Nancy Johnson

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, we often talk about America as the entrepreneurial society. We talk about ourselves as inventive, as creative. There is absolutely no question but that we invent more new products in America than any other nation. We are an inventive Nation. Consequently, we invent a lot of great ideas and great products that other countries say, ``Hey, great product. We are not going to put the research and development in it, they already did it. We are going to just counterfeit it, copycat it, produce it, and undercut them in price,'' because, of course, they did not have to carry the costs of research and development. We are the most inventive Nation. We create the most new products. We want the whole world trading community to have a high standard of protecting inventions, protecting patents, protecting copyrights, because those are American jobs. If we are not at the table to make sure that that standard is high and that other nations have to come into compliance promptly, then other nations who want the standard low and compliance to take many, many years will win. And who loses? The inventive Nation that creates the new products, because we are not protected against other countries counterfeiting our products, copy-catting our products, back-engineering our products, and then undercutting us in the market. So invention means we want to be at that table to drive the American standard of intellectual property rights protection, as we call it, to be the international standard. And that is why we need to be there, we need negotiating authority. We have to drive those decisions to recognize the high standard that invention and creativity and American ingenuity have always created for the market and ought to be protected worldwide.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the gentleman put the chart back up that shows just how much of America's economy depends on exports, that first one. The U.S. exports have increased 3,000 percent in the last 35 years. I do not think most of the people in America are conscious that 30 percent of our economic growth is the result of exports. We saw in the gentleman's next chart how the number of jobs associated with exports is growing far more rapidly than the number of jobs associated with domestic sales. That is what fast track is all about. It is about whether or not we are going to be at the table to negotiate new markets for our exports. I was thinking, as my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Gene Taylor, spoke about the jobs lost in his district to international competition, about the jobs lost in my district to international competition, and nothing is more agonizing than to see a factory close or a business fail, because that is not just a business failure, that is people out of work. But competitiveness has nothing to do with fast track. Those factories closing has nothing to do with fast track. In fact, if we do not negotiate access to new markets, if we cannot get American goods into new markets, far more factories will close because the issue is twofold. The first issue is competitiveness; the second issue is open markets. We have to be competitive. You go down to your grocery store, you go down to your drugstore, you go down to the hardware, you go down to the department store. Any store in every American community has imports and domestically-made products. America has to be able to sell the highest-quality, the lowest-cost product right here in their own hardware stores and department stores and grocery stores and pharmacies, and they also have to be able to sell the highest-quality, lowest-cost product in every other nation in the world in order for us to succeed. Americans, I think, sometimes do not realize that of the 21 top technologies in the world, the most sophisticated technologies, as the Department of Commerce defines them, we are the low cost-high quality producer in 20 of those 21 top technologies. That is why we saw American exports increasing 3,000 percent. That is why we saw the line going up steeply in recent years. It is because in recent years we have recognized that to be strong, to hire our people, to pay good wages, to have a rising standard of living, we have to be the most competitive Nation in the world. That means we have to have the highest-quality, lowest-cost product both here and abroad. We are proving we can do it. In my district we are shipping sophisticated machine tools all over the world. We are shipping top quality airplane engines all over the world. But we are also shipping sophisticated lock systems all over the world. We are shipping Lego toys made in my district all over South America. We are number one in many, many, many product lines, and because of that, we are shipping all over the world. When we see those charts that show that more and more of America's economic well-being depends on her sending goods abroad, and when we see the number of jobs associated with producing those products to sell abroad, it tells us that we have to have markets to sell into. The only way we get markets to sell into is being at the negotiating table to open those markets. That is all fast track negotiating authority is all about. It is just giving our government the authority to be at the table, to make the deal, to open other people's markets to American- made products. I want American inventions to produce American jobs to make American products to sell in every market in this world. We cannot get there unless America is at the table negotiating to open markets for American inventions made by American workers shipped by American companies into every market. That is what fast track authority is about. It is about negotiating market opportunities for American products. Remember, 96 percent of the world's consumers are in other countries. Only 4 percent of the world's consumers are here. So if we want to see more goods sold, and we want to see a rising standard of living in America, we have to not only have competitive products to sell into those markets, but we have to have trade agreements that open those markets to American products.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation, and I want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman], for his leadership of what was a yearlong process of analyzing the serious problems plaguing the IRS and taking responsibility for developing solutions to those problems as the House chair of the Reform Commission. I commend him as well for his careful stewardship of the commission's report, educating Members on its substance, being open to rethinking some of its difficult issues, and, as a member of my subcommittee, working with us to strengthen and enlarge the taxpayers' rights. Today we will adopt the most dramatic reform of the IRS since 1952. The three-point plan will overhaul the tax-writing process to help simplify the Code and protect taxpayers. It will create an independent oversight board to bring private sector expertise to the table to modernize the IRS's technology and create a customer service culture that can provide timely and accurate answers to questions and assist taxpayers with problems. Third, it will create 28 new taxpayer rights, including the right to sue the IRS for damages resulting from the IRS's negligence, shifting the burden of proof to the IRS in the Tax Court, and for the first time taxpayers will be able to report abusive agent behavior to the IRS without fear of retaliation. Letters threatening an audit if someone does not participate in some voluntary program will end, and for the first time taxpayers will be given an explanation of the reasons for an audit and their rights in that process. This should end politically inspired activities, it should end costly multiyear audits, even in cases where the person audited has been found to be owed money by the Government, and for the first time 30,000 innocent spouses will be saved $30 million in taxes because they will not have to pay taxes owed by their former spouses, not by them. Too often the deadbeat dad not paying child support or taxes gets off while the innocent spouse is dunned by the IRS because she is available and she is responsible. The 28 taxpayer protections will protect taxpayers forcefully and fairly, and I am proud of the work of my subcommittee in shaping these recommendations and in strengthening the taxpayers' protections. I urge support of this bill as it represents a giant step forward, but I urge the committee to move forward with tax simplification which is the route of reform.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 470, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 501, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Announcement by the Chairman

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and appreciation that I rise today to express my congratulations and appreciation to Mark J. Ruwet for his 25 years of dedicated service to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Farm Service Agency. Mr. Ruwet has been committed to agriculture throughout his life. For the past 25 years, he has dedicated himself to the farmers of Connecticut, first as a county executive director from Litchfield County and most recently as program specialist. His years of hard work and tireless efforts have brought tremendous benefits to the farmers within the State. Mr. Ruwet's support and commitment to Connecticut's farmers is to be commended. Mr. Mark Ruwet deserves the many accolades he will receive as he is honored for his accomplishments and dedication. For his tremendous contribution to farmers in Connecticut, I salute and thank him.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his time and for his consideration of this worthy program.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to congratulate the gentleman on his thoughtful and effective leadership of this important appropriations subcommittee. It is a pleasure to work with him. At this time I wish to engage him in a colloquy with regard to the Women's Business Center program and the National Women's Business Council, both administered by the Small Business Administration. I strongly support these programs. Over the last decade, the growth in women's business ownership has created an enormous demand for the type of business training and technical assistance that is provided by the women's business centers. Within the last year alone, women's business centers have assisted approximately 17,500 women start and grow their businesses. I am joined by many of my House and Senate colleagues in supporting this program. The Women's Business Centers program is unique because it builds upon a private-public partnership that is, in itself, unique. Once the Federal funding cycle is complete, which is only 3 years, the centers become self-sustaining in their local communities. They are able to do so because the programs are designed locally by women, for women, to meet each community's needs. Women business owners have played a large role in the economic expansion that the United States is currently enjoying, and the country has a stake in seeing these businesses succeed and grow. The centers' training and technical assistance programs are an important part of the infrastructure that supports women-owned businesses. The second and vital aspect of this infrastructure for women entrepreneurs is the National Women's Business Council. The council serves as an independent advisory body to Congress and the President with approximately 8 million women business owners in the United States today. The council provides this growing constituency a voice with the Government and a direct conduit to the Congress to learn its views. This week, the House passed a bill which would increase the authorized funding levels for these programs. On that note, I want to express my hope that funding can be increased for the Women's Business Center program and the National Women's Business Council.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on September 11 the Army announced the results of its largest investigation ever on sexual misconduct. Before commenting on report findings and related recommendations, I wish to commend the Army on the thorough and candid manner in which this survey and report were completed. Now, after a 9- month investigation, we must focus on action to address the serious problems of sexual harassment and sexual discrimination identified by this investigation. The report confirms that sexual harassment in the Army is not an isolated problem. Contrary to earlier beliefs, sexual harassment exists throughout the Army regardless of gender, rank, or race. More telling is the finding that sexual discrimination is more pervasive than sexual harassment. These systemic problems undermine the effectiveness, readiness, and recruitment ability of the Army. Nothing will change until Army leadership takes responsibility and accountability for action. Policies, as outlined in the Army Equal Opportunity Program, must be transformed into practice--only leadership can make that happen. Failure of leadership to treat this issue seriously has led to the belief by soldiers that their commanders have little interest in enforcing rules against sexual harassment. As a result, victims of sexual harassment or discrimination do not file complaints for fear of reprisals. This breakdown in leadership trust is detrimental not only to the dignity of our soldiers, but also to the military effectiveness of the Army. In the past, the Army has dealt effectively with problems such as drug abuse and racial discrimination. In those cases, leadership was key to changing behavior. Similar action is needed now. We need to be certain that the military is enforcing its code of conduct and disciplining those who violate it. The military code of conduct is based on honor, respect, and loyalty to country and comrades. When this code is broken by allowing sexual harassment of colleagues, it undermines our trust and respect for the U.S. military. The report confirm the findings of the congressional investigations into sexual misconduct led by chairman of the House National Security Committee Subcommittee on Military Personnel, Steve Buyer and Representatives Tillie Fowler and Jane Harman. I agree with their recent statement that there are no quick fixes for this very complex issue, and that the Army's leadership must commit to long-term corrective actions. In closing, I strongly urge the Secretary of the Army to move quickly from disclosure to decisive, corrective action.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify what we are talking about here. First of all, respectfully, I totally and completely disagree with the comments of the gentleman from New Jersey. We are not talking about abortion on demand. The Supreme Court decision does not allow abortion on demand and we all know that, and in the third trimester it is very hard in America to get an abortion, as it should be, and in the mid- trimester it is very difficult, as it should be. Now, we are talking about whether or not Federal employees ought to have access to the same legal medical procedures as other Americans. Remember, these are people who are paying taxes to fund the health benefits of the people who work at General Electric. We spend $80 billion every year subsidizing private sector health plans, and our Federal employees pay that. Yet you would deny them the same benefits that they are funding for other Americans. If you want to make abortion illegal, bring the bill to the floor and let us vote on it; but do not make Federal employees second-class citizens. Do not make the kind of woman that the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] just described. I have one here, but it takes too long to talk about it. Here was a 36-year-old mother, she and her husband dying to have a family. She had a child with no brain at all. On medical advice she was urged to abort it, did, wants to have another child. She is an older mother, there are risks. She is trying to preserve her fertility because she desperately wants to have not one child, but several. After extensive testing, the medical community said this child has no chance of life at all, it has no brain at all, and you need to abort it and go on. So I just ask for equal treatment of Federal employees. It is only fair.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and appreciation that I rise today to express my appreciation to Zaiga Antonetti, for her tireless efforts for small businesses in the State of Connecticut. Ms. Antonetti has served on numerous statewide and regional committees and commissions involving small business issues, and worked hard to assure that the needs of Connecticut's small businesses are met. She serves on the board of directors of the Connecticut Community Accounting Aid and Services, Inc., and the Hartford Business Advisors. She was twice honored by the U.S. Small Business Administration for her work with small business owners as Small Business Advocate of the Year and Women in Business Advocate of the Year. Zaiga deserves the many accolades she will receive as she is honored for her accomplishments and dedication. For her tremendous contributions to small businesses in Connecticut, I salute and thank her.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hastert amendment. As we discuss this on the floor today, I think it is truly important to keep reminding ourselves that the leading cause of death amongst adults 25 to 44 years old is AIDS. The leading cause of death. It is the seventh leading cause of death for all Americans. Furthermore, we are not debating here the Federal program. We are debating whether the Secretary can use the money, after she has reported to Congress that studies show that it does not increase the number of drug users, injecting drug users, and that needle exchange programs actually reduce the spread. So she would have to report on those critical issues before anything could happen. Mr. Chairman, in Connecticut, we have evidence, evidence that 52 percent of all injecting drug users were sharing needles. The needle exchange program reduced that amount sharing to 32 percent. Now, needle sharing is one of the three leading causes of AIDS spreading in America, the No. 1 cause of death amongst adults 25 to 44. Mr. Chairman, why would we not allow the Secretary to release the money if she does the studies that come back and show, yes, like in Connecticut, needle sharing reduced the percent of injecting drug users who used other people's needles? Now, it worked in Connecticut. The National Academy of Sciences found that there is no credible evidence to date that drug use has increased among participants as a result of the programs that provide legal access to sterile equipment. And I quote, ``The National Academy of Science's study concluded that the programs were effective at lowering the number of contaminated needles in circulation.'' Mr. Chairman, given the role that contaminated needles play in the spread of AIDS, and given that AIDS is the No. 1 killer of adult Americans 25 to 44, I urge my colleagues to not only oppose the Hastert amendment, but to allow our local mayors, our local program directors to make the difficult decision whether in their circumstances needle sharing is appropriate to fight AIDS and death.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that needle exchange programs have nothing to do with that problem of discarded needles being available and spreading infection. But the American Medical Association does support the underlying bill, as does the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors, the National Research Council, the Institute of Medicine, the American Bar Association, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and those are the people on the frontlines.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Castle amendment. I would say that this has been a worthy discussion. It is clear that we are all united in wanting good law and government to strengthen families. We are united in wanting trust and good communication between parents and children. We are united in wanting to reduce teen pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, and abortions. It is, indeed, extraordinarily difficult to decide how to accomplish these goals from Washington, but what I want to point out to my colleagues about this amendment is slightly different than that debate and dialogue that has proceeded here for the last hour and a half. According to lawyers for the American Hospital Association and the National Association of Public Hospitals who have reviewed the text of the amendment, they believe it is written more broadly than was first thought. The parental consent requirement applies not just to title X funds but to all funds used to provide contraceptives, including State and privately raised funds. So if a hospital or a clinic fails to abide by the parental consent requirements in this bill, it forfeits all Federal funds which it might be receiving from title X, Medicaid, breast and cervical cancer screening funds, community health center funding or any State or private funding. On the other hand, in 24 States it is a violation of State law to require a parent, guardian, or judge to consent to contraceptives for minors. Therefore, this amendment puts hospitals in between. They must violate State law or run the risk of losing their Federal funds in 24 States. Now, that is the reading of the amendment by the lawyers for the American Hospital Association, the National Association of Public Hospitals.

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

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I think that is probably my mistranslation of the dialogue that has been taking place over the course of yesterday and today. They mistake that because many of us believe that notification in this instance is essentially equivalent to consent. But if I may then correct my words to say ``parental notification'' requirement, it is still the same. In other words, I believe that my central message is still accurate, that this amendment will put hospitals in 24 States in a very difficult position. They will either have to violate State law or run the risk of losing all of their Federal funds.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the taxpayer relief act of 1997. This bill provides much-needed tax relief for hardworking American families. After 28 years of chronic deficit spending, we are finally getting our fiscal house in order. The bill before us today, coupled with yesterday's entitlement reforms, proves that it is possible to balance the budget, cut taxes, and meet critical needs of our people like the needs of uninsured children for health insurance. In this bill we are taking giant strides to help families afford college educations through education savings accounts, HOPE scholarships, reduced taxes for families paying for tuition in advance, and a student loan interest deduction for all those young people who are struggling to repay the high cost of going to college. We have taken a giant step forward toward making post-high school education affordable for all: young people straight out of high school, mothers going back to work after being out of the workforce for a number of years, and workers whose employers pay for their education. Today's economy demands that young people learn well and that working people keep their skills and knowledge up to date. This bill goes a long way in helping each of us realize our greatest potential, and so our dreams. For families this bill offers a $500 tax credit for each child 16 and under, health care for kids whose parents work for small businesses unable to provide health insurance to their employees, educational opportunity, greater retirement security for our teachers and others who work for public employers. It also offers a shot in the arm to our economy, to build the base for continued long-term growth, making machinery and equipment more affordable, encouraging the research and development that can keep our companies product leaders in the market, relief for small businesses, and hope for family-owned businesses that they can survive mom and dad's passing. This is a good bill for people, a good bill for the economy, and I urge my colleagues' support. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, providing much-needed relief for hard-working American families. After 28 years of chronic deficit spending, we are finally getting our fiscal house in order. The bill before us today, coupled with yesterday's entitlement reforms, proves that it is possible to balance the budget and provide tax cuts to America's families and meet critical needs of our people, like health care for uninsured children. In this bill we are taking great strides forward to help families to afford college educations--through education savings accounts, HOPE scholarships, reduced taxes for families paying for tuition advance, and student loan interest deduction for all these young people struggling to repay the high cost of going to college. We have taken a giant step toward making a post-high school education affordable for all, young people straight out of high school, mothers going back to school after being out of the work force for a number of years and workers whose employers pay for their educations. Today's economy demands that young people learn well and working people keep their skills and knowledge up-to-date. This bill goes a long way in helping each of us realize our greatest potential--and so, our dreams. For families, this bill offers a $500 tax credit for children 16 and under, health care for kids whose parents work for small businesses unable to provide health insurance to their employees, educational opportunity, greater retirement security for teachers and others who work for public employers. It also offers a shot in the arm to our economy to build the base for continued, long-term growth--making machinery and equipment more affordable, encouraging the research and development that can keep our companies product leaders in the market, relief for small business, and hope for the family owned business that they can survive Dad or Mom's passing. For the first time, this bill recognizes the special role of family farms and businesses by creating separate, higher exemption for those estates. This will enable more family farms and businesses to be passed down to the next generation successfully. This is a good bill for people, for families, and for our economy. It's good tax policy and I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and of this budget. Together the budget and tax package we will pass this week demonstrate that hard work and able, commonsense leadership can balance the budget, cut taxes, and address critical unmet needs of our people responsibly and effectively. With this budget we have won a great victory for our children. Three months ago people said Congress would not take action on children's health insurance this year and we are proving them wrong today. In this budget agreement we set aside $24 billion for a children's health insurance program under a law that allows States to structure their program to effectively reach the uninsured children of working parents. Six million kids from working families, families who need and deserve our help, will get that help to ensure that their children will have the health care that they need. We have worked long and hard, and millions of children will lead healthy lives as a result of our bipartisan efforts today. This Congress should be proud of its accomplishments. There is no higher priority than protecting the health of our children.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 274, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' personal explanation

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, we have not been able to reauthorize the NEA legislation either under Democratic leadership or Republican leadership. It is my hope that the conference committee will take the old language, and then we could go into the authorizing process this year and bring together some of the interests of conservatives who have opposed NEA but many of whom do not oppose some Federal funding of the arts in our Nation and really think through how do we get a reauthorization that meets the needs of all of us. But that is a separate issue. I think in the conference committee we could go forward.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Chabot amendment and in very strong support of the National Endowment for the Humanities. The National Endowment for the Humanities supports long-term collaborative projects of national significance that could not be funded by any single State or single institution. For instance, the NEA funded the Ken Burns series, ``The Civil War,'' ``Roots,'' ``Baseball.'' Think of the number of Americans whose understanding of our history was enlarged by those series, but in addition, they also increased tourism at our national battlefields and other Civil War sites by one-third. The Civil War series created real dollars to real communities, because Americans were more knowledgeable about their own history. The NEH funds projects like the Brittle Books project, to preserve the manuscripts that record our early history but were printed on paper that is disintegrating. Those national treasures must be preserved with national dollars. That is not a project that any State or any institution could undertake. In addition, the NEH leverages millions and millions of dollars to enable local and State organizations to better educate their people and better preserve their history. In Connecticut alone, challenge grants from the NEH have leveraged $1 billion. Many, many have benefited: little towns, small cities, children, schools, adults, and town libraries. In Bristol, CT, the American Clock and Watch Museum was able to put on a presentation of the Origins of the American Industrial Revolution in Connecticut. Clock-making, enriched our understanding of that small city's role in a very important industry. The New England Carousel Museum is another Bristol beneficiary along with all who tour that gem of a museum. Falls Village and Canaan got money to help plan the Depot Museum in Heritage Park. This will go not only to help those small towns in Connecticut bring their history into focus and display it in a way that others can understand, but also to create a tourist attraction that will broaden their economic base and better support their people, thus enriching the knowledge and understanding of the people of that corner and all who pass through it, while strengthening its economy. In Farmington, CT, NEH money has helped us uncover the history of the Farmington Canal, preserve that canal, and educate people about it. Those are the kinds of projects that no individual small town can support and be responsible for entirely, but that are of not only local and State significance, but also of national significance. In Litchfield, preservation of the Nation's first law school is something that we all should care about, we all should be interested in. Certainly the local community is interested and the State has been as well, but critical NEH dollars have helped us succeed with that project. I could go on and on with projects, and examples of educational series that our art museums have been able to offer because of the NEH grants, but my point is clear NEH affects the lives of every one of us in small towns and very rural communities and throughout America. It also does things like sponsoring seminars for teachers, enabling them in the summer to work with outstanding scholars, and deepen their understanding of the subject matter they are responsible for teaching to our young people. Recently the Carnegie Foundation completed a study that showed that there was a direct correlation between children's achievement in our public schools and the depth of subject matter expertise of their teachers. So this kind of effort to give teachers the opportunity to work with outstanding scholars in their area has a direct effect on the achievement of our children in our public schools. Over 3 million Americans have taken part in NEA-sponsored reading and discussion programs in libraries in all 50 States over the last 16 years. Lifelong learning makes a nation strong, creates understanding and spirit that not only enriches individuals but whole communities and the fabric of our society. Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to the amendment and support of the National Endowment for the Humanities.

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

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, Government support of the arts has created access to the arts for millions of Americans and has provided tremendous economic and educational benefits to our Nation. Just as the Department of Education embodies our belief that mastering a disciplined body of knowledge is essential to exercising freedom with responsibility, so the NEA embodies our national commitment to the arts and our recognition that creativity is absolutely essential to an entrepreneurial economy in a visionary democracy. It is no surprise that students who have 4 more years of art education have SAT scores that are significantly higher than those that do not. Further, arts moneys have been the most successful economic development program in our great cities. I rise at this time in support of the Ehlers amendment because it significantly restores funding for the arts while the underlying bill slashes funding 90 percent. It also recognizes that there is a need for a Federal role in funding the arts. The Ehlers amendment is therefore better than the underlying bill. However, it is dangerous to make significant changes in any Government agency without hearings and this amendment has some serious problems. It eliminates any significant Federal role in supporting unique museums, theaters, symphonies, and dance troops that are institutions of national significance and value. Also, by sending the education dollars directly to the schools, it destroys the powerful partnerships that have emerged and been developed between the great museums like Hartford's Wadsworth Atheneum and local schools. These partnerships provide a totally different and higher order of arts experience to our children than could any public school arts department. Mr. Chairman, this amendment sends the House into conference, and this is where I disagree respectfully with my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates]. It sends the House bill into conference with far more dollars in it than the base bill and a clear message of support for a Federal role. In conference I would hope the NEA structures prevail and this bill goes to hearing as part of the reauthorization process. Government support of the arts at the Federal, State, and local levels has created access to the arts for millions of Americans, and has provided tremendous economic and educational benefits to our Nation. Funding from the National Endowment of the Arts [NEA] directly or indirectly supports thousands of programs that bring the arts to urban and rural communities, with local decisionmakers selecting cultural activities of importance to their communities. NEA-supported arts education programs open the doors of museums and symphonies to thousands of students and bring unique arts experiences into the classrooms. Just as the Department of Education embodies our belief that mastering a disciplined body of knowledge is essential to exercising freedom with responsibility, so the NEA embodies our national commitment to the arts, and our recognition that creativity is absolutely essential to an entrepreneurial economy and a visionary democracy. It is no surprise that students who have 4 or more years of art education have SAT scores that are significantly higher than those who do not. Direct and indirect funding from the NEA is essential to continuing and developing quality art education that will build the skilled minds and hands needed to shape our future. The economic impact of the arts is significant and especially dramatic in our great cities, large and small. Of all the urban economic development programs, arts funding has proven to be among the most important of our great cities. An investment equal to 38 cents per American, one one-hundredth of 1 percent of our total Federal budget, stimulates 18 times that amount from other sources. Nationally, nonprofit arts generate $37 billion in economic activity, support 1.3 million jobs, and return $3.4 billion in Federal income taxes. The arts are good business. I rise in support of the Ehlers amendment because it restores significant funding for the arts and recognizes the Federal responsibility to fund the arts, while the underlying bill slashes funding by 90 percent. The Ehlers amendment, therefore, is better than the alternative--which provides virtually no funding at all. However, it is dangerous to make significant changes in any government agency without hearings and this amendment has some serious weaknesses. It eliminates any significant Federal role in supporting the unique museums, theaters, symphonies, and dance companies that are institutions of national significance and value. Also, by sending the education funding directly to the schools, it destroys the powerful partnerships between great museums like Hartford's Wadsworth Atheneum and local partner schools. These partnerships provide totally different and higher order arts experiences to our children than could be provided by school arts departments alone. Public Law 89-209, the law establishing the NEA, states: ``It is necessary and appropriate for the federal government to help create and sustain not only a climate encouraging freedom of thought, imagination and inquiry, but also the material conditions facilitating the release of this creative talent.'' I take that responsibility very seriously. The arts are an integral part of our society and our economy. The American people recognize the importance of the arts. Seventy-nine precent of them support a government role in funding the arts. This amendment sends the House bill into conference with more dollars than the base bill and clear support for a Federal role in arts funding. In conference we should retain current the NEA structures and send this thoughtful amendment to hearing as part of the reauthorization process.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, we are far more generous to families. We give them the benefits sooner, give them to more families, and we retain it longer. I am proud to rise in strong support of the first tax cutting bill in 16 years. Today we adopt tax relief for working, tax-paying families, and powerful incentives for economic growth and job creation. How does this bill help women, children, and fathers? It delivers benefits sooner and provides more generous benefits than the Democrats' alternative. True, it doesn't help nontax-paying working families. That's because they were our first priority. We adopted legislation to wipe out the burden of payroll taxes for those working families. Now we just relieve--modestly--just the income tax burden of those above the tax subsidy level who work and pay taxes. Unfortunately, the Democrats pay for additional benefits for working people who pay no income or payroll taxes by limiting to $300 the credit for tax-paying, working families until 2001. Second, this tax bill increases the maximum deduction for child care costs. And while families over $60,000 will gradually lose half of this benefit that is far less than the Democrats' draconian repeal of the $500 child credit for all families over $60,000. Again the Republican bill provides more generous benefits sooner. Third, this bill helps families save for college, helps kids through HOPE scholarships, helps women who want to set up a business in their home through the home office deduction, and helps senior women who are the biggest winners through capital gains reductions. Further, Mr. Chairman, there are many important provisions in this bill that will help our economy grow more rapidly and create high- paying jobs. The research and development tax credit is an important incentive that encourages U.S. corporations to develop the products they need to compete globally. If the United States fails to provide some assistance to American companies, many--such as the aerospace, electronics, chemical, health technology, and telecommunications industries--will find it difficult to compete in an increasingly globalized marketplace. With Federal dollars in basic and applied research shrinking--and R&D a strong priority of our major foreign trade competitors--the extension of the R&D credit is critical. In fact, studies show that United States firms spend only about one-third as much as their German counterparts, and only two-thirds as much as Japan on research and product and development. Capital gains reductions will shift capital to job creation, growth industries, and particularly help our seniors who hold 80 percent of the assets in our country. It is estimated that nearly $8 trillion of capital gains are locked in by people unwilling to sell their assets and be hit with a punitive tax. It is the sale and reinvestment of these very assets which creates the new capital needed to start up, modernize, or expand the businesses of the future. Many countries do not tax their long-term capital gains, giving foreign companies a competitive edge over their American counterparts. And this provision is particularly important to America's retirees, most of whom are women. Seniors hold 80 percent of our assets and 50 percent of those benefiting from capital gains have incomes under $50,000. So this capital gains relief will really help the retiree who needs to replace a roof and sell some stock to do it. Capital gains, the research and development credit, and reform of the alternative minimum tax will put Americans' capital where jobs can be created. The bill also makes the orphan drug tax credit permanent, which will explode the research projects focused on cures for rare diseases. In the past, while the year-to-year extension of this widely-supported tax credit has helped encourage research on rare diseases, I believe the certainty of a permanent extension will cause an explosion in those critical projects. When Congress made the low-income-housing tax credit permanent several years ago, interest in the program skyrocketed, resulting in better quality housing and yielding 25 percent greater benefit for our tax dollars. The permanent extension of the orphan drug tax credit, in my view, will result in a similar explosion of new drugs to treat rare diseases. Finally, I would like to mention two lesser-known but important provisions that are included in H.R. 2014. One helps teachers exercise their current rights to increase their pension benefits by buying back service years when they can afford it. For example, a teacher who worked for several years in New York but spent most of her career in Connecticut would receive a pension based on years of service in Connecticut. Under State law, she has the option to purchase the years worked in other States, however, her ability to do so is limited by annual contribution restrictions. This bill gives greater flexibility to teachers and other public employees to be able to buy back years of service, thereby raising their pension benefit. And finally, this bill helps States collect their taxes so tax burdens can be held down on America's hard-working folks at the State as well as Federal level. Currently, 32 States already allow the Federal Government to participate in their State income tax refund offset programs. This provision reciprocates, providing a great benefit to States while actually saving the Federal Government a small amount of revenue. Mr. Speaker, this tax bill takes many important steps forward to stimulate economic growth and high-paying jobs and to help working, tax-paying families. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Ms. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to rise in strong support of the first tax- cutting bill in 16 years. Today we adopt tax relief for working, tax-paying families, and powerful incentives for economic growth and job creation. How does the bill help women, children, and fathers? It delivers benefits sooner and provides more generous benefits than the Democrats' alternative. True, it does not help nontaxpaying working families. That is because they were our first priority. That is because a few years ago we adopted legislation that wipes out the burden of payroll taxes for working families who do not earn enough to pay any income taxes. Now we move to relieve the tax burden of families earning enough to pay income taxes. We do not wipe out their payroll tax benefit, as we have done for families receiving the EITC. We merely offer them a modest $500-per-child reduction in their income tax liability in recognition of the fact that they are hard-working, tax-paying families in America. Second, this tax bill increases the maximum deduction for child care costs. While for families over $60,000 we gradually reduce half of this benefit, that is far less than the Democrats' draconian repeal of the $500-per-child tax credit for families over $60,000. Again, the Republican bill provides a more generous bill sooner than does the alternative. Third, this bill helps families save for college, helps kids through HOPE scholarships, helps women who want to set up a business in their home through the home office deduction, and helps senior women, who are the biggest winners, through capital gains benefits. Further, Mr. Chairman, there are many important provisions in this bill that will help our economy grow more rapidly and create high- paying jobs. Mr. Chairman, the R&D tax credit helps businesses develop new products, the kind of products they need to compete in a global economy. Capital gains cuts will shift capital to job-creating growth industries and particularly help our seniors, who hold 80 percent of America's assets. It also makes the orphan drug tax credit permanent, which will truly explode the research projects focused on rare diseases. It helps teachers exercise their current rights to increase their pension benefits by buying back service years at a time in their lives when they can afford it. Finally, it helps States collect their taxes so that can be controlled at the State level as well as the Federal level. Mr. Speaker, this is a great tax bill, a great step forward. I am proud to support it. I call Members' attention to the charts.