Nancy Johnson

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 428, I mistakenly voted ``aye''. I intended to vote ``present.''

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing legislation today that will create a 5-year dedicated capital funding program for Amtrak as it transitions away from Federal operating support. This proposal will redirect .5 cent of the existing 4.3 cents gas tax into a dedicated trust fund for Amtrak, allowing Amtrak to quickly reinvest in much needed capital improvements. The remaining 3.8 cents in gas tax revenues will be shifted to the highway trust fund. Amtrak is an essential part of our national transportation system, providing 22 million intercity rail passenger trips per year to over 500 destination in 45 States. In 1995, Congress and the administration both determined that Amtrak must reduce its reliance on Federal funding--directing Amtrak to operate without Federal support by the year 2002. Without adequate funding during this transition period, Amtrak cannot make the investments necessary to survive independently. Unfortunately, Amtrak will need an estimated $4 billion in capital improvements by 2002 due to funding shortages in the 1980's. This new capital investment alternative is necessary to improve rolling stock, cars and locomotives, upgrade maintenance facilities, and prevent the deterioration of track and signal equipment. Unless Amtrak's capital equipment is improved, it will not be able to operate as a self- sufficient entity as Congress directed. Between 1982 and 1994, travel on Amtrak rose 40 percent. A dedicated capital funding source will cut Amtrak's operating and maintenance costs, improving reliability and performance. Moreover, these upgrades will reduce air pollution, fuel consumption, highway congestion, and urban parking problems. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important piece of legislation.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in strong support of H.R. 1776. This is an important small bill that I introduced with my distinguished colleagues, the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. J.C. Watts, and the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Payne, with enormous backing from many, many Members on both sides of the aisle. It directs the Secretary of the Treasury in 1998 to mint 500,000 coins in recognition of the African-American patriots who fought for our Nation's independence and our individual freedom. The bill specifically commemorates the 275th anniversary of the birth of Crispus Attucks as the first to fall during the American Revolution. He is a prominent black figure in American history and a person whose life every one of our children should understand. He is a powerful symbol of black patriots' courageous contributions during this defining moment that created our Nation. H.R. 1776 has overwhelming bipartisan support with more than 300 cosponsors in the House of Representatives. Its companion legislation introduced by Senators John Chafee and Carol Moseley-Braun has the support of more than 60 Senate cosponsors. H.R. 1776 will recognize the contribution of African-Americans during this historic period of our Nation's history when we came into being, and distribution of these unique coins will help augment the significant fundraising efforts of the black patriots memorial to succeed in funding the black Revolutionary War patriots memorial. As my colleagues know, in 1986 Congress approved legislation I introduced with the support of many of my friends here on both sides of the aisle to authorize the construction of a memorial to the black soldiers who fought and died during our Nation's war for freedom and independence. The memorial's design has been approved, and it will be located in Constitution Gardens on the national Mall between the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial. It will be the first monument on the Mall which specifically honors the achievements of African-Americans. I would have to say, Mr. Speaker, that sometimes people in America think that as individual citizens they have no influence in this body. I would tell my colleagues that many years ago my friend Maurice Barbosa, a lawyer from Plainville, CT, the adjoining town to my hometown, came to me with this idea. This was his vision. Mr. Speaker, through him and his hard work and through so many in this body, we were able to authorize that memorial to get it designed and approved, and it will finally sit on the Mall, the first monument to acknowledge and to honor the achievements of African-Americans, and so I thank Maurice Barbosa and Wayne Smith, the current head of the Black Patriots Foundation, for the wonderful work that he and his comrades are doing. For over two centuries, the compelling contribution of over 5,000 African-American slaves and freedmen who served in the militia or provided civilian assistance during the Revolutionary War has, for the most part, gone unnoticed. These soldiers fought shoulder to shoulder with white soldiers, heroically sacrificing so we could stand here today, a free people and a world leader. After years of work on this commemorative coin effort, I am delighted that this House is now recognizing the courageous contributions of our black Revolutionary War patriots. Passage of this legislation will send an emphatic message that we are one nation because people of all races and ethnic origins were willing to fight for and then build a new nation of free and equal citizens. If we fail to understand our past, we cannot assume a future worthy of our visionary ancestors. This memorial is about cherishing, affirming, and comprehending our past each day we build our future. I urge my colleagues to support this unique commemorative coin legislation, and help the Black Patriots Foundation realize the dream of a memorial to black Revolutionary War patriots here in Washington, DC.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, small business owners are the backbone of the economic well-being of this country. The financial health of our Nation simply cannot survive without the ingenuity, imagination, and hard work of those who own and operate small businesses. But did you know that it is the women small business owners who are leading the charge into the 21st century? There are over 7 million women-owned businesses in the United States which employ 15.5 million people nationwide. And these firms contribute over $1 trillion in sales to the economy in every industrial sector. Women have been able to make such a remarkable contribution to society thanks in part to programs such as the Women's Business Training Centers within the Small Business Administration. This demonstration program has established 54 nonprofit business centers around the country since it first began in 1988. These business centers provide training, counseling, and technical assistance to women hoping to start their own businesses and 60,000 women have benefited from their services. These business centers have a unique funding structure. Three years after a business center is established, it must become financially self-sufficient. Thirty-five of the business centers are now entirely independent, providing needed assistance without Federal funding. Currently, the authorization for the Women's Business Training Centers ends in 1997, which is why I have introduced legislation to permanently authorize the program. This legislation will also increase the business centers' funding cycle from 3 to 5 years to ensure that they are well established, and authorizes a funding level of up to $8 million, so that the SBA can establish business centers in the 22 States that currently have no such sites. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Women's Business Training Centers Act of 1996.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, the Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law Federal guarantees that workers with health insurance cannot be denied coverage when changing or leaving jobs because of a preexisting condition. This is an important first step to improving access to health care for those who play by the rules and pay their premiums. We owe the same guarantees to our senior and disabled constituents, and so today we are introducing a targeted portability bill for Medigap insurance. People on Medicare who have a Medigap plan, or are in an HMO or Medicare Select plan should be able to purchase the same level of coverage without regard to a preexisting condition when they move out of the service area or if the insurer goes out of business. Seniors and the disabled who want to try a managed care plan or a Medicare Select policy should have the peace of mind that they can return to their Medigap plan if they change their mind during the first year of their enrollment and have not tried these choices before. As employers grapple with rising health care costs, their valued retirees should not be left out in the cold if their health plan coverage is terminated. And very importantly, disabled individuals around the country should have the access to all Medigap choices that Medicare enrollees who are fortunate enough to live in Connecticut have, where we were smart enough to guarantee this access. Proposals have been made to do more--just as have been made for health insurance reform. My colleagues in the House and Senate who join me today in this initiative began this process with me last year when Senator Chafee and I helped make available nation-wide the Medicare Select option which helps seniors save money on their Medigap insurance by using a network of participating providers. During that debate, worthwhile proposals to improve Medigap equity were made, and I am pleased that this bill moves this debate forward. Like Kassebaum-Kennedy, our Medigap portability proposal is a first step to create fairness for people on Medicare who play by the rules to cover the costs Medicare does not.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing two bills to give Americans covered by Federal health insurance programs access to peer-reviewed clinical trials when no standard therapies are available to treat their very serious medical conditions. The first bill would require the Medicare, Federal employee and military health plans, and the Department of Veterans Affairs to cover the medical costs associated with the clinical investigation. In addition, the bill ensures that Federal matching funds under Medicaid would be available to States electing to cover clinical trials in their Medicaid programs. Finally, the bill requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make available information about on-going clinical investigations and the results of those studies. The second bill is limited to a Medicare demonstration project covering clinical trials for cancer treatment. Both bills stipulate that the Federal Government is only to pay for routine medical costs associated with the patient's treatment, such as hospital room and board, and radiology and laboratory services to monitor the patient's condition. The Federal Government would not be paying for the cost of the investigational agent itself. Tragically, many patients must turn down these opportunities because they cannot afford to pay the routine costs associated with the clinical trial--a terrible irony, in my opinion, as these plans will cover the same medical treatment if it were provided as part of standard medical therapy. Until a new therapy, technique or device is proven, many private payers of health care will cover the patient's medical costs. Therefore, I am pleased that one of my home State insurers, Aetna, has been a leader in working with researchers to pay some of the costs of patients enrolled in clinical studies. Such access gives these patients hope that their medical conditions may be improved or even cured, when no other door is open to them. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government already funds potentially life- saving clinical research every year, but bringing breakthroughs into standard medical practice requires these investigations. These initiatives back up the Federal Government's investment in the basic research with financial backing to bring these promises to fruition.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule X of the Rules of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and by agreement of the committee, I am authorized to report that the committee continues to work on the issues before it. I would like to say for myself that the committee has traditionally not come to the floor of the House for instruction, as that would undermine the bipartisan foundation of our decisionmaking process, which protects every Member of this body from partisanship.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

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

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, this is truly a great day for the American people. This is a good bill but it is a result of outstanding leadership. Let me make plain that as one of those who supports increasing the minimum wage, I feel honored to stand here today in support of a bill that not only does that but recognizes the ramifications of increasing the minimum wage on our society and protects, for example, job opportunities for teenagers in the summer, and protects small businesses by giving them a series of preferred tax treatments to lower their costs of doing business. This bill opens up pension opportunities for employees of small businesses. It dramatically helps women. For the first time it puts in the law the legislation we need to give women who stay home and take care of the children the same IRA rights as anyone else in America. This is a sea change. This is good legislation. This is about equality for all of us. This is about building a strong future for the families of our Nation. Mr. Speaker, there is also a very important provision that we have worked on for many years, giving our small businesses greater expending rights so that they can expense out the costs of machinery and equipment, computers and so on, and add more jobs, grow more rapidly. In a society where small business is driving job growth, the kind of help this bill gives to small business is indeed critical and key to leading our Nation to enjoy a more rapid rate of economic growth, job growth, and job opportunities for career advancement for our people. Last, I want to mention the R&D tax credit in this bill. I regret we could not do it retroactively, I regret we could not do it many more years out to the future, but we have reformed it in a way that small, inventive little companies, our future, those companies will be able to take advantage of it. We have also restructured it in a way that the old defense companies that we need to be able to turn around, we need to be able to do new product research, we need to be strong in 10 years, will also benefit from the R&D tax credit for the first time in many years. This bill before us helps families in numerous ways, not only increasing the minimum wage but also increasing pension opportunities, saving opportunities, job opportunities, and it strengthens the very sector on which our future growth, job expansion, and well-being depends, the small business sector. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his extraordinary leadership and for the work of both sides on this bill.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in support of this very important legislation. Finally, we will give working families the peace of mind that they will not, they will not lose their health care coverage when they change jobs or leave employment. Five years ago, I introduced the first insurance portability proposal. It was a radical concept. Last Congress, we debated far more comprehensive health care reform legislation that included a very detailed, thoroughly worked out provision guaranteeing portability, as this bill does. Today, we finally complete legislative work accomplishing the commonsense goal that I and so many others have been pursuing for 5 years. It took Republican leadership. Under this bill, people who play by the rules and have health insurance coverage are guaranteed the right to keep coverage, even if they develop a serious but permanent medical condition, and even if they change employers or work for a small employer and lose their coverage for any reason. But with today's technology in genetic testing, an individual does not even have to be sick to be denied coverage. An important amendment I offered during committee consideration will protect people who know they carry a predisposition for breast cancer or Huntington's disease from discrimination by their health insurance carrier or future plans. Finally, I am very pleased this bill is offering very real solutions to families worried about the catastrophic costs of long-term care. I have long proposed tax deductions for the purchase of long-term care insurance, along with my colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Barbara Kennelly, so that fewer elderly Americans will need to spend themselves into poverty in order to get coverage for nursing home care. The tax incentive of premium deductibility for policies covering long-term care at home or in a nursing home will potentially save billions of dollars in the fastest growing part of the Medicaid program and better serve seniors. Moreover, this bill requires policies to meet consumer protections, to protect seniors' investments in their policies; another initiative of mine and a number of members of the Subcommittee on Health. Mr. Speaker, this is truly a landmark day for those of us who have spend years to bring these common sense reforms to us, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I rise in support of the bill, Mr. Chairman, but will urge that its specific problems be addressed in conference. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to acknowledge the difficult task faced by Chairman Goodling and the members of the Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee in the drafting of this bill. Since 1981, Congress has attempted, with my support, to establish English as the official language of the Government of the United States. The United States is unique for many reasons, including its commendable cultural and ethnic diversity. But while we welcome all the diverse populations that decide to make America their home, we must also bring all Americans together by uniting under our most important common denominator--the English language. For this reason, I support the provisions in this bill which would require the Federal Government to conduct its official business in English and produce most official documents in English. We must provide some relief from the burdens and costs associated with the additional printing now required of the Federal Government. However, I am concerned that the committee has not made clear exactly which Federal documents would be affected by this bill. While only 265 of the approximately 400,000 Federal documents currently printed are printed in multiple languages, agencies must have clearer guidelines as to which documents would fall under this bill and which documents would be exempted. I am pleased that, under this bill, all documents dealing with public health and safety could still be printed in multiple languages. But where, for example, would documents issued by HUD fall? Would those not fluent in English still be able to receive information on housing discrimination? Or receive information on workplace discrimination from the EEOC? These are the issues I would like to see made clear in conference committee. We must take a careful look at which documents would be impacted by this bill. In addition, I am troubled by the provisions which would repeal the Federal requirement for bilingual ballots. The Voting Rights Act was amended in 1975 to include these ballots and for good reason. Since the founding of our Nation, many Americans have been deprived of their inalienable right to participate in the democratic process by negating, either legally or illegally, their right to vote. We have seen States make voting difficult for certain populations by implementing poll taxes, literacy tests, and by designing complex balloting procedures. Bilingual ballots guarantee that no American citizen is denied the fundamental right to vote because of a lack of fluency in English. It was only 4 years ago that Congress reauthorized bilingual ballots for the next 15 years. I supported that reauthorization back then and do not support any attempt to repeal that mandate prematurely. However, I support the overall goals of this bill. We must be sure all of our citizens can understand our public discourse and enjoy the benefits of a common language. In order to meet this goal, though, we must strengthen our bilingual education programs and work to reduce the long English class waiting lists that our legal immigrants and newest citizens are faced with as they try to assimilate into this country. If we want well-informed citizens participating in the political process, we must make it easier for them to share our language. This is how we increase fluency--not by denying citizens their full political rights.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 397, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the time and commend him on his extraordinary leadership now over 4 years in getting this bill to the President. Mr. Speaker, this bill is about work, responsibility, hope, and opportunity. I wish I had the time here today to answer some of the concerns that have been raised about day care and jobs and all of those things. I think this bill addresses them. But I would like to discuss two issues that have not received much attention but are integral to our underlying goal of helping families become self-sufficient: Child support enforcement and Medicaid. First, I am very pleased to say that this bill retains current eligibility standards for families on Medicaid. All families now on Medicaid will continue to get Medicaid. Furthermore, all families in the future that meet today's criteria will continue to get Medicaid even if their State redefines their welfare program with more constricted criteria. Regarding the Medicaid transition period, under current law when a family leaves the welfare rolls to work, they are guaranteed 1 year's transitional Medicaid benefit. In the future, this will be absolutely true. We retain current law in this regard. Medical coverage is often one of the biggest barriers to families leaving welfare, especially since lower paying jobs are less likely to have employer-provided health coverage. By keeping the transition period policy constant, we are enabling families to go to work without worrying about losing their medical benefit. Second, this bill contains landmark child support provisions. Today in America 3.7 million custodial parents are poor; of those 3.7 million, fully three-quarters receive no child support. Of those who have child support orders in place, which is only 34 percent of the women, only 40 percent receive the payment they should receive. This is catastrophic for women and children, and this bill fixes that system, an enormous advance for women and children and a way off welfare.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3815, a bill to make technical and miscellaneous changes to our trade laws. In particular, I want to call attention to a very important section of the bill which is necessary to provide clear direction to the Customs Service, preventing it from improperly administering country of origin rules. Section 30 of the bill is intended to prevent the Customs Service from proceeding with any action that would change the status quo for the rules of origin governing the American hand tool industry. Section 30 of the bill represents the Ways and Means Committee's concern that Customs is attempting to significantly change longstanding rules of origin on which American manufacturers have relied, without authorization from Congress. First, the contention by Customs that a 1992 decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade in the National Hand Tool case, which upheld a determination by Customs that specific articles were not ``substantially transforme,'' directed Customs to abrogate prior determinations for different products involving different domestic processing is not supported by the decision of the presiding judge. Given the record in the National Hand Tool case, the Government's contemporaneous arguments, and the court's silence as to any intent to overturn precedent, no weight or credibility can be given to the present contention by Customs that National Hand Tool changed the law and now mandates the revocation of the long-standing ruling letters for hand tools manufactured in the United States from imported metal forgings. Second, Customs' proposal to apply a tariff-shift standard to supplant the traditional case-by-case substantial transformation test which follows the time-tested judicial interpretation of the marking statute and its criteria of changes in name, character, or use has not been authorized by Congress. On July 8, 1996, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that in attempting to overrule or abrogate the substantial transformation test Customs ``contravenes Congressional intent, exceeds Customs' authority to promulgate regulations . . . and therefore is arbitrary and . . . not in accordance with law.'' Section 30 of H.R. 3815 is a bipartisan approach adopted unanimously by the committee after extensive debate. It would impose a 1-year moratorium on any actions by the administration to revoke administrative ruling letters in effect on July 17, 1996. Additionally, it would require the Secretary of the Treasury, prior to issuing any significant policy change to the rules of origin, to consult with interested parties, and report to the congressional committees of jurisdiction the rationale for the proposed policy change. Under section 30, a proposal to revoke longstanding ruling letters relied on by hand tool manufacturers at least since the early 1980's, would constitute a significant policy change. The moratorium will provide a period for the committees of jurisdiction to review, study and determine the appropriate rules of origin for hand tools manufactured in the United States from imported forgings. The required consultation with the Congress upon the expiration of the moratorium is an added precaution to ensure that no policy changes are implemented by administrative action that amount to abrogation of longstanding court rulings and Congressional intent. Finally, the moratorium will provide time for the WTO working group on the harmonization of rules of origin to continue their work without interim changes by the Customs Service that may be disruptive to and have potentially profound adverse impact on American hand tool manufacturers and other manufacturing sectors of our economy. At this point, I would also like to submit the following letter from the Joint Industry Group [JIG], a coalition of over 100 companies and associations of importers who have also expressed concerns regarding origin rules. The Joint Industry Group, Washington, DC, May 15, 1996. Hon. Robert E. Rubin, Secretary of the Treasury, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Secretary: Earlier this year, Deputy Secretary Summers advised Congressman Crane that the Customs Service had been instructed to withhold publication of a final rule that would have extended Part 102 of the Customs Regulations (NAFTA Annex 311 Rules of Origin) to trade with all countries. The Joint Industry Group (JIG) is a coalition of over 100 companies, associations and firms that represent billions of dollars annually in trade. Therefore, as importers and associations of importers that would have been badly damaged had those rules gone into effect, we were pleased by and fully supported that decision. There now appears to be a concerted effort underway, sponsored by a small group of manufacturers calling itself the American Hand Tool Coalition, to gain a competitive advantage by having the Treasury Department reverse its position. The implications of applying Part 102 to all trade are very broad and potentially unsettling. The proponents of such action suggest that the Treasury Department could limit it to a specific product, but adoption of rules under Part 102 on a piecemeal basis would be bad policy and set a disastrous precedent. To do so would inevitably lead to an endless succession of changes and or exceptions and a proliferation of different origin rules for different industries. Similar problems previously occurred when Customs first implemented regulations in 1985 which nominally applied to textile products, but the principles of which have been extended on a piecemeal basis to all other commodities. From a practical standpoint, it would be virtually impossible to adopt any segment of Part 102 without also adopting the Part's general interpretative rules, many of which are unsatisfactory and result in an unwarranted departure from existing law. We respectfully ask the Department to abide by its commitment not to publish the rule that would extend Part 102 to trade from all countries other than our NAFTA partners, Canada and Mexico. Sincerely, Evelyn Suarez, Chairperson, Rules of Origin Committee.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Working Families Flexibility Act and to commend the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Ballenger, for his enlightened leadership in bringing forward this important legislation on behalf of working families. I am pleased to have been able to join him in offering this amendment to fine tune the bill and further clarify the protections for employees. This amendment will give employees greater control over the management of their accrued compensatory time and make clear the choice of compensatory time instead of overtime wages must be voluntary. Thus, the main criticism of this bill by AFL-CIO has been addressed. No one wants management to prevent employees from getting time plus one-half in wages for overtime if the employee needs the money more than time. But as to 70 percent of working women, for some, time is a far more valuable commodity and getting 1\1/2\ hours off for every hour of overtime would be blessing. And, this amendment assures that the employee's choice rules. First, the amendment would require a private employer to give a 30 days notice prior to cashing out accrued comp time in excess of 80 hours, unless the cash out is requested by an employee, preserving the employee's right to access to the cash if an emergency comes up, or they find the sofa they always wanted, or a car, or new eyeglasses, or, as my daughter faces, the high cost of a new hearing aid. There has been some concern expressed about the fact that the bill would allow the employer to cash out comp time. But, an employer is not required to offer comp time--so to offer it and then in effect retract it, in the absence of a very compelling reason to do so, would not be a very sensible policy for an employer. Our amendment addresses this concern by adding a provision which assures that the employer would not be able to cash out the first 80 hours of accrued comp time, unless the cash out is initiated by the employee. Second, the amendment clarifies that an employee may withdraw from compensatory time agreement with the employer at any time. Nothing in the bill currently prohibits an employee from doing so, but we have added language which explicitly gives the employee that right. Third, the amendment would require the employer to provide the employees with 30 days notice prior to withdrawing a policy of offering compensatory time. There may be instances where an employer decides for whatever reason that providing comp time is not a workable option for that particular business. This would accommodate that type of situation by allowing the employer to discontinue the program, so long as the employees are provided with 30 days notice. Finally, the amendment requires the Secretary of Labor to revise the posting requirements under the regulations of the Fair Labor Standards Act to reflect the comp time provisions of the bill. This will help to ensure that employees are informed of the circumstances under which comp time may be provided and their rights regarding the use of comp time. The changes made by this amendment along with changes which have already been made to the bill by the Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee will ensure that employees are not coerced into selecting time off instead of wages. Employees will be able to decide for themselves what form of compensation best suits their individual needs. Mr. Chairman, I believe that this is a sound amendment which further clarifies and improves the bill and should resolve many, if not all of the remaining concerns about the bill. The strength of this legislation is that it empowers workers by giving them a choice and it creates an opportunity for working men and women to have additional time with their families or to pursue interest outside of work. I am pleased to have been able to work with my colleague, Mr. Ballenger on this legislation. I commend him for the process that has produced this bill. His willingness to listen to all sides and develop a bill that simply offers employees a very desirable option of time plus \1/2\ hours off for overtime work. What a gift for parents? for dental appointments, parent conferences, sick kids, emergencies, or just a little time alone! Terrific. And how sadly small of the public employees unions to oppose the bill. They have a form of comp time, not as generous only hour for hour, but flexibility. They want to be included in this. But sadly and shortsightedly, AFSME and others oppose this legislation. I guess because they want to do collective bargaining on it. Yet this is simply a benefit, like other FLSA rules, that assures fair treatment of all employees. So I say to unions that oppose this, open up your hearts and support the interest of all working people of America. I commend and thank Mr. Ballenger for his perseverance and compassion and his sensitivity to the times we live in and the tough challenges young families and all workers face in todays' workplaces. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I welcome the Sabo amendment, because it does clarify a number of issues that are important for the conference to focus on. I personally worked very, very hard on the Medicaid provisions, and we need to assure that they are strong and will provide the kind of health care that children need. I personally feel that one of the important things for the conference, though, is not to be bound by the old thinking. When I hear the preceding speaker talk about children after the 5 years, I do not feel that she really sees what the impact of this plan is going to be. There are just so many opportunities from day 1 to provide day care, to get into job training, to use those day care dollars so effectively that women work in day care centers half the day and then they are in job training half the day, and from the very beginning, day 1, the whole family comes together to the family center and everybody begins growing, changing their future. So, I think there is enormous opportunity here. Michigan has done a great job with kinship groups. If you see you are going to have trouble, you can bring kinship groups into it, and the whole family, the larger family, needs to have the role here, have a role in planning the solution for this family. So, we need to be sure to be creative and not to cut off the kinds of initiatives that are going to develop. We do have that 20 percent protection. I agree, we do not want any children disadvantaged by this reform This should offer opportunity and hope to both women and children. But we do not want our thinking about the welfare of the next 20 years to be too narrowly fenced in by the experience of the last 10 years and 20 years when the States were very limited in what they could do. In Connecticut, we have a 21-month limit, and one of the biggest newspaper critics of it wrote a column just the other day saying, you have to own up when you are wrong, and he was wrong. It is working great.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, certainly it is the tradition of the Congress that going to conference is a time when House Members and Members of the other body think together anew about legislation, and the best ideas from both sides are merged. So, there is no doubt in my mind that what comes out of conference will be a bill we will all be proud of. I do want to go back to something that my friend from New York said, and that is jobs; what are we going to do if there are no jobs? And why do all these religious groups oppose the bill? Well, I would say to my colleagues that welfare reform is not just about welfare. Welfare reform is about system change in America. Those groups do not understand that. They do not see the possibilities. I think we are missing the understanding of the new opportunities this bill creates. For example, it has always been unfair for local taxpayers, and we know how terribly, terribly stressed people are at the level of local property taxes. Those people are paying their local government people, and they are participating in paying welfare benefits. Through attrition, without anybody who is employed losing their job, there is not any level of government that cannot open up entry-level jobs for welfare recipients so right off the bat they get real wages for real work. They make contacts and then the local governments can use that money to up the salaries of some of their people to do supervision and to do coordination. So I believe in the long run we are going to use our public dollars better as a result of welfare reform because we are going to open up jobs. We are going to build job training into our Federal, State and local bureaucracy, and people will have opportunities right off the bat they never dreamed of. So I think using the resources of the employment base that government provides with taxpayer dollars, our community colleges and our adult education resources, we are going to create opportunity with this bill that we are going to be proud of.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage the chairman of the committee in a colloquy with regard to the women's demonstration program within the Small Business Administration. I strongly support this program which has established 54 nonprofit business centers in 28 states since it began in 1988. Since then, these business centers have provided training and technical assistance to more than 60,000 women hoping to start their own businesses. Each business center tailors itself to the particular needs of the community and assures that women have the resources they need to plan, organize and expand their business. This level of business development is vital to our national economic well-being, offering more opportunities to women than corporations where the glass ceiling is still prevalent. These business centers have proven to be a good investment as well, averaging one new business and four new jobs for every 10,000 Federal dollars invested. Because of the unique funding structure of this program, 35 sites are now entirely self-sufficient, providing needed assistance without Federal funding. Three years after a business center is established, it must become by law financially self-sufficient. Therefore, the program creates independent support sites that successfully foster the growth of women- owned businesses and job opportunities for thousands. Despite the advances that women have made in the small business arena, women-owned businesses continue to face unique challenges when seeking capital, competing for government grants, and getting the technical assistance they need to succeed. A program focused solely on clearing these hurdles for women on businesses is a vital enterprise. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] is well familiar with this program.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his time and consideration regarding this program. I greatly appreciate his commitment.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to point out that despite the great gains women have made in their ownership and operation of small businesses, 52 percent of women-owned businesses are financed by credit cards; only 11 percent of men's businesses are funded that way. Therefore, we must continue to mentor women and offer them individualized counseling that takes them through the workings of the business world step by step. The one-size-fits-all, one-time business plan offered by other programs will not ensure that these female entrepreneurs get the help they need on the road to success. Women who have benefited from the expertise offered at Connecticut's one business center have commented on how hungry they were for information and how relevant and practical the information they have received from the center has been. Over and over these women have told the business center, I could not have done it without you. On that note, I want to express my hope that the women's demonstration program which received a $2.8 million reduction in this year's Commerce, Justice, and State appropriation bill, will be fully funded as the bill moves through conference with the Senate.

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

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill, and I could not disagree more with the preceding speaker. We have to change the future. Welfare cannot be a way of life for either women or children. It is not a satisfactory way of life. There is no hope, there is no opportunity when you are on welfare. Now, remember, under this bill at the end of 5 years you get Medicaid, nutrition assistance, housing assistance, energy assistance, all those programs that provide services, on a means-tested basis. In addition, 20 percent of the whole caseload can be carried forward. So we are not talking about a draconian system; we are talking about reform and creating hope and opportunity in our welfare system for both the women and children on welfare. This bill, let me show you, will allow States, for instance, to be free of the rigid law that now governs income disregards. The woman is on welfare and starts earning money, and we right away start reducing benefits. Under this reform bill States will have complete freedom to design a fairer system. They may choose to keep her benefits up, and, as her salary goes up, to then decline her benefits. States have the power to help her get a good start in those 5 years. They have the power to educate and train, but to combine that with work experience. Under this program, women on welfare could immediately go to work for half a day in new day care centers, use State day care subsidies to give informed leadership to those centers as skilled master teachers. Let welfare mothers, who are good care providers, be the soldiers in those day care centers and then in the afternoon go on education and training centers while other welfare recipients staff the day care centers. It will cut the cost of day care and it will allow the money to be used powerfully in the transition period. This gives opportunity to States to create the kind of humane and supportive system women need to literally change their lives. In addition, the terrible decline in the cities is in part the result of nonpayment of rent. Part of the problem of our cities is that if a welfare recipient fails to pay their rent, it takes at least 6 months to solve the problem and sometimes much more than that. Under this new system, States can say you miss a month's rent? Fine, we will pay it directly now until you get on your feet. So we can prevent the degradation of our housing stock in the cities just by requiring personal responsibility on the part of welfare recipients and providing States the flexibility to create a more realistic support system, under the umbrella of Federal concern, compassion and support.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

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

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I only need about 30 seconds, and other people have been waiting a long time to pose their amendments, too, but I do want to say that I am very pleased that the subcommittee has listened carefully to our experience, and by sharing our knowledge of the agency I think we are going to have a very, very strong bill out of conference, and I appreciate the work that the subcommittee has done in looking at the major issues that concern us all like the implementation of TSM.