Nancy Johnson

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

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

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

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority whip.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me conclude by saying this is a very simple issue. The gentleman from Texas does not want money going to churches and I do. In many poor neighborhoods in our cities, in many small rural towns, the church is the only institution remaining. I want them to be able to reach out to fathers who need help, to welfare women to provide day care and other services. I do not want them to be able to use public dollars to proselytize or discriminate against participants. In the charitable choice statute is a clear line between church business and public business. I urge rejection of the Edwards amendment.

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 There have been cases in which programs have proselytized, and their grants have been withdrawn.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. 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 yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the point of the gentleman is an important one; and I appreciate the legitimate controversy around this issue. I would point out two facts. There is no definition of these two words ``pervasively sectarian.'' And since the Kendrick decision of 1993, the Supreme Court has indicated and is, as we speak, reviewing decisions that will enlarge on that 1993 decision and slightly alter it. Even this administration has been for the clarification that would clearly allow technology assistance to parochial schools. So we are at a point in our history where we are trying to work out precisely what this division between church and state should look like on the ground running. And by putting into statute a 1993 Supreme Court decision, we limit the ability of that division to develop in the years ahead and for that line to be more clearly defined. Now, that is one problem. The second problem is that, in the wording of his amendment, as he tries to translate what he believes to be the Supreme Court decision into current law, Representative Edwards says, ``notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds shall not be provided to any faith-based institution that is pervasively sectarian.'' Well, of course, the church is pervasively sectarian. The program that is going to use the funds is not. But if they do not allow this, say, small black church in a poor neighborhood to be a receiver of the funds, even though they must be spent on this program in compliance with the charitable choice statute, then they will not be eligible to receive the funds. I think, if we pass the Edwards amendment here today, it will have a very chilling effect on both the Federal Government's and the State Government's willingness to include faith-based organizations in their network of service providers because we will have confused the issue as to who actually is defined as the ``pervasively sectarian'' entity. Certainly, the church is a pervasively sectarian entity. Its day-care center cannot be if it is going to receive funds under this law. So I would just say that I think putting into statute Supreme Court language from a 1993 decision, when we are at this very time seeing the Supreme Court take more cases in this area in order to give clearer definition to the delicate balance between the church and state in our democracy, would be unwise. Therefore, I will oppose the amendment when the time comes. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) and thank her for her good work on this subcommittee over the years.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The bottom line here is, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) said it very clearly, you do not want churches getting the money. I do want churches getting the money. That is the bottom line. I think there is a role in America for churches being part of the social service delivery system because they have the ability to support people at a level of faith that government cannot offer, and they are there after you outgrow the program, they are there after the funding expires. It gives to the person not only a hand up but a permanent supportive community. I do not want Federal money to go to churches that is not accountable and for programs that are not open to everyone who needs them. So, yes, there will be red tape. Churches who choose to receive Federal money will be regulated. If they do not like it, I cannot help it. If there are Federal dollars, you are accountable. If there are Federal dollars, you cannot discriminate against people needing the service. In addition, the community must make a secular alternative available and so on. The fire wall in the charitable choice language is extremely important and effective. But your fire wall would take effect above that and cut churches out of the service-providing social service network in America. I think that would be a tragedy. Why did our Founding Fathers not oppose this? Because they never envisioned that the Federal Government would be providing the level of service, job placement, parenting education, not in their wildest dreams. Since we are doing that, we do have to do that in a way that is respectful of our Constitution and I believe the charitable choice provisions allow that. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first let me thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), my colleague and ranking member, and his tireless, able staff for their good work in developing both the programmatic language of this bill and its funding provisions. Mr. Cardin has indeed been a fine partner, both for his substantive knowledge and frank and cooperative working style. I also want to thank my friends on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, especially the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) and the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) for their excellent work on this bill and for their spirit of cooperation in working out a compromise between the bills written by our two committees. Finally, let me thank my chief of staff of the Subcommittee on Human Resources, Dr. Ron Haskins, who has an extraordinary knowledge of problems, programs, the law, and the possibilities. Mr. Chairman, the major provision of this legislation is the Fathers Count Act of 1996. This legislation will fund projects directed at helping poor fathers meet their responsibilities by promoting marriage, improving their parenting skills, and developing their earning power. Welfare reform stimulated the development of far better services for welfare-dependent mothers; services that could help her identify her skills, provide her with the knowledge that could help her succeed in the workplace, find a job, work, and progress. This bill is an attempt to provide the same support and opportunity to the poor fathers of children on welfare. Our goal is to help them find steadier employment and develop their careers so they can provide the economic support so crucial to their child's well-being. Our second goal is to help them develop a better relationship with their child and with the child's mother. Why? Because kids need dads. Dads count, just like moms count. Research unequivocally shows that the great majority of children born outside of marriage do not realize their potential. They are much more likely to live on welfare, fail in school, be arrested, quit school, use drugs and go on welfare themselves as adults. Two decades of careful research now decisively shows that we are neglecting the interests of a very specific group of kids, the children born of unmarried parents by neglecting the concerns of their parents and making no effort to build an emotional support structure, as well as an economic support structure, around them. Welfare reform addressed many of the concerns of their mothers constructively with help finding a job, subsidized day care and so forth. Now we need to help their dads find better jobs, learn to parent, gain the knowledge to develop a good relationship with the mom, and marry if they both desire. We must, in sum, help those mostly young adults create a more stable environment economically and emotionally for their children so their children will enjoy the opportunity kids should have in America. Mr. Chairman, surprisingly and encouragingly, a recent study by renowned researcher Sara McLanahan of Princeton University shows that at the time of nonmarital births, over half of the parents are cohabiting and about 80 percent say they are in an exclusive relationship that they hope will lead to marriage or at least become permanent. It seems reasonable to us that if we develop ways to support these young couples when they are still exclusively committed to each other and to their child, they may be able to maintain their adult relationship and develop their parenting relationship. Thus, our bill will provides a modest amount of money, $150 million over 6 years, to encourage community-based organizations and governmental organizations to conduct projects to help these young parents. Projects will be awarded on a competitive basis. Not only will the projects aim to help couples develop healthy relationships including marriage, but they would also provide the educational opportunities and other supports through which good parenting and relational skills can be honed and the earning power of the father developed. Even if the parents remain separate, the projects help fathers play an important role in their family through both the payment of child support and through good parenting of the child and open communication with the other parent. Because these fathers have often have low job skills and weak attachment to the labor force, the projects will help fathers find jobs, improve their skills and experience so they can get better jobs. One of our major goals is to ensure that fathers, whether they live with their children or not, are able to provide financial support to their families. But an equally important goal is to assure that fathers, whether they live with their children or not, can provide appropriate emotional support to their child and be part of an adult partnership providing security, guidance and love to the children. Mr. Chairman, funding these projects does not remove any money from the various programs Congress has put in place to support single mothers. Cash welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, housing benefits and many types of education and training programs remain available to mothers at their current level or higher levels of funding. So too do the programs that support low-income working single parents, particularly the earned income credit. Thus, without detracting in any way from Federal programs designed primarily to help single, poor mothers we create this modest new program designed primarily to help single, poor fathers. A word is in order about the background of this legislation. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), my accomplished colleague, introduced the first version of this bill nearly 2 years ago. Since that time we have held three public hearings and received numerous written and oral comments on the legislation and at our most recent hearing, enabled the public to comment directly on the draft version of our current bill. On the basis of testimony at the hearing, as well as many meetings and written comments, we have made more than 50 changes in the legislation. Mr. Chairman, this bill has now been passed as amended by both the Subcommittee on Human Resources and the full Committee on Ways and Means. Both votes were voice votes; thus our legislation originated and written on a bipartisan basis continues to enjoy the strong support from both sides of the aisle it deserves. The Clinton administration, with which we have worked closely in developing and amending the legislation, also supports the bill. Finally, numerous organizations across the political spectrum, including the National Fatherhood Initiative, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Center on Law and Social Policy, the Children's Defense Fund, and the Empowerment Network have also endorsed the bill. In addition to the important fatherhood program in this bill, the bill also contains several other first rate measures that Members should know about. Here is a brief summary: First, the bill fixes a major problem in the welfare-to-work program which was specifically structured to reach women who had been on welfare many years and would need significant education and training to move into the workforce to become self-sufficient. Unfortunately, while focused on a significant problem, the original bill was drawn too narrowly and literally could not serve the people it was intended to serve. We correct that problem by adjusting the criteria realistically to identify long-term recipients with low skills and eliminate the discrimination against equally poor, struggling single moms who do not receive welfare and providing job placement services. We have worked with the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the administration and have prepared constructive changes all can support. Second, we fix a problem in our Nation's increasingly effective child support program by creating a new penalty procedure for States that have failed to meet the deadline for building a statewide computerized child support payment system. Rather than completely ending child support funding for eight States, we impose a fair and more realistic set of penalties on these States, allowing those that can comply in 6 months to do so penalty free. Third, we authorize use of a child support enforcement data base to recover delinquent student loans and overpayments in the Unemployment Compensation program. This provision will lead directly to a reduction of $154 million in State unemployment taxes over the next decade. Fourth, the bill provides needed funds for the largest and most important evaluation of the 1996 welfare reform law. Fifth, we provide new money to train judges and other court personnel in the child protection system. Sixth, as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) will explain in more detail, we fix a problem in the child support program by allowing the Immigration and Naturalization Service to suspend the passports of noncitizens who owe child support to American citizens. Finally, let me point out that this bill is fully financed by fraud reduction and program terminations. In addition, businesses will save $154 million in Unemployment Compensation taxes. We know there is no such thing as a free lunch, but the Nation will receive the very considerable benefits of this legislation without paying one extra penny in taxes and without increasing the national debt. In the long run, it will reduce public spending by strengthening families and increasing child support payments and providing children with greater economic and emotional support. I urge the support of this fine legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. I, as many others in this body, have spent hours and hours sitting in the nursing homes, the hospitals, the home health agencies of my district, studying the problems that Medicare has caused them. The goal of this bill is to save those community-based providers in the small towns of America, in the small cities. Frankly, I think it is utterly irresponsible for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to try to focus on an expansion of Medicare benefits, which we believe needs to be done, before we have saved the system. This bill is about fixing Medicare. We fixed it in 1997. We slowed an 11 percent rate of growth in Medicare to 5.5 percent. Unfortunately, because our estimates were off, and the administration has chosen to implement that bill in a harsh fashion, we must come back today and add money back in. I am very proud, and I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the staff for the detailed way they have added money back in at critical points and provided much greater flexibility so our institutions can evolve to offer the quality care our seniors need throughout America, through this legislation. I am proud because it retains our commitment to slowing the rate of growth in Medicare so it will be sustainable. But it puts the money back in that our community providers desperately need. I am very proud of the detailed way in which it addresses the problems in the nursing homes and in the home health agencies and the hospitals, not just so that people will be there to give the care, but so that the medically complex patient, the person whose costs are very high, whose medical problems are very complex will get the care they need. I regret to say the administration provided no detailed proposals, and the Democrats on the committee provided no detailed proposals until the day of the mark-up. Only the chairman has provided a comprehensive approach. So while there are other processes that would be fruitful, the product we have before us is outstanding. I urge my colleagues to support it. I want to thank Chairman Thomas and the Health Subcommittee staff for their hard work on bringing this legislation to the floor. My work on this issue started back in January when I visited all the hospitals in my district and several nursing homes and home health agencies. The resounding message from those who provide the life-saving health services throughout my district was that the Balanced Budget Act had reached way beyond congressional intent and was threatening the very existence of our efficient, high quality community health care providers. Most importantly, this legislation will help ensure that critically ill patients get access to Medicare services and that our health care providers will continue to be able to serve the communities that support them. This legislation today is in direct response to the concerns I heard from community-based nursing homes in my district that are having a hard time caring for medically complex patients and managing the increased administrative costs of the new prospective payment system. I spent long hours talking with Patricia Walden and Carol Barno at the Southington Care Center, Sister Deborah and Sister Honorata at Monsignor Bojnowski Manor, and John Horstman at Geer Nursing and Rehabilitation Center. This legislation also responds to the concerns that I hear from teaching hospitals in my district, Larry Tanner at New Britain General Hospital, Dr. Peter Dekkers at the University of Connecticut Health Center and David D'Eramo at St. Francis Hospital. It is also in response to small community providers, Rosanne Griswold at Charlotte Hungerford Hospital, Tom Kennedy at Bristol Hospital and Michael Gallacher at Sharon Hospital. Finally, this legislation addresses the concerns of the 6th district's caring, efficient home health providers, like Ellen Rothberg at VNA Health Care, MaryJane Corn at the VNA of Central Connecticut and Anne Dolson at the Greater Bristol VNA. These providers helped me understand the enormous complexity of the interim payment system and the difficulty they were having in providing services to the sickest seniors. In 1997 Congress adopted the most significant reforms to Medicare since the program began. The reforms were absolutely necessary because the program was galloping toward bankruptcy. Already in 1997, it was paying out more for services than it collected in payroll taxes and premiums. Medicare spending was exploding, especially in the areas of home health and skilled nursing facility costs, and as it reached the unsustainable level of 11% growth per year, the BBA reforms were adopted to cut this growth rate in half--from 11% to 5.5%; a modest and responsible goal. Today's legislation is essential because the impact of the BBA--both legislative and because of the way the Administration has chose to implement it--is much more significant than Congress intended. The BBA was projected to save $106 billion over 5 years. The real savings that will be achieved are about $100 billion above that. While the goal was to slow the rate of growth to 5.5%, growth has dropped to less than 2% per year, though the number of seniors and of frail elderly continues to grow. Mr. Speaker, this bill makes the critical adjustments necessary to assure the ability of our community hospitals, home health care agencies, and nursing homes to provide the high quality care Medicare is required to provide to our senior citizens. Equally important, this bill assures the care needed by critically ill seniors with complex, high-cost medical problems. I urge support of this important legislation.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to put the debate on this final spending bill in context. The President brought us what he called a balanced budget proposal. It was balanced, but it increased spending dramatically; and it funded it, and this is why it was balanced, it funded it by raising taxes $160 billion on the American people at a time when taxes are higher than they have ever been with the exception of 1 year during World War II. Mr. Speaker, we put his budget on the floor, and we did not support it, and most of my colleagues did not support it on the other side of the aisle. Recently the President suggested that we close the gap between what we need to fund next year's services and the money available by raising taxes $20 billion. Well, we brought that proposal to the floor. The Republicans opposed that increase in taxes; and, as I recall, everyone of the Democrats did too. So, do not just talk. Be part of the action. What we are doing here today is finding a way to adjust our expenditures so that we can do the things the American people need. Any Secretary, any Cabinet member paid the salaries they are being paid can cut their expenses 1 percent over the year. The gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), one of our colleagues, was made head of the agency in Arizona responsible for children's services halfway through the year, and she had to save 4 percent in half a year, and she did it without touching a single children's program. Mr. Speaker, there is not anyone I represent who does not work in a factory or in a work place that over the last 2 years has not had to be more efficient and cut overhead in order to put their product out there on the market better quality, lower price. It is nothing in the private sector to have to find 1 percent. Why is this an emergency? Why is it that the gentleman from Missouri could get up here and claim that we are going to cut programs like Meals On Wheels? As my colleagues know, it is really very distressing to see the level of fear they were willing to put out there over 1 percent. Frankly, if my colleagues cannot cut 1 percent out of their own expenditures, if any high-paid executive cannot cut 1 percent out without compromising programs, they are not a person who understands quality improvement, continuous improvement, or all of the other modern management techniques that allow them to reduce administrative costs and improve the delivery of services. So I am astounded at these horror stories that my colleagues are putting out, but let me also say one other thing. I am proud of what we are doing because in this Congress we have quietly decided to move our own goalposts. A few years ago we balanced the budget with great fanfare. That is terrific. This year we found, because the economy was doing well, we have the opportunity to balance that budget without Social Security funds. First time ever. I mean talk about revolutions. Balancing the budget was not nearly as hard as balancing it without Social Security funds, and we are going to do it without Social Security funds and without new taxes, and our colleagues should be helping us cut 1 percent, not scaring the American people.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to my friend and colleague the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) who said, read the legislation. Then he stopped reading the legislation at a very critical point. It is true that this bill allows administering controlled substances to alleviate pain even if they may increase the risk of death. The next sentence: Nothing in this section authorizes intentionally administering a controlled substance for the purpose of causing death, and later on in the definitional section, that causing death must be read as hastening death. So under this law, DEA agents will have to judge whether the intention of the physician was to alleviate pain, even at the risk of death, or whether the physician's intention was to hasten death. This is a judgment that is extremely difficult to make if you are a physician. It should not be made by nonmedical personnel, DEA agents. This is such a serious matter that Richard Payne, the Chief of Pain and Palliative Care Service, Department of Neurology, Cornell University, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center says in a letter, ``Physicians often prescribe inadequate amounts of pain medicines and use less potent pain medications because of fears of regulatory scrutiny.'' Then I have to skip some in the interest of time. He goes on to say, ``I urge you to support the amendment to strike title I,'' later he goes on to support my amendment, ``and thereby remove the provisions that turn the Drug Enforcement Agency into a medical oversight body charged with investigating the intent and purpose of a physician's care for a patient.'' So if the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) gets up here and says it is not my intent to discourage alleviation of pain, it does not matter what his intent is when the law says the government is now going to judge the physician's intention in providing care in situations in which there is extremely severe pain and high dosages involved.

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

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema) described herself as wrongly identified. I would like the Record to note that she asked to be a cosponsor of the amendment, voluntarily signed ``dear colleagues,'' and was part of a letter to the leadership; and while she may have changed her mind, things were not misrepresented and she was not wrongly identified. She has merely changed her position. And I certainly accept and respect that. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I rise in support of the rule and appreciate the Committee on Rules allowing me to offer my substitute. To just comment on the earlier debate, Mr. Chairman, the Hyde bill does not impose new penalties, but the Hyde bill does identify a new role for DEA agents, who are nonmedical people. That role involves judging the intent of a physician and thereby exposing physicians to criminal penalties, not for trafficking or other illegal activities involving drugs but for exercising their professional judgment in the delivery of patient care. But I rise at this point in the debate to call the attention of my colleagues to a Dear Colleague that I sent out recently about the testimony of David Jorensen. He is the director of the pain and policy studies group at the Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Wisconsin, cofounder of the National Association of State Controlled Substances Authorities and the State cancer pain initiative. He served many years on the drafting committee of the national conference of commissioners on uniform State laws to revive the Uniform Controlled Substances Act for the United States. In other words, he is extremely experienced in this issue of managing controlled substances and in pain management. I urge my colleagues to review the rather dry Dear Colleague that I sent out, because it lays out the clear history of this matter. Under current law, medical issues are deferred to enforcement by medical agencies, whether it is HHS at the national level or State medical agencies or medical review boards that have been put in place to oversee medical practice and standards of care at the State level. In other words, current law clearly allows the use of controlled substances for pain management and regulates such medical uses through HHS and State health agencies, including medical review boards and licensure laws and clearly does not allow DEA or agencies who have no knowledge in this area to be part of the enforcement mechanism.