Nancy Johnson

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. That is a very, very important point. We do not want to shift costs from the private sector to the public sector, and we do not want to do it for another important reason. Many of the people who have coverage through former employers have very, very good coverage, and they have total choice of prescription or generic or whatever is best for them personally. If we look at Medicaid, if we look at the big managed care plans, we tend to have the choice of those drugs offered in a formulary. Maybe that formulary, in other words the choices of drugs, will be good. Maybe it will not. In the Patients' Bill of Rights we are going to give certain rights to go outside the formulary, but they will have to be documented by health need. And sometimes we would just rather have the one that we believe is going to be the best for us. That kind of total choice is not common in the plans that are out there now. And in order to provide a range of plans, in order to allow people who have that total choice through their employer to keep it, we need to provide many solutions so seniors have their choice of the kind of drug plan that will best suit them. We need to protect them from catastrophic costs. We need to guarantee that if there are a seniors out there with a $4,000, $6,000 annual income, they will have prescription drug coverage. But we also need to provide the opportunity for all of our seniors who currently get coverage to keep that coverage, if they choose it; to join another plan, if they choose it. And we want to be sure, this is very important to me, we want to be sure that the prescription drug programs can be integrated into the managed care programs, because many managed care programs now are developing ways to manage chronic disease, and they are doing it much better than we were ever able to do it under fee-for-service. Mr. Speaker, they are saying to people who are coming out of heart surgery: Listen, we will pay for your drugs, but you have to be part of this management protocol. Through that protocol, they cannot just follow the doctor's orders to take the medicine. They have to follow the doctor's orders to exercise. They to follow the doctor's orders to lose weight. But they are going to have help. They are going to have allies, and these programs that are providing allies to people are seeing people stopping smoking, not just for a month, not just for 2 months, but permanently. Changing their lifestyle. So then, of course, the medicine does much better. The person does much better. So if we do everything our doctor says, we lose weight, exercise, and take the medicine, and we have allies to help us do that, then we are going to do better. More and more plans are saying they will give their insured customers a better deal on drug coverage if they will take their responsibility to take a holistic approach to their health and take responsibility for their health. So we want plans to have the opportunity to incentivize people and reward people for improving their own personal health, not just taking medicine, as important as that is.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. One of the reasons we are doing this Special Order is to point out how terribly important it is that we address this problem for seniors and also to point out how much agreement there is. The President's proposal is really a proposal to cover 50 percent of the costs of the drug. There is no proposal out there, because it is so expensive, that recommends covering 100 percent of the costs of the drug. I think people, sometimes when they hear us talk about covering prescription drugs under Medicare, they think we are talking about covering all of the costs. They think the President is talking about that. The President's proposal is really very simple. He is talking about covering 50 percent of the cost up to about $2,500. In other words, the insured would cover $1,250 and the Government would cover $1,250. And they would not cover the first $1,250; they would cover 50 percent of each premium up to that. And I am not sure whether the limit in the President's program is $2,000 or $2,500. But we can see from the chart that by having no coverage at all thereafter, that 20 percent of seniors that have the highest drug costs get very little help from the President's plan. But the House plan is, too, and I have not read another plan that is not a cost-sharing plan, usually 50-50. I think what is slowing down the production of the final bill a little bit is the complexity of the stop-loss provision, of helping everybody to be protected from catastrophic loss. It is a matter of peace of mind. It is a matter of confidence and ease and security in our elder years to have stop-loss insurance and know that prescription drugs will never bankrupt us, just like long-term care insurance gives a peace of mind. That is why we are working so hard this year to make long-term care premium costs deductible on income tax. We could do that. Then for a rather modest investment in a long-term care premium, we have the peace of mind of knowing that we will never have to spend down to poverty to pay for long-term care costs. And under prescription drugs, with a stop-loss provision, we will have the peace of mind of knowing that we will never be bankrupt by the costs of prescription drugs. So this is not a concept that the President opposes at all. We are all talking within provisions that we all know would be helpful to our seniors. We simply have to work out, not only their costs, but how they fit in with the real world, how we can protect seniors who already have good drug coverage and do not want it disturbed, how we do not want to encourage their employers to drop good coverage. So we want to make sure that we do not compromise opportunities that seniors currently have but that we create new opportunities for seniors who either have no drug coverage or inadequate drug coverage. It is really important for everyone listening to remember that, under both the Republican and the Democrat and the President's plan, because those are the two on the table now, that all seniors would be helped. They would both be optional plans. They are voluntary. They are not mandatory. Seniors can elect them. That is why seniors who have other plans that they prefer can continue to benefit from those plans.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I thank my colleague for bringing this resolution to the floor. It is extremely important that we develop a system that responds to the real life needs of young women who have unwanted pregnancies and that the cost of inappropriate births not be borne by the child. So the kinds of things that are beginning to develop in America where people actually can bring children someplace where they will be safe, cared for and put up for adoption is really a wonderful turn of events. Ultimately we know very little about these babies that are so tragically either abandoned or even worse disposed of in Dumpsters, trash bins, alleys or warehouses. An informal survey of the Nation's newspapers conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services in 1998 discovered 105 cases of abandoned babies in public places. Thirty-three were found dead. This is simply a tragedy and so unnecessary. I am delighted that a number of cities have thought about how to deal with this problem. State Representative Geanie Morrison in Texas has really worked to bring this to the attention of the Texas legislature. Our own colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), has created a task force in her district in Houston, a billboard campaign and an 800 number so women can get support. I urge passage of this resolution.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

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

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. This is an extremely important vote for the Members of the House. It is simply baffling to me why those who oppose abortion, those who are generally referred to as pro-life, are not out here on the floor with us saying, this rule should allow the amendment that offers this House the choice to ban all post-viability abortions. Third-trimester abortions are abhorrent to the American people, and they are wrong. But never in our history has this House banned a single medical procedure, and it will not work now. It will not accomplish our goal in terms of respecting the potential life of a well-developed fetus, and it will endanger the legitimate rights of women in the first trimester of pregnancy. Mr. Speaker, 40 States have the kind of legislation we wanted to bring to this floor of the House together in a bipartisan fashion. It would ban third trimester abortions by any method. But it would respect the right to life of the mother and the right to avoid severe health consequences through carrying a hostile pregnancy. Many States have this law and it has never, ever been declared unconstitutional, yet the only choice we have here today is legislation that in 20 of the 21 challenges has been declared unconstitutional. Sadly, I think we are being denied this right because our legislation would pass, because it is the right thing to do for America, it is the right thing to do for America's women, it is the right thing to do for our children, and it profoundly respects the life of the unborn, the life of the mother, and the wholeness of family. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of this issue to vote no on this rule. Let us go back to the Committee on Rules. Let the Committee on Rules rethink the caliber of debate that should come to this floor on such a critical issue. And for once, let us open this body to the breadth of debate, to the depth of consideration, that this issue deserves. I believe there is common ground that could unite all of us. Please, oppose the rule.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, we have testimony from physicians that the way the bill is worded, it would indeed have that effect, and we have judicial rulings from judges that say the language is so broad they would have to rule that way.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 78, I was inadvertently, detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise enthusiastically, to pay tribute to the Central Connecticut State University men's basketball team for their accomplishment this week. This past Monday, the CCSU Blue Devils defeated Robert Morris 63-46 to win the Northeast Conference tournament final for the first time since joining Division I in 1986. This is an amazing achievement for coach Howie Dickenman and the entire Blue Devil team. The team will now make their first appearance playing the NCAA tournament. The leadership and hard work demonstrated by coach Howie Dickenman and the Blue Devils is an example to us all. While finishing with a record of 4-22, only two seasons ago, they have proven this year, that through persistence and strength of character, any sought after goal is possible. I hope my colleagues will join me in congratulating this extraordinary group of young men and their coaches, parents, classmates and others who supported and cheered them on through this long journey. Their determination throughout the entire season has been an inspiration to all of us. Congratulations to the Blue Devils and best of luck in the NCAA tournament!

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. Small business is the engine of our growing economy. It also creates more new jobs than all the big business put together. Yet, it finds it very difficult to pay higher wages for entry level jobs. Today, between the various bills that we will pass, we will increase the minimum wage, but we will also cut costs for our small businesses so they will have the revenues to pay the higher wage without laying people off. I am proud that the Republican approach very carefully and realistically focuses on job retention, as well as fair wages. I am also pleased that this bill has lots of things in it for working people, not just about wages, but in this bill we pass pension legislation that allows women over 50 to make catch-up contributions to pension plans. This means women who stay home and take care of their children, when they return to the work force, can make those catch-up contributions and retire with the level of security that, frankly, they need, and we in America need them to have. It is also true that this bill allows portability, makes it much easier to carry your pension from one job to another without fear of loss. It also allows faster vesting. This is terrific legislation for working people. It will enable small businesses to offer pension plans. It will give women a fair shake in the retirement security business. In addition, it will spread and encourage the building of affordable housing in our cities. If there is one crisis that is looming that we are not talking about, it is the need for low-wage earners to have decent places to live and rent in our cities. This bill addresses that issue, as well. It also cuts costs for small business in other ways, allowing them to expense the cost of equipment so they can hire more people and do better strengthening our economy and the fabric of our communities. This is broad-based tax reform for small business. It helps working people, not only through wages, when it is coupled with the following bill, but through housing, pension reform, health care deductibility for premiums. We need to think holistically about opportunity in America. That is what this tax bill does. Cutting taxes means we can save for our retirement. Cutting taxes strengthens our economy and helps our people.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important matter of tax fairness. This is not a huge tax package. It is not a budget buster. It is about tax fairness. I am disappointed that my Democratic colleagues were against this provision when it was part of a big bill; but they said they were for marriage penalty relief, just not in that bill. Now we bring a small bill, just marriage penalty relief; and they are not for this bill, even though they say they are for marriage penalty relief. We are for marriage penalty relief. And we know that by starting this tax bill now, by the time it winds its way through our slow process, we will have a budget resolution; and, in that budget resolution, we will make clear how much we are going to spend, how much we are going to pay down the national debt, and how much we are going to reserve to reduce the burden of taxes on the American people. It was the Republicans that in the last year led the fight for $15 billion add-back to Medicare. Before our committee, the President would say, oh, there is a problem. Do something about it. But he never would say how much or where from. And when he sent a bill up here to close that deficit in our budget, what was in it? A Medicare cut. So we added back in Medicare. We have reduced the deficit by $140 billion. And the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House, has committed to eliminating the debt by the year 2015. So we are on track to fulfill our promises to reduce the American Government's debt to lower taxes on the American people. We are on track. Last year we added more money back in education than the President recommended. We added more money back in education and more money back in healthcare. Education, health care, the environment. Those were priorities in our budget. And we did it at the same time we also reduced the debt and recommended tax cuts. Now, this is a modest tax cut. And look who it will help. A police officer and waitress making $30,000 with two kids would get an additional $718 in benefits under the Republican marriage penalty. This couple is not rich. They are hard working and they need tax relief. A schoolteacher and a storm manager making $50,000 a year with two kids would get $225 under this tax plan, or over 10 years $2,550. That is a lot toward a kid's college education. They are not rich. They need tax relief. I said this earlier when I got up, by doubling the bracket, all we are doing is helping schoolteachers, waitresses, policemen, store managers, those kinds of hard-working Americans. And I am proud to do it.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely supporting getting this tax-cutting bill started. Because the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) knows and I know that our process is such a long and complicated one that, by the time this bill winds its way through the Senate and into conference committee, this House and the Senate will have a budget resolution passed. Because we know we are going to set aside some money for tax fairness, and we say this is number one on tax fairness.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of rhetoric and a lot of charts on the floor. I would like to just sort of set the record straight. First of all, I am proud of Republican leadership on this issue, and I am very pleased that my Democrat colleagues now agree that everybody should get the double deduction. In the original proposal, they were not going to give it to stay-at-home moms, and now they are giving it to everybody, and we are giving it to everybody. But this business of doubling the 15 percent bracket is very, very important; and there is, in fact, only one group of people who are going to benefit. If you are over $51,000 in joint income, there is not going to be any change. You will still be in the 28 percent bracket. If you are under 43 percent, there will be no change. You will still be in the 15 percent bracket. But if you are between 43 and 51, you are going to be able to enjoy a 15 percent bracket which you cannot now. That is because we are going to let both the mom and the dad have that 25 percent deduction that a single person has. These are the families that really need it the most. These are two people earning under $27,000, who are going to benefit from this, or one earning more and one earning less. So it is very important from the point of view from fairness. It helps primarily middle-income families in America, and I am real proud of that.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, this bill is not first about tax relief. It is first about tax fairness. It is also about relief, but this is primarily a matter of fairness. This bill does two very simple things. It gives a married couple double the deduction that a single person would get. A single person would get a deduction and the married couple gets twice the deduction, but it does something even more important than that because the deductibility issue is really relatively minor in determining how much taxes one pays. The exciting thing that this bill does is to double the 15 percent bracket for married couples. That means when my kids make the economic sacrifice--and I am proud they are but it is a big sacrifice--to stay home with their kids and live on one salary, when they start going back into the workforce because they do not want their skills to get too rusty, when they start going back into the workforce in order to balance their responsibility to their kids and their responsibility to the economic strength of the household, they want to go back in sooner rather than later but part time, not full time. When we let them get popped up into a 28 percent bracket at $43,000, we end up taxing their income so heavily that their husband says, ``oh, honey, do not go to work. Between the expenses of work and what it will do to us in taxes, it is better not to work outside our home. We are educating women in America to higher standards than we have at any other time in our history. They need to be able to enter the workforce and we need them in the workforce, but they need to be able to enter when their kids are capable of standing on their own two feet, and they need to be able to slide in part time, 10 hours, 20 hours, 30 hours. We do not want a Tax Code that makes it, frankly, not worth it to work. We want a Tax Code that says they are going to get the same 15 percent bracket on their earnings that their husband gets on his earnings. That is why fairness matters. It is about economic opportunity. It is about using the best of one's abilities for themselves, their family and our Nation. That is why this bill matters so much. Tax fairness for families strengthens families and children.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to comment briefly on two parts of this bill. First of all, it is really a joy to know that people in my district who suffer from physical or mental disabilities and who want to work and are capable of work but cannot work because of fear of losing their health coverage are going to be able to work. And as the Christmas holidays approach and they are offered longer hours, I know that they are going to be able to realize their dream of being a real part of the work team at their place of business. It is really a wonderful thing that we have done in this bill, to enable Americans simply to realize the opportunity of self-fulfillment that work offers. But I also want to mention one other thing. How do we foster invention? Lots of times, we ask ourselves, how do we assure that there will be a strong economy for our children? In this bill is one of the keys. For the first time ever, we make the research and development tax credit in place and law for 5 years. Our goal is permanence, but we have never had 5 years. This will enable companies to plan and enable them to invest at a pace and at dimensions of dollars that we have never seen before. That drives new products. That drives state-of-the- art inventions. That drives economic leadership. And that drives good jobs, high-paying jobs, and a successful America. I want to personally congratulate the gentleman from Texas for his dedication to the R&D tax credit that would be longstanding enough to foster the kind of growth and invention, support for an entrepreneurial economy that this R&D tax credit will achieve. I know that he would have preferred permanence as many of us would have. But this is a tremendous breakthrough. It is a real tribute to the gentleman from Texas and his dedication and to this Congress that we have extended the R&D tax credit for 5 years.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me under his reservation. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues may recall that the House acted on the Independent Living bill, H.R. 1802, in June and approved it overwhelmingly by a vote of 380 to 6. Every provision of this bill has been developed and written on a bipartisan basis. In this regard, I want to once again thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for his exceptionally capable work on this legislation. I also want to thank the administration, especially Secretary Shalala, for their timely help with this legislation. In addition, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the Majority Whip, who testified in the House and Senate as a foster parent and who has been instrumental in securing passage of this legislation. Indeed, we would not be here today without his help. We have been working with our colleagues in the other body over the last several days to resolve differences and have agreed upon the version of the bill before us. H.R. 3443 represents that consensus text. I want to especially acknowledge the work of Senators Lott, Roth, Grassley, Nickles, Moynihan, and Rockefeller on this bill. Since the House is expected to conclude its business shortly, we are taking this action in order to expedite consideration in the other body and move the bill to the President's desk. This bill will provide, for the first time, realistic support for our most unfortunate children, those who have been in foster care for many years and who reach adulthood essentially alone. Unfortunately, research shows that these children have terribly high levels of unemployment, mental illness, school failure, teen pregnancy, and homelessness, and are frequently the victims or predators of crime. These young Americans need our help to have the opportunity in life that all Americans dream of. This bill contains only nine changes from the original legislation, all of them minor. I close by commending the other body for commemorating the life of the great Senator, the life and work of the great Senator from Rhode Island, the incomparable John Chafee. Senator Chafee was a wonderful friend to many of us here in this House and a diligent worker for children. He was full of enthusiasm for this legislation and worked tirelessly to secure its progress through his committee, looking toward its passage in the Senate. In fact, we have been told that his last actions as a United States Senator were to lobby for this bill. Thus, it is highly fitting that we should rename this program the ``John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program.''

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration in the House of the bill (H.R. 3443) to amend part E of title IV of the Social Security Act to provide States with more funding and greater flexibility in carrying out programs designed to help children make the transition from foster care to self- sufficiency, and for other purposes.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bill, and particularly want to call attention to the Medicare ``salvation'' section. It is really a testament to the vitality of our democracy. This Medicare salvation section is the direct result of a lot of us getting out there, visiting our nursing homes, talking to the people who run them and hearing from seniors who were being denied critical care because of mistakes made in past legislation or in administration policy. Let me tell you, democracy is not a spectator sport, and this bill reflects that truth. Members of the subcommittee were out there, other Members of Congress were out there, and our chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), whose very bright mind and big heart wrote this bill, also took the time to get out there into the facilities and talk with the seniors. That enabled us to build a very precise effective package, providing relief to hospitals, home health care agencies and nursing home facilities. And it is a very fine job we've done. It helps all of our providers, but it does not fundamentally step back on this Congress' commitment to save Medicare in the long run, from financial crisis, and to be there for our seniors with quality health care. I just want to say that while the administration was very helpful and has really worked with us in many ways, it is unfortunate that the process, because it costs money, does not allow them to make specific proposals to help us. We did all of this, and it was heavy lifting, just as Members, listening to seniors and care providers and putting together an honest package that goes right to the heart of the problem and addresses it. Members can take great pride in having saved Medicare quality health care for our seniors. As we go home, we can help our hospitals, nursing homes and health care agencies understand this expansion of resources and provide the care our seniors richly need and deserve.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder). (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Under the charitable choice provisions of the welfare reform bill, provisions that have been affirmed by this body in three consecutive Congresses in one form or another, religious institutions do have the right to maintain their religious character; that is, they do not have to hire someone who radically disagrees with them and cannot, therefore, be part of the body of the character of that institution. However, they have no right to proselytize in programs that are funded with public money, and they have no right to discriminate on the basis of religion amongst applicants. In other words, within the charitable choice provisions, there is a constitutional firewall drawn. Furthermore, it is one that has worked. There have been cases in which programs have proselytized, and their grants have been withdrawn. So it not only has a firewall, it is an enforceable firewall. Now, I would just say to my colleagues that the underlying issue here is, do you think that churches should take part. Because this is an important matter of public policy that we are about to vote on, I believe that churches should be part of providing social services in America as long as they do not, through that means, proselytize, because the church-based groups can provide a larger context in which people can grow. Once the money has been lost from the Federal Government, the program eliminated, or the person no longer fits the criteria, they still have the support system that the church-based community represents in many poor neighborhoods in our cities, in many small, poor rural towns where some of the fathers that need our help live. In many of our cities, in the poorest neighborhoods, in many of our small towns, the only institution remaining is the small churches, often small black churches, small Hispanic community churches. Yes, they need to be able to reach out to the fathers of children on welfare and help them, and help them in the same way that we help the mothers of children on welfare. So this is a very good bill. We need the small church institutions to help us reach people, and we need those institutions to support people long after the public money and the public interest is gone. I urge my colleagues' rejection of the motion to recommit. I urge my colleagues' support for this bill, which, for the first time, is going to recognize that dads do count and that we can help dads be better providers, better fathers, and that, together, we can create for children, for all children, a structure around them that provides better economic and emotional support. So vote no on the motion to recommit. Support the bill. It is a giant step forward.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Yes, reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the gentleman's continued interest in these issues and find his amendment a real constructive addition to the bill.

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

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I also want to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio on his amendment. I think it is a very worthy one. I accept it for myself.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The bill does not allocate $1 to any organization. It does set aside $5 million for competitive grants where the Secretary makes the final decision. We do want some of the money in the bill to be set aside for highly developed organizations that have been in the fatherhood business for a long time, that are reputable, and that are capable of testing project designs in many different places across the Nation because we know very, very little about what works in reaching out to these dads. The rest of the money goes to community-based organizations because we know what is happening out there, the things that are going on, some of them funded by TANF, happening at the neighborhood level, at the small city level; and those are useful. But it may be very hard to tell from those what ideas might be useful nationwide and what will not. We know there are a number of organizations whose programs are well enough developed and whose reputation in the service community is strong enough that they would be able to begin to test some models nationwide in multiple cities. So two of these competitive grants have to go to that kind of organization. The bill would be weakened by the elimination of these projects because since we know so little about this area, not to be able to both fund some of the big experienced programs in multicities across the Nation to see how they work and whether they are as effective in New England as in the Southwest or California, and not to be able to do that as well as the small community-based grants would limit our ability to draw from our experience through this bill a national policy that will serve these families. So I urge opposition to the amendment.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. First of all, ironically, in the bill is a reform of the welfare-to-work provisions that is a program whose goal it is to reach out to women who have been on welfare for long periods of time, 5, 10, 15 years, and provide the education and training that is essential to help someone like that get into the workforce. For a lot of societal reasons, the great majority of people on welfare are women. Like 99.9 percent. And almost all the services in the fatherhood bill are already available to women. Mr. Chairman, all our program does is to level the playing field by making similar services available to men. There is no effort anywhere in current law that would provide for the noncustodial parent the kinds of resources this bill does. And because they are primarily men when we are talking about noncustodial parents of children on welfare, then we need a fatherhood program. How many times have I stood on this floor and fought for those special training centers under the SBA for women, because women entrepreneurs need different information than men entrepreneurs to succeed because the environment in which they come up is different. Well, the same is true for poor fathers of welfare children. They suffer a sort of unique exclusion in our society. Their girlfriends, because they are on welfare, get job training, get education. Pretty soon they feel good about themselves; pretty soon they have a good job and they leave the young man behind. This is the imbalance that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), my friend, referred to in his remarks and the source of the fatherhood bill. We need to level the playing fields for these guys so they too can get the job training and skill development; they can get good jobs. Not only will they be able to support the kids better, but they will have the pride in themselves that is essential to healthy relationships. This bill directly addresses some of the problems that tend to be common among these men, for example, the problem of aggressive behavior. So not only are we looking at providing them with education around parenting skills. Women at least get that from their friends; they at least get it from their moms. The young men who are the unmarried fathers of children on welfare have no milieu in which to help them develop the skills they are going to need for this new life of fatherhood. I am proud that we are recognizing the needs of these men, and it is about time because we recognized the same needs of the women a long time ago. There is not one aspect of this bill that in any way interferes with the money for maternal and child health block grants; that is gender based. Women, infant and children's program; that is gender based. Violence against women; that money goes to women. This money is to prevent that violence. This is a fatherhood program that is geared primarily at this human development that allows us to control anger in such a way that we do not end up with domestic violence. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to go to any school in their district that has done Character Counts and mediation and the principal will tell us, the incidence of ``he hit me'' or ``she hit me'' plummet 95 percent in the first 3 months. So we can teach violence control and teach relational issues, but we need to teach that with the men together. They need to hear each other and share experience about how they resolved a conflict with a woman, because there is no venue for them to do that. If my colleagues visit these fatherhood programs, they will see why we need special services for dads, because dads do count. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment because it demeans the importance of our fathers, it demeans the role they play, and it denies them the skill development they need to succeed.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that what is so remarkable about this bill, and I appreciate the concern of some of my colleagues about a new program, is that it reaches out to the young men with the very same services that we have been providing to women, and that we have developed so dramatically under the welfare- to-work, the welfare reform bill. It just helps them get the job, develop their skills, become successful, proud breadwinners, and at the same time we help them develop the discipline, parenting skills, and personal development that is essential if they are going to have good relationships with their children and good relationships with the mother of the children. If we do not do this, we leave these children isolated, growing up without the economic or emotional support they need to take advantage of the remarkable opportunity free America offers.