Nancy Johnson

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, while one could say that the administration did not respond promptly enough nor aggressively enough, the administration has taken some tough actions with some impressive results, as my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) clearly outlined. It is also true that the industry could have been more aggressive. They could have brought a 201 safeguard action. They are spending a million dollars a month on legal fees and they could have done more to help themselves. But this, my colleagues, what we consider here today, is truly madness. I fought hard for voluntary restraint agreements for machine tools. I have worked hard on anti-dumping law. I was there when we passed the 301 capability. But this is madness. We pass this and the very next day a steel company in my district closes. Two hundred sixty high-paying UAW jobs will be gone in spite of the fact that this company invested $50 million in the recent past to modernize their equipment because they are dependent on a single source of raw carbon and alloy steel in Europe. They had even given money to American steel companies to try to get the same quality steel produced in America. They have not succeeded. They have one source. It is foreign. This bill makes no allowance for the importation of steel for which there is no source in America. How am I to explain to those employees that they are losing their jobs because they need steel from abroad that is not made in America? We are going to close them down, and we have no understanding, and the proponents of this bill cannot tell us, how many other companies there are in America like mine that are significantly dependent on foreign imports because the steel is not made in America. And furthermore, they cannot tell me how many jobs will go under within 2 weeks after my shop closes because they cannot get the product my shop makes. This is irrational. Furthermore, this is not about a bill that does not allow any exception for no American supply and no exception for short supply, that is, American capacity that maybe is 20 percent of what our demand is. This bill makes no exception for those companies and those jobs will go out in a quick nanominute. Not only that but it will, over time, very rapidly reduce the amount of imports allowed, because it does not allow the same imports that were allowed in those years, part of 1994, 1995, 1996 and part of 1997. It cuts those imports. It says no more than the average. Well, that average, Mr. Speaker, was the average between low imports and high imports. If your new ``high imports'' is now the average, your new average import is going to be somewhere between low and average. That is going to cut the supply of steel to American companies so rapidly, you will not know what hit you, and you have no estimates of the job impact of that cut in imports. This is irresponsible. We are going to undermine American manufacturing with this bill more aggressively than we have with any other action this floor has ever taken.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to increase the cap on state authority to allocate Low Income Housing Tax Credits to $1.75 per capita and index the cap to inflation. The current cap of $1.25 per capita has not been adjusted since the program was created in 1986. Since that time, population growth has totaled about 5 percent. Although building costs rise each year, as does the affordable housing needs of the nation, the federal government's most important and successful housing program is in effect being cut annually as a result of inflation. Since 1986, inflation has eroded the Housing Credit's purchasing power by nearly 50 percent, as measured by the Consumer Price Index. This cap is strangling state capacity to meet pressing low income housing needs. Last year, I sponsored legislation with Representative Lewis (D-GA) proposing this same increase in the Housing Credit cap and indexing it for inflation. Representatives Ensign (R-NV) and Rangel (D-NY) also sponsored legislation to accomplish the same increase. Nearly 70 percent of the Ways and Means Committee and a total of 299 of our fellow House Members cosponsored one or both of these bills last year. Unfortunately, the Congress did not pass a Housing Credit increase because the Omnibus Appropriation bill eventually enacted was not large enough to accommodate it. The Housing Credit is the primary federal-state tool for producing affordable rental housing all across the country. Since it was established, state agencies have allocated over $3 billion in Housing Credits to help finance nearly one million homes for low income families, including 70,000 apartments in 1997. In my own state of Connecticut, the Credit is responsible for helping finance over 7,000 apartments for low income families, including 650 apartments in 1997. Despite the success of the Housing Credit in meeting affordable rental housing needs, the apartments it helps finance can barely keep pace with the nearly 100,000 low cost apartments which were demolished, abandoned, or converted to market rate use each year. Demand for Housing Credits currently outstrips supply by more than three to one nationwide. Increasing the cap as I propose would allow states to finance approximately 27,000 more critically-needed low income apartments each year using the Housing Credit, helping to meet this growing need. A broad, bipartisan consensus exists for raising the Housing Credit cap, just as in 1993, when Congress made the Credit permanent. The Administration, the nation's governors and mayors, and virtually all major housing groups also support this increase. I urge my colleagues to join me in a bipartisan effort to provide this long overdue increase in the Housing Credit cap.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, there are very few values and legal obligations that are fundamental, the foundation on which all else rests. But personal responsibility, a responsibility that each of us bears to tell the truth under oath, is such a fundamental responsibility. If we treat perjury lightly, the only path to truth can be blocked by the instinct to lie, to cover up shame, or the determination to do harm to others. In either case, regardless of the motivation to lie, the result is the same. The path to truth is blocked. Mr. Speaker, there can be no justice without the truth. That is just profoundly so, and that is why perjury matters. Had the President been able to face up to the truth a year ago, we would not be here. If he had faced up to the truth a month ago, he could have taken responsibility for the impact of that on our Nation and individuals. Our Nation can survive a transition better than it can survive the erosion of our fundamental values.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, above the entrance to the Supreme Court are four powerful words: ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' Yet there can be no equal justice without a judicial process capable of reaching to the truth. That is why when one raises their right hand and swears to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, each one of us must do it. That is why perjury is a serious crime. It strikes at the heart of the only process that protects each one of us from false accusations. I will vote for impeachment, not because the President has human frailties, but because he has committed perjury repeatedly and willfully. Marital infidelity is not an impeachable offense. Even lying to hide sexual indiscretion is not impeachable. But the President does not have the right to lie under oath, to commit perjury. No one is above the law, not even the President. I believe perjury does meet at least the definition of high misdemeanor. In my mind, it certainly meets the measure of high crime. In my judgment, our democracy is far more capable of surviving a transition in power than surviving an erosion of fundamental obligations such as that to tell the truth under oath and to treat all citizens equally under the law.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those kind remarks and thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bliley) for their hard work to bring this bill to the floor. Indeed the need is urgent. I would remind Members that when we passed the Balanced Budget Amendment we anticipated slowing growth in the cost of home health services by $16 billion because of the law we wrote. But equally important, because of the administrative changes HCFA made on its own or failed to make to comply with the budget document and because the work of the work of the Inspector General's office, there has been an interaction on this critical service sector that CBO estimates now will take 26 billion out of these services. That is 10 billion more than we anticipated. Believe me, this is a critical industry under terrible distress, and it is our job to fix it. So I strongly support this bill that does bring much needed relief to specifically low cost, high quality home health providers nationwide, and I want to state for the record that some home health agencies in my State of Connecticut are not only low cost, but according to a government conducted audit they are also virtually free of fraud and abuse. We have legitimate concerns about fraud and abuse in the home health industry. But the Yankee spirit that has kept home health costs low in Connecticut has also kept home health spending honest and home health services high quality. Ultimately the interim payment system we passed last year penalizes efficient home health providers that have served the Medicare program by keeping their costs down. These are the very providers that we need to preserve in the system if we expect to keep Medicare spending affordable and Medicare operating well in the next century. This legislation will preserve our low cost providers, correct the problems of the past and enable us to establish a strong Medicare system that serves our seniors in the future. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairmen Thomas, Bilirakis, Archer and Bliley and their staff for their hard work on bringing this important bill to the floor today. I support this bill because it brings much-needed relief to low-cost, high-quality home health providers nationwide. And I want to state for the record, that home health agencies in my home state of Connecticut are not only low-cost, but--according to a government-conducted audit-- they are also virtually free of fraud and abuse. We have heard legitimate concerns about fraud and abuse nationwide in the home health industry, but the Yankee spirit that has kept home health costs low in Connecticut has also kept home health spending honest and home health services high quality. Unfortunately, the interim payment system we passed last year penalizes efficient home health providers who have served the Medicare program by keeping their costs down. These are the very providers that we need to preserve in the system if we expect to keep Medicare operating in the next century. This legislation will preserve low-cost providers by increasing their rates during the transition to the new payment system. The best solution for the long-term is to move home health care into a prospective payment system (PPS), where payments will based on the health needs of the patient and recognize those who need more intense services. The real tragedy of the current system is that we don't have the data necessary to build a system based on patient need. And the agency administering Medicare cannot accomplish this goal by the statutory date of October 1, 1999. To prevent IPS, which is not adjusted for the severity of illness, from compromising the ability of important community providers to care for seniors and to ensure that the PPS will go into effect in a timely and accurate manner, this bill will reform IPS and require reports to Congress that will demonstrate progress on PPS development and account for all the resources used. This bill also includes an important provision that will enable our veterans to seek Medicare-reimbursed services in veterans hospitals. This will strengthen our VA hospitals and open up accessible care for low income veterans. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill and work to ensure that it passes before we adjourn.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, in the real world it is not hard for kids to get condoms. We may not like it, but it is true. Would Members not rather that they got the advice that came from someone who said to them, you ought to talk to your mom and dad about that; that it was someone skilled enough that they would know how to tell that kid how to talk to their mom and dad? A lot of kids do not talk to their mom and dad about this stuff because they actually do not know how to approach it. They would sit them down and say, look, this is how you do it, then back them up, and say, come back to me and talk to me about it. A lot of kids need to be coached to talk to their parents, because their parents do not talk to them. Their parents do not talk to them, not just about sex, but also not about school, not about friendships, not about intimacy, not about love. If Members want to mandate, mandate that everyone has to get anything they want to use from a Title X clinic or any health clinic that meets these standards. Then every kid, including the kid that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) was so concerned about, she would have come someplace that was skilled in explaining to her, you do not have to participate in coercive sexual relationships. My point is that we do not tell kids this is coercive sex, we do not tell them they do not have to do this. We do not get them someplace where there are skilled people who can help them build their relationships with their family, help them resist the kind of pressures that are on them, help them understand that abstinence is the only real protection. Furthermore, it gives them a chance to develop their personal power as a young woman. If Members want to mandate, mandate that they get whatever it is that they want to get from skilled counselors, from a facility that can give them the advice and guidance they need to go to the right people, their families. Remember, States are a lot closer to these problems. Connecticut has a very good law. I ask Members, please do not override our good law with their mandate.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on July 16 I felt tremendous pride in this Congress when Republicans and Democrats came together and passed an important family planning provision that would have extended contraceptive coverage to more than a million women enrolled in Federal health plans. The debate was heated, but it was honest and driven by the merits of the issue. Now, three months later, that same provision is no longer in this bill. No one is more disappointed than I. I am particularly disappointed by the fact that it was the victim of an incredible partisanship. The Democrats simply decided contraceptive coverage was expendable, and I rarely make this kind of claim, but honestly that is the truth. It was expendable, it was less important than a provision that will have no effect for 4 years. The Haitian solution was less important than the FEC problem that can be fixed in the next 4 years. The child care improvements were less important than the FEC provisions that will not have effect for 4 years. We should have been able to pass that bill on the floor that had those provisions in it. If my colleagues did not like the FEC provisions, and I know they did not and we know there is a pressing need for FEC reform, then we would have had time to work together and address those issues. But since there was no willingness to recognize the three major provisions we agreed on, 3 of 4, there was no choice for people like me but to support the bill before us. Mr. Speaker, my responsibility is to keep the government open. My responsibility is to fund the United States Treasury Department that I think does very important things for the people of this Nation. I am proud that in this bill is $103 million to improve IRS customer service. This Congress, the House and Senate, spent 2 years thinking through reform of the IRS, changing the law, and I am proud that the committee of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and with the cooperation of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) have got the money in this bill so that we can do what we told the people we were going to do and improve customer service at the IRS. Twenty-seven million dollars for restructuring and taxpayer clinics so people can have some timely help in understanding what their responsibilities are and how to pay their taxes in an honorable way on time. Also in this bill is $3.2 million. It is a small amount of money but so important to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. This is also a lot of money for drug interdiction and other drug prevention programs. This is a good bill. The tragedy is that everybody agrees that the subcommittee did an excellent job on funding this function of government, and we have caused ourselves enormous problems by legislating on an appropriation bill. We have caused ourselves increasingly serious problems over the years by legislating more and more provisions on appropriations bills. While we know this is illegal under our rules, this time we did have some very serious debates about some of those riders, and some of them included from the Senate side, like the Haitian provisions, did solve very, very important problems for families who are stranded here in America. It just pains me that we were not big enough to move this bill through with those three provisions on it and come back next year to better address FEC problems. the D's could have gotten some solid agreement from us to come back and let us look on the FEC. Let us agree to make a real conscious effort to reform it. That was not done; I regret it. My responsibility was to fund the IRS and the other agencies funded in this bill, and I am proud to support it.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make it clear that I do not consider it partisan to require that the chief counsel of the FEC have bipartisan support, that there be bipartisan confidence in his work. Almost every board and commission requires a majority vote for anything, and certainly for hiring a major staffer. The only thing that goes into effect January 1 is the change that a majority has to support, has to have confidence in their chief of staff. I consider this a bipartisan improvement.

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

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman not think that is incredible? Does the gentleman think that is healthy? Does it give the gentleman any insight into why this organization has been so ineffective in the last couple of years?

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for clarification by the chairman of a provision which concerns negotiating objectives for trade in civil aircraft. Is it the chairman's understanding that H.R. 2621 explicitly retains the legislated negotiating objectives contained in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and the accompanying Statement of Administrative Action for trade in civil aircraft?

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

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his support of this provision, which is necessary for the continuing international competitiveness of aerospace companies and the jobs they support.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Then, I would ask the chairman, shall the USTR understand that such intent is confirmed in legislation, and ensure that the legislated objectives will continue to constitute the principal U.S. negotiating objectives in future negotiations?

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill, and I regret that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle keep talking about this as political. The truth is the last time we had this vote, the Democrats were only able to mobilize about 40 votes in support of giving the President the authority he needs to be at the table to negotiate markets for American-made goods. The fact is that, as a party, they do not believe that America's standard of living depends on selling American-made goods into other people's markets. Yet, our growth in recent years is directly the result of our success in ever-growing foreign markets. Indeed, foreign trade creates jobs. Foreign trade raises our standard of living. And this vote is simply about this Nation's interest, the national interest, in being at the negotiating table so that we can negotiate access for American-made goods into foreign markets. Because it is merely about selling, merely about selling our goods to others, it is about jobs. It is about standard of living. Ninety-five percent of the customers in the world are outside of America. And while we have diddled, while Congress has not been able to give the President authority he has traditionally had, Canada has negotiated 10 percent tariff cuts on their goods into the Chilean market and we have lost customers. Last year, Europe sold more goods into South America than they ever have in history; and for the first time in history, they sold more goods into that market than the United States did because they have been at that table negotiating agreements to reduce tariffs on European goods. So they have taken customers from American manufacturers, now in droves. Yes, not being at the table costs jobs, closes us out of markets. Being there is our future and our children's future. Vote ``yes'' on fast track authority. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2621, which would continue the 20-year history of granting the president the authority to negotiate trade agreements that then must be approved or rejected by Congress. With 95 percent of the world's consumers living outside our borders, we need to take advantage of new markets in which to sell our goods. America has the greatest workforce in the world, but to give our workers opportunity and security, we need to give them the chance to sell their products overseas. My home state of Connecticut is an excellent example of how the global economy is transforming domestic markets. 124,000 jobs in Connecticut accounted for the approximately $8 billion of goods our state exported last year. Had fast track been in place, those numbers would have been even higher, because additional markets would be open to us. Instead, because we have not been at the table and a part of agreements that has been negotiated, we are losing customers to competitors in other countries. Why? Simply because they are at the negotiating table and have made trade agreements that exclude us. In 1993, the year before NAFTA went into effect, Connecticut exports to Canada totaled $1.4 billion. This number grew to $1.8 billion in 1997--a 28 percent increase. Exports to Mexico have increased from $336 million to $530 million over that same period--a 57 percent increase. Increased exports, means increased numbers of jobs. And export-related jobs pay on average 13 to 17 percent more. Connecticut companies like the toy manufacturer Lego have seen exports rise at tremendous rates--Lego's exports to Mexico have increased by 300% since 1995. Their main competitors from China do not have the benefits of tariff reductions that the U.S. negotiated under NAFTA, giving Lego the competitive advantage in that market. Exports account for a third of America's economic growth. Business' ability to create jobs at home depends increasingly on raw ability to sell goods in foreign markets. And yet, how much we sell in other markets depends on our ability to negotiate trade agreements reducing tariff barriers to those markets. If we continue to let other nations forge trade agreements without us, they will continue to take customers from us and to take market share that will be very hard to win back. We must restore the Presidents' power to be a negotiating force in shaping the international markets of the future. Without fast track authority, we are simply not at the negotiating table and countries are reluctant to negotiate, knowing that Congress could demand unilateral changes to any negotiated trade agreement at a later date. Let's not tie our negotiators' hand by denying them traditional authority because it makes hammering out international agreements--already an extremely difficult process--virtually impossible. I also want to make my colleagues aware that this legislation reauthorizes the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program which will expire on September 30th. This necessary and important program assists American workers and firms who have been adversely affected by import competition. TAA plays a vital role in protecting working families, retaining a skilled and productive workforce, and allowing domestic companies the opportunity to adjust to foreign competition. It is a unique public-private sector partnership that saves and creates jobs. The global economy will grow at three times the rate of the U.S. economy. A vote for fast track today is a vote of confidence in our workers and a vote for America's future. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2621.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Klink) I will take it. If this bill directs benefits to the ``narrow base of the Republican party,'' absolutely. You bet it does, because it directs itself to the interests of all the working people of America. The great middle-class that has made this economic boom possible. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this important tax cut. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) for his determined leadership to bring this bill to the floor that does provide middle- class tax relief and strengthens our economy. Last year, remember, we balanced the budget, cut taxes, invested money in important programs such as children's health and health research. With the surplus predicted to be over $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years, we can both protect Social Security and cut taxes for working class Americans. Simplistic slogans like ``every dollar of the surplus should go to Social Security'' sound politically correct, but ring hollow in the face of facts. The President himself has supported spending billions of surplus dollars on other items, including maintaining a military presence to help the people of Bosnia. If we can use the surplus to help the people of Bosnia, then we can certainly help the American people by returning a small portion of the surplus to their pocketbooks. This legislation is about fairness for hard-working middle-class families and protecting their economic future. It is sound, balanced and needed tax policy which will have a sweeping impact on taxpayers across the country. It helps families by beginning the process of eliminating the marriage penalty. Small businesses will get help to buy equipment and create jobs. Communities that need to build new schools or repair existing ones will receive a boost. And people needing affordable housing will get help. Seniors too will be benefited by this strong bill. Members' support is recommended.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, my colleague Thomas Ewing and I submit the following tribute. One hundred years ago, a group of Chicago lawyers shared a vision of legal education. They believed that there existed ``the need for a school where men and women compelled to earn their own livelihoods could get a legal education.'' That vision became a reality when the John Marshall Law School opened its doors in 1899 with three students. Over the years, the John Marshall Law School has added to its vision of legal education, most notably through several innovations. It has expanded the curriculum to include cutting-edge programs and degrees; it has increased its students services to include legal and writing professionals skilled in training students for the practice of law; and it has improved the law school facilities to include a three-building campus with a moot courtroom complex, a computer classroom, lecture halls and a modern conference center. As the John Marshall Law School has succeeded through a century of opportunity and innovation, its alumni have reaped a legacy of achievement. Their success are a tribute to the John Marshall Law School . . . A Legacy of Opportunity, A Lifetime of Achievement.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation, because it takes concrete, practical steps that will help us reduce the demand for drugs in our country. It will better fund the antidrug message being televised in 12 pilot cities across the country. And it provides funds to parent groups and other community- based groups to provide parent training on how to deal with drugs not only in their homes but also in their communities. If we are going to win the battle against drugs, we must involve parents, businesses, whole communities in the antidrug effort. And we must better understand, be more honest, be dead honest about the nature of addiction and the importance of treatment. Admitting that you have an addiction problem is the first and hardest step to overcoming chemical dependency. We should ensure that those who take this tough step have access to the resources they need to meet their goal successfully. That is why I also support the amendment that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) plans to offer to this bill. Since 1956, the AMA has recognized alcoholism and drug addiction as diseases. Some 26 million, or 10 percent of the population, suffer from these diseases. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 1995 roughly 80 percent of American workers' health plans covered a minimum level of treatment for addiction. More than 70 percent of those using illicit drugs and 75 percent of alcoholics are employed. Substance abuse treatment saves health care dollars. It saves lives. It strengthens our work force. Companies that provide treatment have already achieved savings. Chevron reports saving $10 for every $1 spent on treatment. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this bill and I urge Members' support of the Ramstad amendment.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 434, I registered my vote at the very end of the period and it did not record. I would have voted ``yea.''

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this legislation to reauthorize the Mammogram Quality Standards Act. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and his subcommittee for their thoughtful work on this legislation and for significant improvements in this bill over current law. This has been a priority of the Congresswomen's Caucus, and we appreciate the commitment of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for reauthorization and his commitment to improving current law. The Mammogram Quality Standards Act has given women and their health care providers the assurance that they will receive high quality mammogram services, services meeting the standards set by the National Cancer Institute mammography screening guidelines. Early detection is still our best hope in the war against cancer, and high quality mammograms are still our best tool for early detection of breast cancer. Prior to the implementation of the Mammogram Quality Standards Act, there was a long history of public and professional concern over the safety and quality of mammogram services. The American Cancer Society and the General Accounting Office found a wide range of image, quality and patient radiation doses from dedicated mammography equipment. In addition, FDA surveys found wide variations in image quality and radiation dosages from site-to-site, and even day-to-day. These studies and surveys confirm the need for national compliance standards. The MQSA established the first comprehensive quality standards for mammography. Before these standards, the burden was on a woman and the health care providers to determine what health and safety standards applied in their State or geographic area. Only 11 States had comprehensive quality standards, so most women could not be assured that their mammograms were administered safely or interpreted correctly. Facing those facts, it is no wonder that mammograms were not effectively promoted to women who could benefit from early detection. The Mammogram Quality Safety Act has changed this rather sobering picture. Over the past 3 years, the quality of mammography has improved dramatically. According to a GAO report issued last October, the Mammogram Quality Standards Act has increased mammography facilities' adherence to accepted quality standards which has, in turn, had a positive effect on mammography services. Because of the Mammogram Quality Standards Act, almost all of the Nation's 10,000 facilities have been inspected and accredited. This process has a direct impact on the quality of mammography, as evidenced by the fact that nearly all of the facilities are now passing image quality tests as part of the inspection process. The Committee on Commerce's bill, under the leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), represents an advance over current law. It gives women an additional protection: the assurance that they will receive direct notification of their mammogram results. This protection is critical to ensure that women do not miss the opportunity for an early diagnosis by assuming that no news is good news, when no news could be bad news. Mr. Speaker, this addition builds on the guarantee in H.R. 4832 based on a provision in my legislation that women can access an original copy of their mammogram and are notified if a facility has failed its Mammogram Quality Standards Act inspection. I now hope that the Senate acts quickly on the amended House legislation, so that we can reauthorize this legislation before Congress adjourns. We must send the message to women that Congress is taking action to protect the quality of their health care, and that, in fact, we are modernizing current law to keep abreast of our improved knowledge of how to prevent cancer, how to identify it early, and how to assure that women have access to high quality health care services in our Nation.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, as Congress moves forward on consideration of the 1999 foreign operations budget, I would like to draw to your attention some of the highly successful international development programs of Aid to Artisans. Aid to Artisans, headquartered in Norwalk, Connecticut, is a non- profit organization that offers practical assistance to artisans world- wide, working in partnerships to foster artistic traditions, cultural vitality, and community well-being. Through training and collaboration in product development, production and marketing, Aid to Artisans provides sustainable economic and social benefits for craftspeople in an environmentally sensitive and culturally respectful manner. Over three years, Aid to Artisans developed with Armenia partners the Armenia Craft Enterprise Center (ACEC) under a USAID funded humanitarian assistance program. ATA product designers developed a line of children's sweaters, taught knitters how to create high quality products, and presented them to the U.S. market. Several U.S. businesses now have a reliable supplier and have benefited from importing beautiful new sweaters. Over 600 Armenia women, who were living on a $5 per month pension, have home businesses and are earning $50 per month. ACEC is now a sustainable for-profit business and has attracted outside capital. In South America Aid to Artisans has had similar success. USAID's Microenterprise and Small Producer Support Project began investing in Peru's artisan sector in 1994. Aid to Artisans' role has been to train artisans in business skills, develop marketable products, and take the products to the New York International Gift Fair (NYIGF). At this trade show, ATA linked Peruvian businesses with American businesses. One New Hampshire company found a new supplier of hand-painted ceramics. Neiman-Marcus and Sundance catalogs ordered handmade pottery from Chulucanas, a northern Peruvian village where El Nifio flooded their homes and washed some roads away. In four years American businesses have been assisted by USAID's investment, and over 6,000 jobs have been created in Peru. In Africa Aid to Artisans has worked hard to promote product development. In a small village named Krofofrom, where there is no electricity, artisans have a long tradition of making brass objects for the tribal leaders of their country. Their technique of using lost-wax casting and recycled brass goes back to the past century. As local demand for their work decreased, unemployment rose, and the youth began to leave Krofofrom for the cities. Aid to Artisans, under USAID's Trade and Investment Program, was invited to work with the artisans. Quickly, new product lines of candleholders, napkin rings, art objects and decorative components for wood products were developed. The products have been introduced into the American market and U.S. importers have added them to their lines. Gumps catalog featured one of the votive candleholders. Today, there is full employment in Krofofrom, and entrepreneurs from the village are travelling on their own to international markets. The value of organizations like Aid to Artisans can not be emphasized enough. With the help of our federal funding, Aid to Artisans plays an integral role in creating income and ultimately a better quality of life for disadvantaged artisans in developing countries.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hutchinson bill, but do commend the freshmen for their bipartisan effort and their dedication to moving the issue of campaign finance forward. We all believe we need to restore confidence and accountability to our Federal election system. I believe the Shays-Meehan bill is the best way to achieve our goals. We must give the American public what they are demanding, an open and fair system of elections. The Hutchinson bill fails to address one of the most serious loopholes in our campaign finance law, the so-called sham issue ads. In recent elections we have watched special interest money exploit this loophole by pouring millions of dollars into campaign ads in elections all over the country. No one knows how much money these special interest groups are spending or where that money is coming from, because these groups do not have to disclose that information. Shays-Meehan clamps down on this loophole by requiring these outside groups to play by the same rules as everyone else. It restores accountability to the political process by requiring these groups to disclose who they are and where their money is coming from. Shays-Meehan in no way takes away the right of these groups to participate in the political process. It does not limit their freedom of speech, as some of my colleagues have suggested. Rather, it increases public awareness about where the special interest money is coming from, and that is something the American people are demanding and deserve to know. Today is our chance to tell the American public that we are committed to a system of clean and fair elections. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Hutchinson bill and pass the Shays-Meehan bill.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding time to me, and I rise in strong support of his amendment to prohibit the implementation of federalism order 13083, which is an extraordinary extension of Federal authority, and an order developed without any collaboration with the States for the purposes of governing Federal-State relations. There is certainly a better way to do it, a better process and a better outcome, and I rise in strong support of the Kolbe amendment. I also appreciate the fact that the Kolbe amendment is focused on federalism order 13083 and does not include federalism order 13087. As the chief executive of the Federal civilian work force, it is absolutely within the President's responsibility to make clear that the Federal Government does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. I voted for welfare reform because I believe work is a healthy, responsible, fulfilling, and necessary commitment in life. Why should Republicans, who fought so hard to open up work for welfare recipients, now vote to deny work to a dedicated, capable, high quality person because of that person's personal, private choice regarding friends and partners? Have Members ever sat and visited with the parents of a gay and lesbian young person? They will tell you, they loved their baby. They cared for their child. They have saved their money and educated their daughter or son, and they are proud that their child is a good, effective worker. All they are asking of government is that we not allow an employer to arbitrarily fire or arbitrarily deny a promotion to someone who is working hard and doing a good job. We certainly owe at least that much, equal opportunity, to every American.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, two hundred years ago, in May of 1798, the United Irishmen, whose ranks were made up of both Catholics and Protestants, rebelled against the English Crown. In May of this year, as word reached our shores of resounding voter approval of a landmark peace agreement intended to end 30 years of Catholic- Protestant bloodshed, our former colleague, Senator George Mitchell, who helped mediate the agreement, shared a stage at the University of New Hampshire Commencement with a remarkable author, poet, actor, singer, story-teller and songwriter, Tommy Makem. On that sunny, breezy afternoon, each received an honorary degree. Senator Mitchell, as was fitting, gave the commencement address; Tommy Makem, appropriately enough, sang a song he had written about the search for peace in Ireland. ``Raise the cry for peace and justice; let the people sound the call: justice for our battered country, peace for one and peace for all.'' So many of Tommy's songs, such as ``Gentle Annie'' and ``Four Green Fields'' are so well known that they are often mistaken for traditional folk songs and are standards in the repertoire of floksingers around the world. A native of Keady, County Armagh, Tommy is the son of the legendary folk singer, Sarah Makem. He came to Dover, New Hampshire in 1956, and established himself as an actor in New York. There he teamed up with the Clancy Brothers: Liam, Tom and Paddy. In the early 1960s, following an appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show and a number of sold-out concerts at Carnegie Hall, the Clancy Brothers and Tommy Makem were perhaps the best known Irishmen in all the world. At the Newport Folk Festival, in 1961, he and Joan Baez were chosen as the two most promising newcomers on the American folk scene. In 1984, Tommy joined the ranks of millions of Irish immigrants who came before him and was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in Concord, New Hampshire. He has received countless awards, among them the Gold Medal from the Eire Society in Boston and Stonehill College's prestigious Genesis Award. Irish America Magazine named him one of the Top 100 Irish Americans five years in a row. He was awarded the first Lifetime Achievement Award in the Irish Voice/Aer Lingus Community Awards. While there is no mention of it in his biographical sketch, I am personally aware of his support for ``Project Children,'' a non-profit organization that brings children from Northern Ireland to the United States for a summer holiday away from the Irish ``troubles,'' recruiting them from neighborhoods in which Protestant-Catholic conflicts have taken the heaviest toll. As of 1996, more than 11,000 youngsters from Belfast, Armagh, Strabane, Enniskillen, and Derry can be counted as ``alumni'' of the project. History records that the rebellion of 1798 failed in the month of August. Let us pray that peace will take hold in August of 1998 and that in the coming years the children of Northern Ireland will visit the United States as part of a cultural exchange, rather than for a respite from sectarian violence. Tommy's ``Peace and Justice'' expresses the hope that ``understanding and forgiveness will dry all our country's tears''--something to be wished for on both sides of the Atlantic. The 19th century poet Arthur O'Shaughnessy wrote of the world's musicians: We are the music makers, And we are the dreamer of dreams, Wandering by lone sea-breakers, And sitting by desolate streams; World-losers and world-forsakers, On whom the pale moon gleams: Yet we are the movers and shakers Of the world forever, it seems. With wonderful deathless ditties We build up the world's great cities, And out of a fabulous story We fashion an empire's glory One man with a dream, at pleasure, Shall go forth and conquer a crown; And three with a new song's measure Can trample an empire down. We in the ages lying, In the buried past of the earth, Built Ninevah with our sighing, And Babel itself with our mirth; And o'erthrew them with prophesying To the old of the new world's worth; For each age is a dream that is dying, Or one that is coming to birth. Mr. Speaker, I sometimes wonder whether our society fully appreciates the importance of our artists, poets and songwriters. Tommy Makem's journey to our shore, his work for peace and the music he has made famous--including the folk songs of both North America and the British Isles--remind us that our nation has been enriched indeed by the men and women who have come here from other lands.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding me time, who has done such an outstanding job in leading this task force and developing this bill. This is indeed an historic day for the U.S. House of Representatives. We are going to pass legislation that forcefully protects patients' needs, puts physicians back in charge of medical decisions, holds insurance companies accountable for quality care and gives millions of uninsured Americans access to affordable health coverage. We have heard the many concerns of the American people and are acting to address them directly and realistically. Key to the reforms in this bill is the strong internal and external appeals mechanism that guarantees physicians will control medical decisions. Both the internal and external appeals process, in both of those processes, the physician must review the decision. It is physician-controlled and physician-directed, both within the plan and in the independent external review process. This guarantees that physicians, not HMO bureaucrats, will control medical decisions. Both the internal and external appeal decisions are governed by strict time frames within which decisions must be made. Patients will no longer be kept in limbo while bureaucrats delay. Rather, physicians will make timely decisions about lifesaving medical treatments. This will inject fairness and objectivity into our medical system. Accountability is key to this legislation. I have worked with the bill's sponsors to insert an important provision that will force public accountability of the insurance companies on this very issue, because we will now report publicly the results of these appeals processes. In other words, if the plan denies a patient care and that decision is overturned on external appeal, people will know it. They can change plans. They will not buy that plan. The market will deliver a far more devastating verdict to that plan than the courts could over many years. The external and internal appeals, because they are physician- controlled, they are patient-oriented, will bring timely decisions and access to specialty care, in the right way, to the people without raising costs, but improving quality of care. Coupled together, the provisions in this bill are what we need to restore fairness and quality to our health care system. This is a good bill that not only provides the consumer protections the American people have been looking for, but it expands access to all those that are too often ignored, the uninsured in America, and prevents an increase in costs that would merely drive people out of the system. I urge support of this legislation.