I believe it was a voice vote. On the Ways and Means subcommittee, which was the committee that has governed Medicare year after year after year after year, gets into all the complicated reimbursement issues. Improving managed care choice reimbursements by 4 percent was voted for unanimously by Republicans and Democrats. In addition, we accepted an amendment by a Democrat member of the subcommittee to even improve the reimbursements above that to bring plans into the market, again, when they had not been there before; and again that would help the rural areas.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague from Connecticut to read the bill and be honest with the seniors of Connecticut. Talk straight. The bill clearly sends every penny of new money to lower premiums or more benefits. Read the legislation. The gentlewoman is right, our seniors are scared; and they have every right to be scared, because, my colleagues, when you push seniors out of Medicare+Choice, and you are going to with this kind of proposal, you are going to close up every plan within a month of passing this kind of legislation because the plans will have no choice. The seniors are scared because they are not going to be able to get into medigap plans. Most of them cannot afford them and those plans discriminate on the basis of preexisting conditions. Seniors will have no choice but Medicare, and they are in Medicare+Choice plans mostly because they are poor and need those copayments paid, and they are ill and they need a lot of care. So the seniors are afraid and this resolution will force many more plans to withdraw from the market realizing the greatest fears of our seniors. My Democrat colleagues are going to close them up, because listen to what they want to do. They want the plans to commit to stay in 3 years and cover benefits, and every year we increase benefits, and they are going to make them cover them, but they do not say one word in their amendment about paying for those benefits. Not one word. Do my Democrat colleagues do their homework? Have they called their plans in the last year and asked them why they are losing money? Have they gone in and looked at the data that the plans have given them? Did it occur to my colleagues that when this body has given bigger increases to hospitals, nursing homes and home health cares every single year for the last 3 years and a 2 percent increase at maximum to our Medicare+Choice plans that they might be having trouble paying for the benefits that we want them to pay for? Of course. That is the problem. That is why the Committee on Ways and Means Democrats voted with the Committee on Ways and Means Republicans to give these plans a 4 percent increase this year; and, as a result of the amendment of the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), because as she passionately described the fear and problems for her seniors if these plans go under, we gave them a higher increase, if they would come back into the market. Yes, we did that on a bipartisan basis, because we examined the facts. We talked to the plans, we talked to HCFA, we evaluated the information. That is our job on this committee with primary responsibility over Medicare. Then, the President comes out and he says he wants 1 percent. Do we think they are going to stay in the markets with 1 percent when they have only been able to stay in the markets with the highest AAPCC at this time? And those happen to be the most densely populated markets, so they have the highest number of participants and it helps them stay in? I am outraged, outraged that my Democrat colleagues would let politics bring this House floor to this level of dishonesty when they know that no plan will be unable to commit to 3 years and cover the benefits when they do not even guarantee them payment. This amendment says nothing. It says negotiate. Well, the President wants 1 percent. Remember? The President said we only needed to add $21 billion back to Medicare. The Republicans said no. We have to add $28 billion back, or our hospitals will go under, our nursing homes will go under, our home health agencies will go under. Give our seniors a break. Give our seniors a break. Give our health care providers the money they need to stay alive to not only serve our seniors, but serve the rest of the community that depends on our community hospitals, our nursing homes and our home care agencies. And yes, give them that choice of Medicare+Choice plans.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, and I regret to say that I think it is a sad day on this House floor when the minority leader confuses issues so completely as to mislead the American public. For him to say there is not one penny in this bill for teacher training or after-school care, is misleading. Those things are in the appropriations bill. That is, in the health and human services appropriations bill, and we will discuss that tomorrow; and I am proud that in that bill there is more money for public education than the President asked for. It is a good bill. But we will talk about that tomorrow. This is a tax bill. Of course it does not appropriate dollars for those purposes. I am very proud that in this bill we move from $400 million for school construction to almost $16 billion to help our towns and cities construct and modernize their schools. Is it my bill and the gentleman from New York's bill, which I thought was the best bill? No, it is not exactly. But it does apportion the money the way we did in our bill, and it does put lots more money out there. And yes, the money goes directly to the cities. So to pretend that there is no help for our towns and cities is misleading. It may not be the $25 billion I wanted or exactly the bill I thought was a better distribution mechanism and I certainly do think the bill that the gentleman from New York and I worked out was the best. Nonetheless, this bill does increase school construction funding dramatically, more than any other year and more than any year when the Democrats were in total control of this House and the Senate. This is a great leap forward for our towns and cities. Let us look at Medicare. The Medicare section is far more money, by about a third, than the President proposed only a few weeks ago. The hospitals are going to benefit. The home health care agencies are going to benefit. The nursing homes are going to benefit. And frankly they are desperate for that help. I would certainly hope that the President does not veto this when it not only provides more money for Medicare providers than he proposed, but also a bill of rights for Medicare recipients that participate in Medicare+Choice plans. We have been trying to do this for ages. The average appeal time for a Medicare recipient appealing a denial of care under Medicare is 500-plus days if it is in one part of Medicare and almost 300 days in the other part. Yes, I am sorry we did not do a Patients' Bill of Rights for people under 65. But let us do Medicare Patients bill of Rights and add-backs so the providers will flourish and be able to provide care not only to our seniors but our community hospitals will survive to provide care to everyone. Let us also remember that this is a great step forward in providing patient rights for seniors under Medicare+Choice. So maybe it is not everything the President wants. He was not very clear about that. His only objection was in the managed care plus choice plans where he said we were doing too much. We are only doing 3 percent. That is less than we are doing for hospitals, less than we are doing for other providers, and those managed care choice plans are providing more for my low- income severely ill seniors than Medicare is. That is why they like them. I am hearing more about the anguish and fear of my seniors who are losing their managed care choice plans than I am about their desire for prescription drugs. They want prescription drugs, but they are panicked because they are losing their managed care choice plans. And they are not even eligible for MediGap coverage. They either cannot afford it, or they are excluded for preexisting conditions. So while the President says 3 percent is too much, it is less than we are giving anybody else, and these plans, until we modernize Medicare and make it a better program for all, these plans must be kept alive because they are providing crucial care for very poor and ill elderly. And you know who is going under next? It just amazes me. The next group of plans to pull out are the group that serves New York City and the suburbs. It is the densely populated areas where any plans are surviving at all. They are the next to go out. Mark my words, because we are only doing 3 percent, our seniors in those areas are going to suffer. I want to say one other thing about the tax provisions. As I walk through the factories in my district, the small factories where the factory owner is not able to provide 100 percent of the premiums for health care, the employees at the machines, the workers, are carrying 50 percent of their premiums. They will be able to deduct this cost under this bill. The high earners already get full medical care, and the company takes the deduction for their premium. This is about the little guy who either has to pay his own premium or 50 percent of his premium. This is a good bill. It goes to the heart of working men's needs and working women's needs for health care, for opportunities for pension savings, for jobs in our most debilitated urban areas and for Medicare for our seniors. Maybe it is not everything the President wants, but there is not anything in here that most Members have not already voted for. Do not let the politics of the presidential race be the enemy of progress for working people in America. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. I point out to my colleagues that almost every section of it they have voted for overwhelmingly: the retirement security provisions, the small business tax relief, the foreign sales section, the community and renewal provisions, and the health care provisions. They have voted for it because it is good tax law and it is good for working people. Let us look at the Medicare section. Do my colleagues realize that the Medicare provisions came out of the Committee on Ways and Means Medicare subcommittee with unanimous support? The Democrats voted for a 4 percent increase for managed care, plus the proposal of the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) that those coming back into the market get a bonus. That is what the professional folks on your side that are the closest to this issue voted for. Otherwise, the Medicare section is just like the Committee on Ways and Means structured it, with some additional provisions from the Committee on Commerce that enriches, not only Medicaid, but gives States back that CHIP money for their children's insurance programs and does something we have all tried to do for a long time, and that is loosen the definition of ``homebound'' so more money will go to home care. That is why all the groups support this, the hospitals, the nursing homes, the home care providers. My colleagues should support it, too. This is about the strength of our Medicare system and the providers that serve them. It is about good tax policy across the board. My colleagues have voted for it overwhelmingly. Support it today.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time, and I want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) for his outstanding leadership of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in these 6 years of his chairmanship and thank him and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for their thorough and careful negotiating of this bill with the Senate and my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), who was so instrumental in writing this estuary bill which will restore 1 million acres of estuary habitat over the next 10 years through a voluntary incentive-based program. I believe it is going to serve the Nation admirably and enable us to do something we have long needed to do, which is better protect our estuaries. In this bill is the Long Island Sound bill that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), with Republican and Democrat backing from New York, and I, with the same broad backing from Connecticut, spearheaded. It will provide Connecticut and New York with the help they need to restore the Long Island Sound to full health so that all of our constituents can enjoy its beaches, its seafood and the products that come through its ports. As important, this bill's provisions in regard to the Long Island Sound provide Connecticut and New York with the flexibility that they need to develop innovative approaches to cleaning the Sound, while reducing costs for small communities and impoverished cities. Indeed, we cannot do things in the future in exactly the same way we have done them in the past. We must achieve the same goals, but we must do it in a way that does not destroy the taxpaying base of our small rural communities with their rather set tax capability or harm our impoverished cities. So this bill provides flexibility to allow States like Connecticut and New York to develop the kind of innovative and cost-effective approaches using the most modern technologies to address the problems of Long Island Sound and restore it to its health. I thank the chairman for his leadership and his support.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I have introduced the ``Cosmetology Tax Fairness and Compliance Act of 2000'' to extend the same tax fairness provision applied to the tip-intensive restaurant industry, to the tip-intensive cosmetology industry. Just like restaurant owners, this legislation will permit salon owners to claim a credit against income tax for the employer's share of FICA (Social Security and Medicare) tax paid on tips paid to their employees. Under current law, salons are required to pay FICA taxes on tips paid to their employees even though the employers do not pay the tip compensation to the employees or control the amount of tip compensation paid to their employees. The credit would be allowed only for FICA tax on tips paid to employees. It would not be allowed for SECA tax (Social Security and Medicare tax paid by the self-employed) paid by individual salon owners and independent contractors on tips that they receive. In addition, the Act will also help to correct the problem of systemic tax evasion in the cosmetology industry. This proposed legislation would close a loophole in a group of tax compliance provisions that are intended to encourage everyone to comply with the tax law. Under present law, when an independent contractor provides services to a business, the business generally must provide the independent contractor with a Form 1099, and the IRS with the information contained in the Form 1099. This is vital information for the IRS because the form tells the Service the address and taxpayer identification number (``TIN'') of the independent contractors. The IRS can then check to see if tax returns were filed by them. However, under current law, Forms 1099 are not provided to cosmetologists who are independent contractors because they are technically providing their services to individual customers, rather than to businesses. The legislation requires salon owners (and others who lease space to hairstylists and other cosmetologists) to provide a type of Form 1099 to stylists and other cosmetologists operating as independent contractors on their premises, and to provide the IRS with the names, addresses and TINs of the independent contractors. It also requires salon owners (and other lessors) to provide a copy of an IRS publication describing the tax obligations of independent contractors. The IRS has a publication, Publication 3518 Beauty Industry Federal Tax Guidelines, that can be used for this purpose. This minimal reporting requirement will go a long way in solving the widespread tax cheating that currently occurs in the professional salon industry. Today, thousands of law-abiding salon owners who pay their taxes, are placed at a competitive disadvantage by a persistent minority of the salon industry who do not report or underreport their revenues and tips. Legitimate salon owners are hurt when some stylists leave to become independent contractor ``booth renters'' believing their take home pay will increase because they won't report all (or any) of their revenues and tips. Legitimate salon owners are forced to replace the departed stylist, as well as losing the customers who follow the stylist to the underground economy. Simple equity requires that salon owners not be asked to pay tax on tips that others choose to pay to their employees. The cosmetology industry should be placed on an equal footing with the restaurant and food delivery industries. Further, law-abiding salon owners should not be penalized and placed at a competitive disadvantage because they pay their taxes while others in the industry do not. This identical bill was introduced in the other body by Sen. Rick Santorum. (R-PA). While Congress is not expected to act on this legislation in the waning days before adjournment, this legislation lays down a marker for reintroduction next Congress when we will push for enactment. I urge my colleagues in the House to review this proposed legislation and to cosponsor the ``Cosmetology Tax Fairness and Compliance Act'' when it is reintroduced in the 107th Congress.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I say to the President, ``Listen to our seniors.'' My seniors are being hurt by their Medicare+Choice plans leaving the market. They are hurt because through these plans they get better benefits than Medicare offers, and millions of seniors in these plans are sicker and poorer than most of our senior citizens and can't afford Medigap prices. You are closing down their plans, by having increased their reimbursements 2 percent a year for 3 years, and now offering 3 percent when costs are trending up at 8 to 10 percent, as well as giving every single Medicare provider a bigger increase. Your policy is simply forcing them out of the market. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the President that the plans have already left the less densely populated areas and in the next round are going to leave areas like New York City and its boroughs, leaving millions of seniors stranded. And, cruelly, these seniors cannot buy Medigap insurance either, because they cannot afford it or they would be excluded because of preexisting conditions. Mr. Speaker, I again say to the President, ``Mr. President, help our seniors by giving the managed care plus choice plans a decent increase this year. And next year, let us reform Medicare so that the benefits are better for all seniors and the reimbursements fairer and simpler.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman James Hansen and Chairman Don Young for their support of my proposal and for bringing it before the House for consideration. H.R. 4312 will authorize a feasibility study to determine if part of my district, and our colleague John Olver's district, qualify for designation as a National Heritage Area. The Park Service defines a National Heritage Area as an area in which natural, cultural, historic and scenic resources combine to form a distinctive, national landscape and reflect patterns of human activity shaped by geography. These areas present our national experience through physical features and the traditions they birthed, demonstrating the deep tie between natural history and cultural history. The people of my district believe this small section of New England is more than qualified to be a National Heritage Area. It is an area rich in history and environmental significance consisting largely of the watershed of the Housatonic. From the 1730s to the 1920s, it was home to many of the nation's earliest iron industries. The first blast furnace was built in 1862 by Ethan Allen and supplied the iron for the cannons that helped George Washington's army to win the American Revolutionary War. The Beckley Furnace in Canaan, Connecticut has been designated an official project by the Millennium Committee to Save America's Treasures. Among the other historic sites in the area is the Sloane-Stanley Museum of Early American Tools. As you may know, Stanley Tools is one of the few remaining manufacturers in Connecticut and is one of the nation's oldest tool makers. Further, the Norman Rockwell Museum, the Mount (home of Edith Wharton) and Arrowhead (the home of Herman Melville) are all in what would be the Upper Housatonic Valley National Heritage Area. It is also home to over 30 sites on the National Register of Historic Places. The iron furnaces, pre-revolution farms and its many historic structures reflect the deep historical tie between natural resources, culture and American's history, epitomizing some of our earliest and most enduring accomplishments. The Housatonic Valley is also rich with environmental and recreational treasures. The Housatonic River, just below Falls Village, Connecticut, is one of the prized fly-fishing centers in the Northeast and is enjoyed by fishermen from not only Connecticut and Massachusetts but the entire eastern seaboard. Olympic rowers have trained in this river as children have learned to swim, boat and fish and value its ecosystem. New England often brings to mind grand colonial farmhouses scattered between small towns which still revolve around the local town hall and the annual town meeting on the budget. While much of the farmland and open space are now lost to development, elected and volunteer land trusts are working hard to preserve the scenic and historic resources that are so much a part of Connecticut's and our country's heritage. However, a coordinated and strong investment is essential to enable this preservation effort to succeed. A National Heritage Designation will enable us to save remaining farmhouses, furnaces and historic and natural wonders and advance the states' aggressive new initiative to preserve these historic open spaces. I believe the Park Service will find this area to be the embodiment of what Congress intended when it created the National Heritage Area. This small region of New England is deserving of at least a feasibility study.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I support this conference agreement and its Continued Dumping Offset provision. The language in the amendment is the same as that in H.R. 842, a bill introduced by my distinguished colleague from Ohio, Mr. Regula, and to which I and 63 other members of the House are currently cosponsors. The rationale behind the amendment is simple: Where internationally recognized unfair trade practices cause harm to our producers and workers, effective relief is promised. The amendment included in the conference package would reduce the adverse effect of continued dumping or subsidization by distributing the monies finally assessed to the injured industry. It is hoped that the knowledge that continued unfair trade practices will result in monies going to the injured and encourage those engaging in the continued unfair trade practices to trade fairly. In my district and my state, I have witnessed first-hand what can happen to companies and jobs when unfair trade practices distort the market conditions. In one important industry, bearings, continued dumping has gone on uninterrupted for more than a decade. Companies who operate under constant conditions of depressed prices are not able to maintain investments, employment levels or compensation levels even if they are highly competitive at the beginning of the process. Similar experiences exist for many other industries where continued dumping or subsidization has gone on. I urge my Republican and Democratic colleagues to support this conference agreement and the Continued Dumping Offset provision.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, the strengthening Abuse and neglect Courts Act of 2000 will build on the success of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA) which required states to shorten the length of time that children remain in foster care by filing termination of parental rights petitions at 15 months. Implementation of ASFA has resulted in an unprecedented 64 percent increase in adoptions out of foster care since 1996. As a direct result of ASFA, developed by the Committee on Ways and means, new pressures have been put on state courts to hold permanency hearings, implement permanency plans, make judicial findings and finalize adoptions cases involving abused and neglected children in a timely fashion. The Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act of 2000 will increase the efficiency and capacity of the nation's abuse and neglect courts by providing funds to state courts to computerize a data collection and case tracking system. This system will allow judges to track the number of children under judicial care to monitor how these children are faring. A case tracking system will allow judges to keep a running account of the number and type of services offered to the family and the results of these interventions. This information is critical to keeping children safe and promoting permanency. This Act will enable state and local courts to reduce existing backlogs of children awaiting termination of parental rights or finalization of adoption. According to the Department of Health and Human Services there were over 103,000 children awaiting adoption in 1998. Grants provided to state courts under this Act will allow courts to hire additional judges to hear these cases and to establish night court sessions for hearing these cases. The Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act of 2000 is a logical next step to the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. We need courts that work to reduce delays and keep children safe and in loving families. This legislation does that and I wholeheartedly support it.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and also the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) for their leadership and help in bringing this issue and this bill to the floor. As I learned from meetings with Customs Service agents, students, parents and teachers, predators lurk no longer just around the playground. They lurk in every computer. I was born and raised in Chicago, not in the suburbs, but in Chicago. I played in the streets and in the alleys of my neighborhood. Yet, I felt safe. I felt safe because I was taught that, if I did not go certain places, I would be safe. We were taught by our parents, do not go here. Do not go there. Stay within these parameters. Because we were taught about the dangers around us, we were safe. Now we have to teach our kids about the dangers that lurk on the Internet so they too can enjoy the wonderful resources the Internet can make available to them but enjoy those resources in safety. Twenty-five million kids ages 10 to 17 use the Internet. The risks are very high, and protections for our children need to be even higher. During one visit to Connecticut, a Customs agent entered a chat room camouflaged as a teenage girl and within minutes was solicited by no less than five individuals seeking information about what she looked like, where she lived, what she liked to do, all under the guise of being her friend. Such contacts have led to agreements between children and adults to meet, to meet the new friend. They have led to sexual abuse. But, fortunately, in Connecticut so far, none of these encounters have led to abduction and murder. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children estimates that there are over 10,000 Web sites maintained by pedophiles. There are even more child pornography sites with as much as 80 percent of it coming from other countries. One of the chat rooms I was shown was named, this was just on the list, named ``infant rape and torture.'' Times have changed. The dangers are all around us. We must change our laws to arm our investigators with the power they need to protect our children. This legislation would create several new predicate offenses for which a Federal agent can seek permission to wiretap a suspect. While I respect the concerns that have been raised on the floor here, our bill is essential if these kids are to be protected from those in the Internet who would seek them out, befriend them, and arrange to meet them in places through which they can sexually assault them or, as has happened, and will happen more and more often, lead to their harm and sometimes to their murder. Our bill simply modernizes the statute. The officers would still have to present their case to a judge. So I urge support of this important legislation.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the end of an era in the government of my home state of Connecticut. With the retirement of State Senator M. Adela ``Dell'' Eads, the Connecticut Legislature is losing more than just a valued and respected member, it is losing a woman who represents the best that Connecticut has to offer, the epitome of the finest tradition of public service. With over 24 years of service in the Connecticut State Legislature, Dell has left her mark on countless pieces of landmark legislation. From her work to establish the Connecticut Office of the Child Advocate to her leadership on welfare reform, Dell always championed the cause of Connecticut's children and families and acted to protect their interests. But while Dell's legislative accomplishments are too numerous to mention, the one quality she will be remembered for is clear: leadership. Whether it was as leader of the Republican caucus or as President Pro Tem of the Senate, Dell commanded the respect of adversaries and allies alike. Her career in the legislature is a testament to the fact that civility, intelligence, integrity and strength are qualities that can be found in one individual. Such a public servant is a gift to be treasured in a democracy. Connecticut and our country are the beneficiaries of the outstanding service provided by M. Adela Eads. I have been privileged to serve with her and to enjoy her friendship as well. I wish her all the best for a happy, healthy and productive retirement.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and the honored chairman of this subcommittee the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for bringing forward a really extremely important bill that will provide many good services for children throughout America. There are two specific provisions intended to protect children in therapeutic group homes, patients in psychiatric hospitals, old folks in nursing homes and youths in juvenile detention centers from hurting themselves and others. The intent behind these provisions is to ensure that vulnerable populations who live behind closed doors are safe and treated with respect and dignity. This bill establishes standards for the clinical use of restraints to physically stabilize a patient and protocols for time-out situations that require the patient to be separated from others. This is the first time that Congress has attempted to legislate clinical practices in health care facilities as well as nonmedical community-based facilities. For this reason it is very important that this legislation be clear and unambiguous about the kinds of practices that will be prohibited and the kinds that will be encouraged. Unfortunately, the legislation is not exactly clear. A distinction is made in the legislation between health care facilities and nonmedical community-based facilities, but there is no definition of either. Where does a residential treatment center fit in? What rules will apply? A standard practice in treatment facilities is the use of therapeutic holding to calm a patient who is out of control through proximity and physical touch. Therapeutic holds are used to protect children. They are used to express affection. They are used to calm children. I worked as an aide on the children's ward of a major psychiatric hospital and I know the power of therapeutic holds. I chaired the community child guidance clinic in my hometown for many years and as a State senator visited residential facilities for children with serious psychiatric problems throughout Connecticut. We must not deny these critical facilities the ability to provide loving help for our kids. My reading of section 591(d)(1) in part H where restraint is defined as excluding ``any method that involves the physical holding of a resident'' would allow the practice of therapeutic holding to be used when appropriate to allow residents to resume their activities as soon as possible. It is my expectation that the HHS regulations will reflect this reading and that the Committee on Commerce agrees that therapeutic holds are indeed excluded from any definition of restraint. While the legislation calls for training and staff development in the use of restraint and seclusion methods, two things are unclear: Who will provide this training and who will pay for it? I would hope, and it would be very helpful, if HHS would promulgate all regulations, both those for health care facilities and those for nonmedical community- based facilities, at the same time to avoid confusion and to ensure seamless delivery of services to the most vulnerable populations in our country. In summary, I thank the chairman for his leadership on this legislation.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank one of my constituents, Wolodymyr Luckhan, for the heroic action he took during World War II to save an American tank division from an enemy ambush near Swizel, Germany, in April 1945. Mr. Luckhan, seized by the Germans into forced labor, overheard the impending attack against an American tank force approaching the city of Swizel. Mr. Luckhan commandeered a boy's bicycle and peddled through German lines, risking his life to reach the Allied forces. Without his timely warning, the loss of American lives would have been considerable. Mr. Luckhan's example once again demonstrates that the virtue of selflessness merits recognition. After the war, Mr. Luckhan came to the United States, became a citizen and raised a family. At age 91, Mr. Luckhan still recalls the event that changed the course of history for so many. Walt Whitman wrote that ``To have great poets, there must be great audiences, too.'' I present Mr. Wolodymyr Luckhan as a spokesperson for freedom whose stage for heroism was made possible by the great audience of men and women who gave their lives in service of our country and those who, thanks to the efforts of people such as Mr. Luckhan, have survived to share in the quality of life that only this great nation can afford.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in firm opposition to this bill. It is not innocuous, but it is unnecessary. Protecting newborns is the law. Every single example the gentleman has given should have been reported and prosecuted, because every newborn in America is entitled under Federal law to all medically indicated treatment, and the gentleman knows that. This is not about protecting newborns. Listen to the words of a neonatologist. ``When parents and physicians together decide that life support technology is futile for an infant, and is only prolonging the pain of the dying process, parents have a moral and legal obligation to minimize the suffering of their baby, regardless of the pain such a turn of events brings to them in their loss.'' What the gentleman is doing in this bill is to deny parents and deny doctors the right to make decisions about premature infants. An infant born at 3\1/2\, 4\1/2\, 5\1/2\ months is a tragedy, and parents in a free society in America deserve the right to determine what medical care they will have, recognizing that the law requires newborns receive all medically indicated treatment.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the end of an era in the government of my home state of Connecticut. With the retirement of State of Senator M. Adela ``Dell'' Eads, the Connecticut Legislature is losing more than just a valued and respected member, it is losing a woman who represents the best that Connecticut has to offer, the epitome of the finest tradition of public service. With over 24 years of service in the Connecticut State Legislature, Dell has left her mark on countless pieces of landmark legislation. From her work to establish the Connecticut Office of the Child Advocate to her leadership on welfare reform. Dell always championed the cause of Connecticut's children and families and acted to protect their interests. But while Dell's legislature accomplishments are too numerous to mention, the one quality she will be remembered for is clear: Leadership. Whether it was as leader of the Republican caucus or as President Pro Tem of the Senate, Dell commanded the respect of adversaries and allies alike. Her career in the legislature is a testament to the fact that civility, intelligence, integrity and strength are qualities that can be found in one individual. Such a public servant is a gift to be treasured in a democracy. Connecticut and our country are the beneficiaries of the outstanding service provided by M. Adela Eads. I have been privileged to serve with her and to enjoy her friendship as well. I wish her all the best for a happy, healthy and productive retirement.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. The gentleman makes an excellent point. Honestly, some nights I just lie in anguish because I know that by my colleagues making this a partisan decision, seniors in America are not going to get prescription drugs for another year and a half. Now, all the plans will take a year or two to put in place and if we cannot pass the bill for another year and a half, there are people in my district who are really truly desperate for this coverage, and that says to them, ``Not for another 3 or 4 years.'' We could pass this this year. It is really almost a crime that our colleagues will not come together and help us do it. It needs to be bipartisan. Now, we have talked about price, but there is one really important issue that you referred to that needs to be addressed. Seniors need to be able to have the drug that is appropriate to them. Some antidepressants, for example, work by making you sleepy. Well, if you are sleepy and you fall and break a hip, that is terrible. There are other antidepressants that do not make you sleepy, and your doctor ought to have the right to choose the one that works for you. Under our bill, I am proud to say every plan will have to provide not only multiple drugs in each category but what we call multiple drugs in each classification. One of the problems with the proposal from the other side is that you have to only provide one drug in each category, and that means your doctor will not be able to choose the pharmaceutical product that is really good for you, that will interact fairly in a healthy fashion with your other medications, that will not give you side effects that will cause harm to your health or to your well-being. So I think in this fast-paced debate, it is kind of being overlooked, that we not only want a plan that gives seniors choices of drug plans but that we want within those plans for each one to provide a lot of choices of medications so each senior gets the medication that she or he needs and that doctors will have the right to choose the pharmaceutical agent that is best for that senior.