Nancy Johnson

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I certainly am proud of my hometown of New Britain, CT. Last Saturday we had Christmas in April and I and many, many other people from the town turned out.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Christmas in April, it is a way the community gives the gift of Christmas to families who need help. I had the privilege of working at the home of an elderly couple who for decades have helped lead and care for veterans of this Nation's wars. They have done so much for others, and it was so nice to be a part of a team of 19 or 20 that painted rooms inside and painted things outside, that cleaned up the yard, that replaced a ceiling. I mean it was just wonderful. It was a gift to people who have given all of their lives and who now in their elder years need some help with that kind of work. And in New Britain, Connecticut, volunteers painted, repaired and upgraded the homes of 40 families. Some of them elderly, some of them single parents with young children, some of them just people who for one reason or another needed help with those kinds of chores, and some brought their children, just so their children could see that working together we are a powerful force, we Americans, and Government can never replace that energy, that faith, that love, that hope. I am proud to be a part of a Government that understands that people are the power and is working to assure that Government partners those powerful people and shares with them their vision of hope, opportunity, and justice for all. That is I think what we are talking about and why we have been so concerned with Medicare, preserving Medicare, strengthening Medicare, protecting Medicare for our seniors, but also fixing it so it better serves not only our seniors but their kids as they retire and our grandchildren when they retire. It is very nice to be with you gentlemen tonight. I am sorry that I have to excuse myself because I have some calls that I have to make.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. That is right. There were a few other provisions that we were able to get into other bills a second time, and the President did sign, and one of those was an aggressive attack on Medicare fraud. Now I am the chairman of the Ways and Means subcommittee that does oversight, so we oversee all of the programs that are under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, but one of them is Medicare, and we had our high-risk program hearing; that is, the highest risk of fraud programs under our jurisdiction, and one of them was Medicare. Medicare is one of the programs in our Nation that has an extraordinarily high risk of fraud and a high volume of fraud. The inspector general said $20 billion of our expenditures in Medicare every year are fraudulent, paying for health care you did not get or did not need. So it is a very big problem, and I am proud to say that last year we did get passed a new antifraud program that will put regional people out in every regional office looking at nothing but Medicare fraud.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter], my colleague in this special order.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey].

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman. It is a great pleasure to have so many women here on the floor of the House to participate in this special order on women's health, and I want to recognize now my colleague from New York, Sue Kelly.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen].

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that we have quite a few speakers, I am going to limit my remarks rather more than I had intended. I do want to thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle for their participation tonight. It is impressive, the work that Congress has done in the area of women's health in recent years, and much of it has been the direct result of the focus on that issue that the bipartisan caucus of women Members of Congress has generated. I want to talk briefly tonight about two things. I want to talk about Medicare and women's health, and I want to talk about smoking and women's health. It is true, and terrible, that Medicare is an illness program. It provides health care after you get ill. Medicare by law is not a preventive health program, and that is something that I believe this Congress is going to address. We have been holding hearings on preventive health, we have been generating information about which preventive tests are important to both women and men on Medicare, and I believe this year we are going to finally pass a package of preventive health services that will improve Medicare dramatically and meet the needs of both men and women far more effectively than the current program. For women, it will mean annual mammograms. It will also mean passage of a bill I introduced recently reauthorizing the Mammogram Quality Standards Act, which will assure that those mammograms will continue to be done by well-trained people with high quality equipment, read and interpreted by able physicians. It will also, I hope, mean that we will have national standards for testing bone density to help women prevent osteoporosis and all of the crippling fragility that results from loss of bone density. It will also mean, I hope, that we will pass a bill that the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter] has introduced this year, and she spoke about it earlier, that will guarantee that women who have had genetic indicators that they are inclined to get breast cancer or some other disease will not be discriminated against by insurers. We made a giant step forward on this subject last year when an amendment I introduced passed and was part of the Medicare legislation of the last Congress that said that women could not be discriminated against because they had genetic tests indicating a tendency toward cancer. That was an important step, but the more extensive bill that my colleague the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter] has introduced goes on to the issues of privacy, ownership of your medical data that are terribly, terribly important as we move into the new era of genetic science and health. Lastly, I believe that we will this year pass inclusion of women in clinical trials. It is indeed the Congresswomen's caucus that first passed legislation assuring that the National Institutes of Health would include women in all of their health research trials. It is truly remarkable that we ran the first long-term trial looking at heart disease on a population entirely of males, and so we came out of that multi-year project knowing a lot about heart disease in men and knowing literally nothing about the course of that disease in women, only to find out later that the course of that disease in women is really quite different, as we have found out in HIV and a number of other areas. It is not only unfair to our seniors that they do not have access to some of the remarkable treatments available through our cancer clinical trials program, but it is also a disadvantage to the Nation not to know how those medications that are being tested, those procedures that are being tested affect both men and women in their senior years. This Nation needs far better health research data than our current clinical trials program provides, and it is my hope that in this session we will see Medicare expanded to provide coverage for cancer treatments in clinical trials. Let me talk briefly also about smoking, because smoking is really the most preventable cause of death and disability and tobacco use studies have indicated is far more detrimental to women than to men. Women are far more susceptible than men to tobacco-related disease. Lung cancer has surpassed breast cancer as the leading cause of cancer death among women. Recent research suggests that women may be more susceptible than men to the development of lung cancer. Several recent reports also provide strong evidence of an association between smoking and osteoporosis. In addition, research shows a dangerous link between smoking and the use of oral contraceptives. So while tobacco use directly increases a person's risk of lung cancer, heart disease, stroke and diseases of the blood vessels, it holds many additional perils for women. Furthermore, each day 3,000 kids become regular smokers. That is more than 1 million a year. One third of them will die from tobacco-related disease. While smoking is declining in adults, teenage girls are the fastest growing group of smokers. Smoking by mothers during pregnancy can adversely affect the supply of oxygen and nutrients to the fetus and has been shown to increase the risk of low birth weight, miscarriage, still birth, premature birth and death in the first few weeks of life. Maternal smoking during and after pregnancy has been estimated to be responsible for one-quarter of the risk of sudden infant death syndrome, or crib death, and parents who smoke around their children put them at increased risk for developing bronchitis, pneumonia, ear infections and asthma. Children exposed to smoke may also be at increased risk for cancer in their adult years. Smoking does cause illness. It causes illness in adults, illness in children, and it is particularly lethal to women. Let me conclude by saying that this is a Congress that not only will address some important women's health issues, it is also, I believe, the Congress that will move forward on providing coverage for children whose parents work for employers who do not provide insurance or for some other reason are without insurance. It is a crime for this Nation to leave children uncovered for simple diseases like ear infections, much less their parents exposed to the paralyzing catastrophic costs of the hospitalization of a child without coverage. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend and a new Member of Congress the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands [Ms. Christian-Green].

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida, my colleague, Congresswoman Meek.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to urge support for legislation that I have introduced, the Graphic Postcard Act of 1997. My bill, formulated after postcards showing a dismembered fetus were sent unsolicited to a number of towns in Connecticut, requires that material depicting violent or sexually explicit acts sent through the U.S. Postal Service be enclosed in an envelope emblazoned with a large print warning. It is not unusual for parents to allow small children to open the mailbox and examine the contents. Bills, letters, and most advertisements pose no threats to young children. Sexually explicit material is already required to be covered when sent through the mail. The right to free speech is one we all cherish. This legislation will not interfere with free speech; it does not prohibit graphic materials to be mailed, but instead places a simple requirement on their mailing in order to protect children. Like it or not, those responsible for these postcards have every legal right to use the U.S. mail to express their viewpoints. However, I believe that parents have an equal right to protect their children from graphic presentations of frightening or violent actions. Requiring an envelope and warning does not infringe on the sender's freedom of speech; it simply guarantees protection for our Nation's children. This is rational action to stop potentially dangerous behavior. Hundreds of my constituents have called or written to let me know they were outraged by these postcards. The level of violence in our society has reached an unprecedented level and is eroding the values that have made us a strong society. We have a special obligation to protect young hands and eyes from unsuitable material, and this is step one. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Graphic Postcard Act of 1997.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time and commend him for his leadership on this matter, bringing forth a bill that is truly bipartisan and addresses a very significant problem at the IRS. The American public's willingness to provide the Federal Government with sensitive personal information on their tax returns each year depends on the confidence that the people have that this information will be held in the strictest confidence. That is why it is vitally important to have strong measures in place to ensure the security of tax return information. Public confidence in the IRS has been again shaken by new reports that the IRS personnel continue to snoop into taxpayer files. Last year the IRS confirmed almost 800 cases in which IRS employees looked through taxpayer files without authorization. That has just got to stop. As an original cosponsor of the Taxpayer Browsing Protection Act, I believe this legislation will give the IRS the tool it needs to enforce its zero tolerance policy against unauthorized browsing into taxpayer records by making it a crime punishable by up to a year in jail. Today we are telling IRS employees that if they go into other people's private files, they will be heavily penalized and they may go to jail. As Americans file their tax returns today, they can be confident that their tax return information is theirs alone and their privacy rights will be protected by law by this Congress.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today, along with my distinguished senior colleague from the Ways and Means Committee, Robert Matsui, the orphan drug tax credit of 1997, legislation to extend this credit permanently. Similar legislation was recently introduced in the Senate by Senators Orrin Hatch and Max Baucus. In 1983, the Congress enacted legislation that granted a 50-percent tax credit to biomedical research companies for the clinical testing of drugs used to treat rare diseases with limited commercial potential, commonly referred to as orphan drugs. Because the process of research, development, and approval for new pharmaceuticals is so costly, the small market for a drug discourages drug companies from undertaking it. Often, drugs designated as orphan drugs are for conditions that affect as few as 1,000 persons in the United States. This means that without some incentive there is simply no possibility for a firm to profit from its decisions to develop drugs that treat these diseases. This legislation, in conjunction with orphan drug market exclusivity, has been successful in encouraging the type of narrow research critical to finding answers to the many questions posed by rare diseases. Currently, there are approximately 600 drugs that have received orphan drug designation and more than 100 of those have been approved for marketing. Because of the orphan drug legislation, we now have drugs to treat such diseases as cystic fibrosis, hepatitis B, multiple sclerosis, renal cell carcinoma, and pituitary dwarfism. The bill we are introducing today would make the orphan drug tax credit, which is set to expire May 31, 1997, permanent. Uncertainty over the future of the tax credit has caused a significant decline in the investment of capital in the biotechnology industry. The bill would also maintain a change made to the credit in last year's legislation to allow companies to carry the tax credit back or forward pursuant to section 39 of the Internal Revenue Code. Most of the companies engaged in research or orphan drugs do not qualify for the tax credit. Under current law, a company can only claim a credit against their current year tax liability. Since most companies involved in orphan drug research are biotechnology firms that are still developing and have yet to market a product, they have no tax liability against which to claim the tax credit. This structural change would allow a developing company, such as a biotechnology firm, to use the tax credit at such time that it had a tax liability. I am pleased to note that this bill is endorsed by leading patient groups and national organizations including; the Biotechnology Industry Organization, the National Organization for Rare Disorders, Inc. [NORD], the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, and the Leukemia Society of America. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and I look forward to its prompt approval by the Congress.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. It is a sad day when on such an important matter, important in conscience, important to women, that the Republican Party would not allow a constructive amendment and open debate on some of the gut-wrenching issues this deceivingly simple but dramatic bill raises but fails to address. I support banning this type of abortion and every other type of abortion after viability, except when the life of the mother is endangered or her health is seriously at risk. Forty States in America have banned all late term abortions, including Connecticut. I support Connecticut's law. No procedure or any other abortion, no procedure at all to abort a viable fetus except to protect the life or health of the mother. That is the kind of amendment I wanted to propose so we could talk about the real issues here: the rights of the mother, the life of the mother, the health of the mother, not about the rights of the fetus. No abortions after viability. That is what we should be talking about. I urge opposition to the rule.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, anticipating this year's reauthorization of the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA], I am introducing legislation today that will provide rural area roads eligibility for a small percentage of funding under the Surface Transportation Program [STP]. The intent of ISTEA's STP initiative was to provide greater flexibility to State and local authorities for transportation needs by providing States with block grant-type authority. However, ISTEA regulations prohibit roads classified as local or rural minor collectors from receiving Federal-aid highway funding. Since most roads in rural areas fall under this classification, they are not eligible for funding and remain in severe disrepair. Under ISTEA's current STP distribution formula, States are required to set aside 10 percent of their STP funds for safety programs and 10 percent for transportation enhancement programs. The remaining 80 percent of STP funding goes into a general purposes fund, with a remaining distribution account receiving 50 percent, and a statewide distribution account receiving 30 percent. Under the remaining distribution account, funding is provided to areas over 200,000 population, while only a minimal level of funding is provided to rural areas under 5,000 population based on a fiscal year 1991 funding level. Unfortunately, congressional attempts to provide State flexibility do not ensure adequate and equitable distribution of Federal assistance to rural area roads. Moreover, roads functionally classified as local or rural minor collectors are not currently eligible for the rural areas under 5,000 population funding and, since most rural roads fall under these two classifications, they are ineligible for Federal assistance. My legislation would allow roads functionally classified as local or rural minor collectors eligibility for STP funds under the existing special account for areas under 5,000 population only. My legislation would not amend the road classification system. Rather, it would only modify 23 U.S.C. 133(c) to allow roads functionally classified as local and rural minor collectors STP funding eligibility under the areas under 5,000 population account 23 U.S.C. 133(d)(3)(B). In addition, my legislation provides that of the 50 percent to be obligated under the remaining distribution account, at least 20 percent, or the existing minimum requirement, whichever is greater, should go to the rural areas under 5,000 population account. Finally, my legislation would amend the statewide planning process by requiring States to also consider the transportation needs of rural areas, including local and rural minor collectors. I urge my colleagues to support this necessary legislation as it will provide the flexibility ISTEA was intended to produce and will greatly improve our roadway system by allowing local and rural communities the opportunity to decide which roads should be repaired.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield once again to my colleague, Congresswoman Norton.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the right to have written statements included in this special order from the gentlewoman from Indiana, Julia Carson, the gentlewoman from New York, Sue Kelly, and the gentlewoman from Maryland, Constance Morella, who have asked to submit such statements, as well as all Members. I would also like to recognize the intention of a number of other women to participate in this special order; and while they have been detained, the gentlewoman from Florida, Corrine Brown, the gentlewoman from Texas, Eddie Bernice Johnson, the gentlewoman from California, Zoe Lofgren, and the gentlewoman from New York, Carolyn Maloney, had intended to participate, thinking that this would be earlier.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, and we have next the gentlewoman from Texas, Kay Granger. This is Congresswoman Granger's first term as a Member of the House of Representatives. She was the distinguished and successful mayor of Fort Worth, TX.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce a special order that my colleague, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton and I are cohosting for the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues. We are the cochairs of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues, a bipartisan organization of the women Members of Congress, and in recognition of Women's History Month, we are holding a series of four special orders on four different subjects of great concern for women. Today we turn to the issue of economic equity. I am going to start by talking about the contributions of women during Women's History Month in the area of our economy in today's world. Women today are making an extraordinarily valuable contribution to all sectors of our economy, and in particular, to the dynamic growth of small businesses. Women are opening new businesses at twice the rate of men. Over one-third of all U.S. firms are women-owned businesses. These firms employ one of every four U.S. workers, and between 1987 and 1996, the growth of women-owned firms outpaced overall growth of U.S. firms by nearly two to one. Women at all economic levels benefit from this dynamic growth. Women- owned entrepreneurial companies are providing women with more leadership and management experience than they have had access to in larger corporations. These companies are leading the way in providing new benefits to employees, like more flexible work arrangements, tuition reimbursement, and profit-sharing. The likelihood of enjoying those benefits is far greater if you work for a woman-owned business. What is driving this explosion of entrepreneurial enterprise by women? Not the need to integrate work and child care, but the desire and determination to control their destiny. Most do not work out of their homes to care for their children. In fact, it will surprise the Members to know that women with home-based businesses are no more likely to have children at home than are other women entrepreneurs. Most establish their business because they want to control their lives and control that balance between work and family responsibilities that is at the heart of satisfaction. Current estimates put the number of woman-owned firms at 8 million businesses, contributing more than $2.38 trillion in annual revenues to our economy. In Connecticut, over 80,000 women-owned business firms account for 30 percent of all firms in the State. Employment growth in women-owned businesses exceeds the national average in nearly every region of the country and nearly every major industry. Employment in women-owned firms rose by more than 100 percent from 1987 to 1992, compared to 38 percent for all firms. Women-owned firms employ a total of 18.5 million workers. The number of women-owned businesses is increasing in every State. The top growth industries for women-owned businesses are diverse: construction, wholesale trade, transportation, communications, agri- business, and manufacturing. In addition to their dynamic growth, women have proven to be good business managers and are more likely to remain in business than the average U.S. firm. Nearly three-fourths of women-owned businesses operating in 1991 were still in business 3 years later, compared to two-thirds of all U.S. firms in the same period. Women-owned businesses are also contributing to our global economy. As of 1992, and these are rather old figures, they are far better now, but these are the most recent we can count on, 13 percent of U.S. women-owned firms were involved in international trade. Globally, women-owned firms typically comprise one-fourth to one-third of the business population. To what do we attribute this success? Of course, to women's creativity, determination, and willingness to work hard, but we as the Nation's leaders are also a reason for these phenomenal statistics. Government-developed programs, along with a growing base of successful women business leaders to serve as mentors and role models are making a difference. As an example, the Small Business Administration Loans Program made loans to women in fiscal 1995 that accounted for 24 percent of the total loans made and 18 percent of the loan dollars loaned. In particular, the SBA Microloan Demonstration Program awarded 43 percent of their loans to women. These loans averaged $10,000 and are critical to budding businesses. One program in the SBA's Office of Women Business Ownership provides business skills training, counseling, mentoring, education, and outreach to America's women entrepreneurs. Since its inception in 1988, more than 60,000 women have benefited from this program through 54 nonprofit business centers in 28 States Nationwide. Using Federal funds as seed money, business centers, after a 3-year period, must become self-sufficient. More than 35 centers are now entirely self-sufficient, and they are examples of true economic development, job-producing organizations that increase earning potential and are developing a large pool of skilled entrepreneurs. Last year I introduced the Women's Business Training Centers Act of 1996 that would authorize this SBA Program to become permanent and increase its funding. I will be introducing that same legislation this year. Other contributors to the growth of women-owned businesses include the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 which establishes a 5- percent government-wide procurement goal for women-owned businesses, and the Women's Requalification Loan Program which enables the SBA to prequalify a loan guarantee for a woman business owner before she goes to the bank. Through these programs we have nurtured a dynamic resource for national economic growth. We need to continue that effort. There is more work to be done. Because despite their positive achievement, there are still areas of concern for women in business. These include the need for expanded access to capital, increased participation in Federal and private procurement markets, better access to training and technical support, greater access to affordable health care plans, a broader knowledge base about women-owned businesses. Women-owned businesses have become a key component of our national economic growth. And I know this body is going to be interested in and willing to support growth initiatives that the caucus will bring to our attention in the months ahead. It is now my great privilege and pleasure to yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton], a woman of great leadership, enormous determination, passion, and intelligence.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, today I, along with Representative Robert Matsui and over 40 other House Members, introduced legislation to permanently extend the research and development tax credit. This proposal will make permanent provisions included in last year's Small Business Job Protections Act, which restructured the existing research credit by providing among other things, an alternative credit increasing small businesses' and high tech industries' accessibility to this important investment incentive. Congress has reaffirmed its commitment to the research credit by extending it seven times since 1981. However, the existing credit is scheduled to expire in less than 3 months. It is imperative that Congress address this issue before the credit expires on May 31, 1997. Today, the single biggest factor behind productivity growth is innovation. Two-thirds to 80 percent of productivity growth since the Great Depression is attributable to innovation. In an industrialized society, research and development is the primary means by which technological innovation is generated. However, because firms cannot capture fully the rewards of their innovation--the rate of return to society of innovation is twice that which accrues to the individual company--the market activity alone creates under-investment in R&D. The situation is aggravated by the high risk associated with R&D. Eighty percent of such projects are believed to be economic failures. Therefore, economists and technicians who have studied the issue are nearly unanimous that the Government should intervene to bolster R&D. If the United States fails to provide U.S. companies with competitive incentives to conduct R&D, many U.S. firms in key industries-- aerospace, electronics, chemicals, health technology, and telecommunications, to name a few--will find it harder to compete in an increasingly globalized marketplace, jeopardizing their leadership positions. For the past 16 years we have had an R&D tax credit, designed to provide an incentive for companies to conduct additional R&D in the United States. As the marketplace changes and industries mature, we must continue to improve the effectiveness and utilization of this important program. Most importantly, we must remove the uncertainty surrounding the credit's extension and once and for all permanently extend the provision. Study after study has established that the credit's uncertain future reduces its ability to continue stimulating additional increases in R&D expenditures. To the extent that researchers in American laboratories are able to pioneer the new technologies, processes, and products that will drive global markets, we will be able to offer skilled and highly paid jobs to the next generation of Americans. That is why we must now underscore our permanent commitment to a leadership role in global technological advancement. If we fail to act, the R&D credit will expire in June of this year. Such failure is the opposite message we should be sending to U.S. businesses that are gearing up to meet the challenges of rapidly changing, global marketplace. In Connecticut, where 100 percent of all research activity in the United States takes place, numerous companies have take advantage of this critical legislation. Several large companies, including United Technologies, Pfizer, and Bristol-Meyers, have utilized this credit. In addition, several small companies, including Locknetics in Bristol, CT have used and will continue to use the R&D credit to expand their operations, hire more engineering staff, and expand their investment in the critical research field. As we prepare to enter the 21st century, we must remain committed to providing an environment that fosters technological investment and scientific exploration. America's continued economic well-being depends on it. Such investment creates more and higher paying U.S. jobs, increases productivity, and, in turn, increases the U.S. standard of living. There is considerable discussion, on both sides of the aisle and within the administration, about smaller government, less regulation, and market incentives as opposed to Government-dictated solutions. The R&D credit is an example of a successful program by which the Federal Government has encouraged market forces to dictate where and when innovation and technology should occur. The most recent study of the issue, prepared by KPMG Peat Marwick's policy economic group, concludes that ``a one dollar reduction in the after tax price of R&D stimulates approximately one dollar of additional private R&D spending in the short run, and about two dollars of additional R&D spending in the long run.'' That, in turn, implies long run increases in GDP. Thus, an effectively targeted R&D credit can help set the pace of growth and should not be allowed to expire. I am pleased to be introducing this legislation with my friends and colleagues, Representative Robert Matsui, and Senators Hatch and Baucus in the Senate. I intend to work actively to ensure a permanent extension of the R&D credit and encourage all my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to work with me in this important endeavor.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Smith legislation. Since 1973, no U.S. dollars for international family planning programs have been used for abortions. Not one. And it is not true that the Smith amendment will not impact women seeking family planning services, although the money provided is the same in both resolutions. Cutting off certain clinics because of how they use their own money does impact women. In rural parts of the world it is not like Washington. There is only one health clinic. There is only one choice. Women there are lucky to have in fact one health clinic providing family planning services. They do not have a choice of clinics. This vote is not about abortion, it is about family planning. By any measure, increased access to family planning decreases the number of abortions. The use of effective contraception has increased markedly throughout the world in the last 30 years. The percentage of couples in developing nations using family planning has increased from 10 to 50 percent, but we still have a long way to go. Nearly 230 million women worldwide, roughly one in six of reproductive age, are still in need of modern contraceptive methods in order to plan their families. As the 20th century draws to a close, by the year 2000, some 800 million people, one-seventh of the world's population, will be teenagers in 4 years. While this reflects the incredible achievement of cutting down child mortality by half since 1950, it also has enormous implications for future population growth. The U.N. predicts that in the next 50 years, world population, in just 50 years, will grow by 3.6 billion, the current population of Asia. Providing women with the power to control the number of children they have and to space them apart is good for women and children and for our world, and I urge opposition to the Smith amendment.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, our senior citizens have worked their entire lives to protect the savings that can assure them a safe and secure retirement. Social Security is one of the two pillars of retirement security for our seniors. We owe it to them to protect the benefits that they planned for and depend upon. That is why I have introduced legislation to repeal the tax increase on Social Security that was adopted in 1993. Our seniors helped make America the greatest country in the world. The Federal Government should not jeopardize their quality of life by punishing them with high taxes on their Social Security benefits. Repealing this increase is a matter of fairness and will help senior citizens, especially those with moderate incomes keep more of their own money in their own pockets. I urge my colleagues to join me as cosponsors of this critical legislation for our senior constituents.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, in the last session of Congress, we passed important legislation giving Americans access to portable insurance coverage regardless of their health status. We did it by enacting the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. This new law, however, did not extend these same protections to our senior and disabled constituents who are on Medicare. No senior should be forced to live in fear that unexpected medical bills will deprive them of financial independence. That is why I am introducing, along with 30 of my colleagues, a portability bill for the millions of senior citizens who supplement their Medicare coverage with private insurance. An estimated 10 million senior citizens, one-third of the total number of seniors on Medicare, rely on medigap coverage to meet important health needs. Medigap insurance typically pays for prescription drugs, skilled nursing care, and out-of-pocket deductibles. Without medigap, seniors can face tough choices between paying their medical bills and meeting daily critical needs. And that is a choice they should not be asked to make. My legislation provides four important protections for seniors and the disabled. First, it will protect seniors with medigap insurance who move out of their plan's service area or whose plan goes out of business. This bill guarantees that those seniors will be able to purchase another plan with comparable coverage even if they have a history of severe illness. This means that seniors who relocate to other States can do so without the fear that they will not be able to secure comparable insurance coverage. In addition, my bill provides Medicare beneficiaries who choose to enroll in a Medicare HMO the security that they will be able to return to their medigap plan if they are not satisfied. They can utilize this option anytime within the first year of their enrollment. Third, my bill will help provide security for seniors who lose their employer-provided retiree health benefits. In this era of high bankruptcies and more and more companies withdrawing or reducing health coverage for retirees, this legislation will guarantee that retirees will always have access to insurance coverage beyond Medicare, even if they have had serious health problems. Finally, this bill will extend to disabled Medicare beneficiaries equal access to all medigap plans. This is an important assurance considering the high medical bills that people with disabilities face. We took significant steps last Congress with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Let us not forget those who did not benefit from those vital safeguards. Let us protect the millions of senior citizens who rely on medigap policies.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, in the last session of Congress we passed important legislation giving Americans access to portable insurance coverage regardless of their health status, but we did not extend these same protections to our senior and disabled constituents who are on Medicare. Yet no senior should be required to live in fear that unexpected medical bills will deprive them of financial independence. That is why today I am introducing, along with 30 of my colleagues and with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] of the Energy and Commerce Committee, a portability bill for the millions of senior citizens who supplement their Medicare coverage with private insurance. I am pleased to say that a bill is being introduced in the Senate, sponsored by Senators Rockefeller and Chafee, that is identical to this bill to speed the action of Congress to provide these critical protections to our seniors. An estimated 10 million senior citizens, one-third of the total number of seniors on Medicare, rely on Medigap coverage to meet important health needs. Medigap insurance typically paid for prescription drugs and skilled nursing care. These are protections that our seniors deserve, and I ask your cosponsorship of my legislation.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith].