Nancy Johnson

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

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

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Specifically, I strongly support the provision that will allow any permanent resident who was receiving supplemental security income [SSI] as of the enactment of last year's welfare bill, August 22, 1996, to continue to do so. I believe the noncitizen provisions in the Balanced Budget Act are compassionate and fair. By grandfathering everyone currently on SSI, it does not require anyone to undergo an eligibility redetermination process. I consider this to be essential, since those on SSI are some of our most vulnerable members of society--poor, elderly, and disabled. Imagine telling an 85-year-old widow who qualified for SSI under the elderly category that she may, or may not, lose her benefits based on whether the SSI employees determine her to be disabled as well as elderly. The disability determination process can be lengthy, detailed, and often full of uncertainties, especially for those with a limited command of English. I did not support eliminating SSI for those noncitizens already on the rolls last year, and I continue to oppose any efforts to take away benefits for this group of people. Subjecting 300,000 poor, elderly aliens to the SSI redetermination process is unjust. I have been working closely with the Polish and Hispanic communities in my district to restore what I view as harmful cuts in benefits passed as part of the welfare bill. I cannot think of one group of people more vulnerable than the elderly and disabled dependent on supplementary security income. In addition to grandfathering all noncitizens on SSI as of last August, I support efforts to provide a bridge to those noncitizens who become disabled in the future. Legal permanent residents need to be aware of their options in the future, before they become disabled. If they work, or their spouse works, for 40 quarters, serve in the military, or become a U.S. citizen, legal residents will qualify for SSI. I am optimistic that most permanent residents will be prepared to meet at least one of these criteria and so protect themselves in case of a disabling accident. As a bridge, for legal residents not qualified for SSI but who are borderline, I support a transition period so that noncitizens who came to the United States under the old rules and who are already borderline disabled or disabled but supported by family would be able to receive help. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the noncitizens provisions of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, let me commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] for bringing forth a very thoughtful, constructive and bipartisan bill out of the subcommittee. It meets the goals of the budget resolution of extending the life of the Medicare Trust Fund until 2007, but it also makes sound structural changes to better control costs in the Medicare Program which will be especially important when the baby boomer generation begins to retire in 2010. It increases spending per Medicare beneficiary from $5,480 this year to $6,911 in 2002. Most importantly, it gives Medicare recipients better choices of the kind of insurance coverage they want to select. It gives better choices and it gives better benefits. It has a good, solid preventive package, annual mammograms, comprehensive testing opportunities for prostate cancer, and adopts the prudent layperson's standard for emergency room care. So it guarantees access to emergency room care. It also guarantees seniors who want to try a managed care plan that they can go back to not only Medicare but to their MediGap policy, thereby guaranteeing them the opportunity to try the kinds of plans that will provide far more benefits for the Medicare dollar. Finally, it strengthens the protection for those who choose Medicare by strengthening the consumer protection package that governs Medicare managed care plans, providing more timely appeals procedures and in other ways strengthening those benefits. Equally importantly, it provides the opportunity for direct providers of services, doctors and hospitals, to get together and provide a managed care plan for the seniors in their area, a plan in which the medical decision will be totally controlled by the medical providers. This will guarantee better quality in all managed care systems, whether they are provider sponsored or whether they are insurance company sponsored. This is a giant step forward for health care for seniors in America.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with concern about the reductions made in this legislation for Medicaid disproportionate share hospital [DSH] funding. The reductions made to DSH funding in this legislation will have a dramatic effect on Medicaid funding going to Connecticut, and 12 other States in similar situations: Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. My home State of Connecticut is a high-DSH State, meaning that we have a number of low-income people who lack health insurance use Federal and State Medicaid funding to assist our hospitals that treat. Connecticut is acting responsibly by using available Federal funds to address the problem of people lacking health insurance. The DSH program is an integral part of Connecticut's overall Medicaid Program, involving over $400 million in combined Federal and State funding. The DSH formula in this legislation is unfair and disproportionately impacts a handful of states, including Connecticut, who have invested in DSH programs. These States are legitimately accessing funds through the Medicaid Program, which is designed to enhance the health care coverage of low-income people. We must recognize that DSH is not separate from Medicaid, but a critical component of providing quality health care to those who cannot otherwise afford it. During the fiscal year, Connecticut is receiving $204 million in DSH funding from the Federal Government. Under this proposal, DSH funding would drop dramatically by 40 percent over the next 5 years, with the most dramatic decreases in the out years, going from $204 million to $123 million by 2002. A reduction of this magnitude would likely force States to drastically reduce their commitment to helping hospitals treat the uninsured, and this at a time when I and many colleagues believe Congress must ensure access to affordable health insurance for the uninsured. I am very pleased that Budget Committee Chairman Kasich has expressed a commitment today to look at the DSH formula more closely as the bill moves into the conference committee process. Any cuts in the DSH program must be imposed equitably on all States, regardless of their percentage of DSH spending.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. Our goal must be to strengthen our engagement with China to bring her into the international trading system, whose rules seek to assure mutual benefit for all trading nations, to bring her into the international web of agreements, whose goal it is to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and create the maximum opportunity to resolve conflicts without war. As to the important issue of human rights, we know more about today's problems in China then we did during the terror of the cultural revolution precisely because China is far more open and allows far more personal freedoms than in the past. Greater individual economic opportunity has always fostered over time greater individual freedom and respect for human rights. We should continue to press China toward international human rights standards. But engagement, not disengagement, will achieve these goals.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Harman amendment. Is this taxpayer funding of abortions? No, it is not. It is the hard-earned dollars of the service men and service women of America choosing, electing, to have a medical procedure. They are paying for it themselves. Now my colleagues say, but the hospital is there. What hospital in America does not allocate charges for overhead into their charges for a procedure? No hospital does not allocate overhead charges. So do not tell me they are not paying for whole freight, they are paying their whole freight. This is not taxpayer-funded abortions, this is privately funded abortions that women in our armed services overseas may choose or need to have for medical reasons. What about military personnel? Do we have to hire doctors? Of course we will not. These are overseas bases, service women, serve the dependents, and so they have obstetricians. And all obstetricians are trained, whether my colleagues like it or not, to do abortions as well as to do many other things. So one is not going to hire physicians. This is not taxpayer-funded abortion. This is far more than that. There was one other argument that was brought up here that I want to speak to. The military has a higher standard. Boy, I would never touch that argument, folks. It is not a higher standard to deny service men and women the same rights as the citizens they defend. That is an abomination of the concept of higher standards in the military, and I believe the military does command of its people very high standards. So what is this about? It is about discrimination. If one is a colonel or a major, if one is an officer, one can afford to fly home, one can afford to fly one's wife home; one can afford to fly one's 16- year-old daughter that got in trouble home. If one is an enlisted man, one cannot. One is on space available. I see it as economic discrimination. Officers are not going to be affected, enlisted men are. But what is this really about? Listen to the language of all of the speakers. This is about abortion, pure and simple. This is not about taxpayer-funded abortions, this is about abortion. Now, I challenge the pro-life Members of this Congress, for God's sakes, bring a bill to the floor that bans all abortions in America, and if they can win it, fine. Then we will not have to keep debating these things. But as long as abortion is legal, let servicemen have the same access to abortion as other citizens do have. Not one of my colleagues who has spoken today, this is so distressing to me, because I believe it is unconscionable. Not one of my colleagues who has spoken today has introduced a bill that bans all abortions at all institutions. My colleagues want to ban abortions at a military hospital so military service women and the wives of enlisted men have no rights, because they are too far away, unless they want to go to the local hospital and risk death. I have made my points. If some want to ban abortion, do it, but do not do it selectively and leave military people without the rights of real Americans.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, today the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy] and I are introducing the Secure Assets for Employees [SAFE] Plan Act of 1997. Ever since enactment of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 [ERISA], layer upon layer of complex rules and regulations has been adopted seriously frustrating the ability of small businesses to maintain retirement plans for their employees. According to a recent GAO study, a whopping 87 percent of workers employed by small businesses with fewer than 20 employees have absolutely no retirement plan coverage. The news is only slightly better for workers at small businesses with between 20 and 100 employees where 62 percent of the workers have no retirement plan coverage. By contrast, 72 percent of workers at larger firms--over 500 employees--have some form of retirement plan coverage. This is particularly troubling given that small business provides most of the new jobs in today's workforce. In fact, according to the Small Business Administration 75 percent of the 2.5 million new jobs created in 1995 were created by small business. However, because of the impediments to small business retirement plan coverage, these workers often find themselves without the opportunity to meaningfully save for retirement. The present-law roadblocks to small business retirement plan coverage have a particularly harsh effect on small business defined benefit plans. Most retirement experts agree that defined benefit plans--which guarantee a specified benefit at retirement--provide a better and more secure benefit for retirees. However, according to the Department of Labor between 1987 and 1993 the number of small businesses with defined benefit plans dropped from 108,221 to 41,780. That is over a 60-percent decline in just 7 years. Last year, hoping to improve retirement plan coverage for small business employees the Congress created SIMPLE plans for small business. However, despite the success of the SIMPLE plan, retirement plan coverage for small business employees continues to be inadequate because of the limitations on contributions to the SIMPLE plan. Many small business employees who are baby boomers and have not previously been covered under retirement plans will not be able to save enough under the SIMPLE plan or a 401(k) plan to provide an adequate retirement income. Small business needs a defined benefit retirement plan that is easy to administer and will provide small business employees, including baby boomers, a sufficient retirement benefit. The Secure Assets for Employees [SAFE] Plan Act of 1997 creates a new safe harbor defined benefit retirement plan for small business which will provide all small business employees with a secure, fully portable, benefit they can count on without choking small business with complex rules and regulations small business cannot afford. A description of our bill follows: Fully Funded and Secure Retirement Benefit SAFE plan retirement benefits will be totally secure because they will be funded either through an individual retirement annuity (``SAFE Annuity'') issued by regulated financial institutions or through a trust (``SAFE Trust'') whose investments will be restricted to registered investment securities or insurance company products. SAFE plans will always have to be fully funded so that there will be no shortfall in case of plan termination. SAFE plans will be required to use specified conservative actuarial assumptions to ensure the minimum retirement benefit. Minimum Defined Benefit With Possible Higher Benefit SAFE plans will utilize the best features of both defined benefit and defined contribution plans by providing a fully funded minimum defined benefit with a higher benefit if investment returns exceed conservative expectations. At a minimum, employees will receive a benefit equal to 1%, 2%, or 3% of compensation for each year of service. For example, if an employee whose average salary was $40,000 has 25 years of service for an employer who elects a 3% benefit, the employee will retire with a minimum $30,000 annual benefit (which could be higher depending on investment performance). The percentage benefit in any year must be the same for all employees. In order to allow baby boomers to catch-up with their retirement savings, employees will be able to elect to credit benefits for up to 10 prior years of service, provided such benefits are credited to all employees eligible when the plan is adopted. An employee's benefit will be 100% vested at all times. Fully Portable Retirement Benefit Employees participating in the SAFE Annuity who separate from service will automatically hold an individual retirement annuity that will pay them at least the benefits they have earned (and possibly a higher benefit) upon retirement. Employees participating in the SAFE Trust will have their retirement benefits automatically converted to a SAFE Annuity, or, if they elect, have the cash balance in their account transferred to an individual retirement account (a ``regular IRA''). The benefit in a SAFE Annuity may be rolled over to another SAFE Annuity without restriction. However, in order to ensure adequate benefits for retirement, benefits in a SAFE Annuity and SAFE Trust will be subject to substantial distribution restrictions. Easier to Administer SAFE plans will have simplified reporting requirements. SAFE plans will not be subject to complicated nondiscrimination rules or plan limitations. However, so that plan benefits are distributed fairly to all employees, SAFE plans, like SIMPLE 401(k) plans, will be subject to the current-law annual limit on employee compensation ($160,000). Since SAFE plans will be fully funded using conservative actuarial assumptions, expensive Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) insurance premiums will not be necessary. Complements the SIMPLE Plan SAFE plans could be used with SIMPLE plans or 401(k) plans. Employer eligibility, employee eligibility, and the definition of compensation will be the same under the SAFE plan as under the SIMPLE plan. As with SIMPLE, employers using a SAFE Annuity could designate a single financial institution to issue the SAFE Annuity. Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that the baby boom generation represents a retirement savings time bomb. We are indeed fortunate that so many employees of large companies enjoy retirement coverage. Those who work for small and independent businesses deserve no less. I would encourage my colleagues to join Mr. Pomeroy and me in working toward passage of this much-needed initiative.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan, my friend, Mr. Upton, and I rise with pride to acknowledge the service and leadership of my friend J.L. Cullen. J.L., as others have said, was a southern lady. And as a northern daughter of a southern family, I say those words with deep respect. Graceful, gracious, kind, gentle, firm, able, intelligent, tough. The range of all those adjectives, those capabilities, were J.L. Sensitive of mind and spirit. She painted. She was a gourmet chef. She saw, sensed, talked about, and enjoyed the fine things of life: the subtleties of beauty, of visual beauty, of smell, of taste, the richness of life. But sensitive of mind as well. I loved listening to the stories told by my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], because she was sensitive of mind; a very sharp ability to analyze issues; able to pierce right to the heart of that issue and how it was going to affect people's lives, which is what Congress should be and is about. A sharp mind, a sensitive heart, and below it all, incredible courage; incredible organizational capability. If she said something needed to be done and you were working with her, boy, it got done. If you carried your part, she carried hers and everybody else's, and whatever needed to happen actually did happen, and happened well and right. Furthermore, you could count on not only it happening right in terms of substance and content, but everything was always done with integrity. This was a woman who believed that honesty mattered, who believed that treating people with mutual respect was what God required of you and her fellow human beings required of her. Her experience was broad and deep, and she brought to action not only character and integrity and knowledge but a breadth of experience that reflected a deep understanding of what makes our lives individually rewarding and communally strong. J.L. was an entrepreneur, and she thought beyond the dots long before it was commonly the thing to do. She was outside the box long before we invented words like ``a new paradigm'' and all those fancy phrases to talk about thinking creatively and thinking aggressively beyond the bounds we put on ourselves through the routine of our daily existence. J.L. thought outside the box, and because she did, she did something for the Republican women of Congress that no one else would have been able to do, would have thought to do, would have had the knowledge and experience to do or the get-up-and-go to do, and that was to get us all together, the women Members of Congress, to think about a number of issues that we tended not to think about, because we tended not to bring the kind of experience to the table that one needs to get through them. So she led us through some very important discussions. She helped us organize dinners at which we would get together and talk with leading people in the media about issues, about our own work as individuals, about their jobs to get the public to understand who we were, what the Congress was about, and the nature of politics in America today. Always the mentor, always the teacher, always the ally, but very deeply, always the friend. J.L., you fought many battles. You have always won because of your spirit, your personal strength, your personal courage, and your integrity. This is one more terrible trial, but this, too, is a winnable battle, because you bring to it the strength and the courage that it demands, and we are with you, we are behind you, we are beside you, and we will be there. Our love and thanks to you for all you have done for us over the years, and our toast to your courage and success.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, in proposing the HOPE scholarship, President Clinton has, to his great credit, identified an issue--college affordability--that is keeping a number of lower- and middle-income Americans awake at night. In the coming weeks, it will fall to the tax-writing committees, working within the framework of the budget, to determine just what sort of tax breaks we can provide for tuition for higher education. In addition to budgetary constraints, we must be sensitive to the potentially inflationary impact of the provisions we enact. A few short years ago, we came very close to overhauling one-seventh of the Nation's economy partly in response to an alarming rate of medical inflation. Higher education costs are rising twice as fast as health care costs. I raise this as a note of caution, not as an excuse for inaction. We need to help families cope with these costs. While there is much work to be done, there are several proposals on which I believe all of us--Republicans and Democrats alike--can agree as a starting point for building a consensus on a broader package. Today I am introducing the Higher Education Access and Affordability Act of 1997. The Higher Education Access and Affordability Act would: Make the payout from State-sponsored, prepaid tuition plans excludable from income; Make the section 127 exclusion for employer-provided tuition assistance permanent; Provide an above-the-line deduction for student loan interest; Allow tax- and penalty-free IRA withdrawals for higher education expenses; Allow nondeductible contributions of up to $1,500 per child per year into higher education savings accounts. The inside buildup would not be taxed. Distributions would not be taxed if the money were used for postsecondary tuition and/or expenses. Anyone could contribute to the account on a child's behalf--for instance, grandparents, aunts and uncles--but the account, not the individual contribution, would be capped at $1,500 per year. Mr. Speaker, this package is not a panacea, but it provides a solid starting point. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the weeks and months ahead to develop a broad, balanced public policy response to the challenge of college affordability.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. It would give us the time we need to work out the details of the budget agreement and provide appropriate relief to elderly and disabled non-citizens. In my district, many legal residents have worked hard in America, paid taxes for 10, 20, 30, 40 years, and some of those folks now depend on SSI and some of the benefits provided by this Government. I have worked hard with the Polish American Congress and other organizations in the Polish and Hispanic communities to make sure that those who want to apply for citizenship can do so promptly, get their applications processed promptly, and continue to receive their benefits as American citizens, and I would like to commend the INS office in Hartford for its tremendous cooperation at this time. However, some of those legal residents who have worked decades in our country are unable to become citizens because their disability does not allow them to learn English or American history, or even comprehend the citizenship oath. We must not change the rules for these folks retroactively, and only after these people are unable to support themselves. This amendment does what is necessary now, and before this amendment expires, I believe this House will have made a permanent change in the law to assure benefits to elderly and disabled legal residents in America currently receiving SSI benefits.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 115, the Lofgren amendment, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' personal explanation

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, my amendment, which has been included in today's en bloc amendment, would ban violent sexual predators from public housing in this country. These are people who have been convicted of the worst crimes imaginable, and who have been identified as likely to repeat the offense. It is simply wrong for taxpayer dollars to be used to allow people who have stalked and attacked women and children to live where the majority of tenants are children and single mothers. At a public housing project in Chicago recently, according to press reports, a previously convicted sex offender was charged with assaulting and molesting a 9-year-old girl who lived in the same building. First, he allegedly abducted her as she was walking upstairs. Then he took her into an apartment, molested her, choked her until she was unconscious. He poured poisonous liquid down her throat and left her. Mr. Chairman, my legislation will not eliminate violence against children. I wish it were that easy. But it will send a clear message that Congress is not going to use taxpayers' hard-earned money to provide subsidized public housing to people who have committed unspeakable acts of evil against children. H.R. 2 for the first time gives housing authorities access to State information on registered sex offenders, and allows public housing officials to reject an application for subsidized housing if they have reason to believe the applicant poses a threat to other tenants. That is a giant step forward, and I commend the committee on their action. But in addition, my zero tolerance amendment would mandate that public housing officials automatically reject any application from sexually violent predators. Mr. Chairman, study after study has shown that many people, most people, in fact, guilty of violent sexual crimes against children repeat their offenses and attack many, many children. According to one report, 71 percent of all pedophiles knew their victims prior to the crime. The typical offender molests on average, on average, hear that, on average 117 children. That is right. Members heard it right, 117 children. Nearly 40 percent of the inmates serving time in State prisons for violent sex offenses said their victims were 12 years old or younger. These statistics were supplied to me by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which supports my amendment. What these statistics say really loud and clear is that it is time for zero tolerance. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and keep our children safe.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and admiration that I rise and pay tribute to the Flanders Elementary School in celebration of 30 years of unwavering service and dedication to the children and families of Southington, CT. The school's commitment to the education and well-being of children is worthy of distinction. On May 2, 1997, the Flanders Elementary School celebrated its 30th anniversary in its current building. The school, its students, their parents and the Flanders School PTA celebrated this joyous occasion and I am proud to recognize their achievement. For the past 30 years, the faculty of the Flanders Elementary School have excelled in their efforts to educate the children of Southington, CT. They have helped to create a foundation of learning that will stay with the children throughout their lives. It is a testament to the enduring values of education and 30 years have passed and the school has not wavered from its original mission. The teachers have forged ahead with the same commitment and dedication as when the school was founded. They deserve our appreciation and admiration, for it is the continuing success of their students that makes us all proud. I would like to commend the Flanders Elementary School for its service and wish it continued success in the years to come.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. You bet, you bet. It would have been good for the seniors, good for the program, good for the government because it would have created the right partnership between the government, the seniors of America and the providers of health care in our country who are without doubt the best. But I also want to point to a couple of other things that were in our bill last year because some of them actually the Congress passed and the public did not have a chance to understand that, one of the provisions in the medicare formula.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I am also pleased that the President is working with us this year on another very important part of the Medicare reform bill that will be good for seniors but also good for all Americans of every age. In the Medicare reform bill we had written a provision that allowed hospitals and doctors to develop their own networks so they could compete with insurance companies. That would give us competition in the managed care market between insurance company plans where there are stockholders involved and you have to have a return on your investment and provider sponsored networks where the physicians and the hospitals actually are the means of delivering care, and therefore, hopefully, the decision about quality of care would be kept very close to the provider, to the doctor and the patient, to the hospital and the patient, to the provider and the senior citizen. And we know this will not only be good for seniors to have these provider-sponsored organizations, but they will be good for people of every age to have managed care systems in which the ownership and the responsibility is right anchored with the people who know the most about health care and the quality.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. That is right, and our goal was to ensure that seniors would have the choice of health care plans that offered, for instance, prescription drug coverage, that offered better preventive benefits, that better covered the deductibles and copayments in Medicare, and because we wanted seniors to have those choices we wrote provisions in the Medicare reform law that allowed the development of hospital and physician networks, and you know, as one who represents an area of the country that has a lot of small towns and small hospitals, I can tell you that allowing the development of these provider-sponsored networks is key to the survival of these smaller hospitals and the medical community around them. So I am pleased that this year the administration is back before the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Ways and Means on which I serve. They are saying that we need to do this, they are going to work with us this year, and I believe we are going to improve the health care system and the choices not just for senior citizens but for all Americans, and that is in everybody's interest. So I am pleased that this year we will improve the benefits under Medicare. We will also slow the growth in costs through the kind of progressive change that is possible through good governments and good choices.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. You know I am very proud of this Congress and the way we are working together. I know the press has reported primarily controversy around campaign practices of the White House and the last election and some other things, but underneath that we are doing the people's business, and the negotiations around the budget that have gone on have been frank, serious talks about how do we through common sense reach the goal of a balanced budget and return fiscal sanity to this Nation. Just today on the House floor, I guess it was yesterday on the House floor, we passed an adoption and foster care reform bill so that children will not get caught in abusive homes and they will not get lost in our foster care system, and we did that bipartisanly, both parties working together, both parties here on the floor talking about the ways in which this bill would help children in America, some of our concerns about that bill as well, and today had a long debate about housing, public housing policy, and we will bring forward in the next few days a bill by bipartisan vote.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. That is truly stunning, that is truly stunning, and people ought to try to imagine in their minds what $26 billion would buy if it were spent right. You know Medicare is an outmoded benefit package. It does not cover prevention. It only helps you after you get sick. If we had $26 billion that is spent on fraud to use for preventive benefits, would it not be a wonderful thing for the seniors of America? Well, I am proud to say that we passed a bill that put $800 million into fraud inspectors in the regions, and those people are now, most of them are hired. That program will be completely in place in the next few months, and next year when we stand here at least I hope we will have better numbers and we will be able to demonstrate that the Republicans put in place a very strong antifraud effort in Medicare. But I do regret that the President vetoed the bill that would have let every senior in America be part of making Medicare honest.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. That is true, and one of the provisions in that legislation goes to the heart of what you were saying. It allowed seniors to report things they had been charged for wrongly and share in the savings. Remember they would have gotten half the cost of that delivery that the gentleman was billed for in savings, and the government would have gotten the other half of the savings. So it would have created, in a sense, an enforcement police the size of the entire senior population in America, and frankly that would have been a great thing.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I am proud to be with you tonight, and I appreciate your gathering for this special order. It is such an important program, Medicare is. It is critical to our seniors, but it is just as important to their children and grandchildren. It is one of the pillars of retirement security. If we cannot guarantee our seniors some level of financial security and health security, then we are not the great and free Nation that I believe we are. I just want to say a couple of things, picking up on what you were talking about. First of all, I wish we were here tonight talking about how we had slowed the deficit that is developing in Medicare, that this year we were not going to see as big a debt in Medicare as we had last year, and we could have done that. We had a good plan if we could have passed it. If we could have had people listen deliberately to discussion about the problems and the solutions, we would be here tonight cheering the turnaround in Medicare and the preservation of Medicare for our seniors and our children.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, that is why I wanted to bring that up, because we do a lot of real thoughtful work here about the problems in our lives and certainly abused children is a very big problem in the communities that we represent, and we took a giant step toward protecting children just yesterday. It will move to the Senate now, and then to a conference committee, and in several months it will move to the President's desk and children and families will do better in America because of a thoughtful, bipartisan and common sense Congress.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney]. This is a very important sense of Congress. It is imperative that States recognize the seriousness of the problem of AIDS, women and children, 125,000 children to be orphaned by AIDS. Indeed we need to know that, we need to deal with that and States need to modernize their laws to address this issue. The 50 States at this time do deal with guardianship as well as custody issues in different fashions. Sometimes radically different mechanisms are used to govern these difficult situations. Therefore, it is hard at this time to write a Federal statute, even if it were desirable, to deal with such delicate and personal situations. But it is important to recognize the criticalness of these arrangements and the forethought that must be given where death of a parent is a real, tragic possibility. I am sure that the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp] and his subcommittee will oversee the response of the States to this sense of Congress, because if they do not move forward with modernizing their guardianship statutes, then indeed we will have to look how do we do this from Washington, DC. These are very delicate arrangements, they are hard to develop, they need forethought, they need a good structure of law to protect the interests of the children and other family members. I think it is better done from the State, but we must oversee that this does happen from Washington.

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

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I thank the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] for withdrawing her amendment and bringing forward an amendment to dedicate one of the demonstration projects in the bill to kinship care. There are six States that have Federal waivers to demonstrate innovative approaches to providing child welfare services, including through kinship care. Indeed, there has been a lot of work on this matter and in many States and some creative programs developed which deserve the attention of the committee. I also would like to call attention to another matter that is related to that brought up by this amendment. That is the option of independent living programs as a kind of placement for older children who have been in foster care for many years. My colleague, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], talked about the scarring that bouncing from foster care home to foster care home can leave on a young person, and indeed that scarring is deep and debilitating and can destroy their opportunity to pursue life in a way that would realize their abilities and their dreams. Nonetheless there are many children in the system at this time. He pointed to 15,000, but there are many children in the system at this time who have been in foster care for many years who have bounced from home to home. Some of these children are finding a new opportunity in what we call the independent living program that provides a stipend, guidance, education, and helps these young people at a high school age learn to live on their own and enjoy the support of one another as they make that transition from high school into the work force. We need to extend this program. We need to recognize it, I think, with the same validity that we recognize foster care placements or even adoptive placements and give it the kind of support and investment that it deserves. In many instances as they look at kinship care and the opportunities that it provides within the foster care and adoption system, I would urge that they look also at the independent living program as another alternative to adoption and/or reunification because it is for many adolescents the best option and deserves our support. I yield back to the author of the bill.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I would like to acknowledge the interest of my colleagues, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt], in this issue, the work that he has put in, and the concern that he holds. I am pleased that he has withdrawn his amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think this Congress has to be very mindful, and I think the underlying bill is mindful of what it means to terminate a parent's right to their own child, what it means to the parent and what it means to the child, and what lifelong repercussions that decision has. Having worked hard on permanency placement the many years that I was in the State Senate in Connecticut, and on foster care and adoption issues since that time, I agree with my colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, and those who worked so hard on this bill, that we are leaving children in abusive situations far too long. We are not dealing honestly with the fact that parents are acting so remarkably irresponsibly toward their children that we have to have a law that can act more promptly and terminate rights more aggressively to protect children. I do also urge, however, that we be mindful as we make a change, of the nature of termination decisions and of their ramifications for both adults and children over decades. So I strongly support the underlying structure of the bill, which does force States to make a permanent plan by 12 months, and to initiate termination proceedings at 18 months. I would urge States to move forward in those cases where they see rehabilitation is not going to be possible. However, I think it is incumbent upon us both to recognize the complexity of pressures on families in America today, the need for appropriate services, and yet, the need for protection of the child and for abrogation of parental rights when adults do not take their responsibilities seriously and do not aggressively involve themselves in fixing the problems in their families that so deeply affect their children. Mr. Chairman, I am glad the gentleman withdrew his amendment. I support the underlying structure of this bill. I think it is truly a very significant step forward, but it is a balanced, thoughtful step, and I support the bill strongly, and commend both the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp] and the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly] for their leadership in writing this legislation. It took a lot of courage, frankly, to begin rethinking what reasonable means. It is true that reasonable has become unreasonable for the circumstances that many of our children face. The Members have rebalanced that and repositioned us to fight for our children and their lives, while also looking at families and their interests.