Nancy Johnson

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and appreciation that I rise today to express my congratulations to Edward Varley for his 50 years of dedicated service to the Washington, CT, Volunteer Fire Department. The Washington Volunteer Fire Department was chartered in 1926 and on July 10, 1946, Edward Varley began what was to be the longest service of a volunteer fireman the town of Washington has ever had. As the first member of the fire department to earn this achievement, Mr. Varley deserves our praise and our gratitude for the courage he has displayed, putting his life on the line in situations where the risk was high. Mr. Varley also served his department as fire chief in 1965- 1966. The community is forever indebted to him for his outstanding service throughout the last 50 years. The citizens of Washington can rest easier knowing that their homes, businesses, and loved ones are safe thanks to thoughtful neighbors like Edward Varley. Today, I congratulate Edward Varley for his 50 years of service and I commend him on his dedication to his community.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of MFN for China. MFN simply provides China the same trade status possessed by other nations. There is nothing most-favored or preferential about MFN status. MFN is the normal trading status. The United States must maintain a policy of engagement with China-- lest one day we find ourselves forced into a policy of containment. Whether and how we engage China today will have enormous consequences for United States national interests in the future. Denying normal trade relations would undermine U.S. economic interests for trade is crucial to the growth of our economy, good jobs for our people, and international prosperity. United States exports to China, growing at a rate of 20 percent a year, support 170,000 American jobs. Chinese retaliation would seriously threaten these jobs and United States companies expanding in China. Market economies naturally evolve into democracies. Entrepreneurship and invention, breed personal confidence, individualism, and the values that underlie democracy in the evolutionary process in Taiwan. China is one of the fastest growing economies in the world--with a population of 1.2 billion--and past growth rates in the double digits. Since establishing relations in 1979--trade between the United States and China has risen from $2 billion in 1978 to nearly $60 billion last year making China our 6th largest trading partner. Normal trade relations promote human rights. Should MFN be denied, the influx of democratic political and economic ideals would cease. Normal trade relations promote environmental reforms. Working with China on sustainable development in areas of pollution prevention, agriculture, and energy will greatly benefit the global environment. Normal trade relations better the lives of the Chinese people. By providing higher wages, opportunities for travel and study abroad, and other basic benefits, American companies in China open Chinese society from within.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution of disapproval revoking normal trading relations with China. The extension of most-favored-nation trading status with China simply provides China the same trade status possessed by other nations. There is nothing most-favored or preferential about MFN status. The discontinuation of normal trade relations will only subvert our capacity to influence Chinese policy, including trade, weapons proliferation, and other security matters. Our actions today will be a key factor in Chinese calculations about their future. Asia is one of the most dynamic regions of the world and the one with the greatest potential to threaten world peace. Stability in this region is most likely if China and the United States participate constructively together. The United States cannot send mixed signals regarding its commitment to regional and global stability. Rather, this is precisely the time when a clear, consistent American policy is needed. The United States must maintain a policy of engagement with China lest one day we find ourselves forced into a policy of containment. Whether and how we engage China today will have enormous consequences for United States interests in the future. Moreover, denying normal trade relations with China will undermine United States economic interests. With a population of 1.2 billion, and past growth rates in the double digits, United States exports to China support 170,000 American jobs. Since establishing relations in 1979, trade between the United States and China has risen from $2 billion in 1978 to nearly $60 billion last year making China our sixth largest trading partner. Market economies promote a better standard of living by evolving into democracies. Through normal trade and diplomatic relations, the United States can continue moderating and influencing Chinese actions. Normal trade relations promote human rights. Should MFN be denied, the influx of democratic political and economic ideals would cease. Normal trade relations promote environmental reforms. By working with China on sustainable development in areas of pollution prevention, agriculture, and energy, United States companies operating in China influence Chinese environmental policy. Normal trade relations significantly better the lives of the Chinese people. By providing higher wages, opportunities for travel and study abroad, and other basic benefits, American companies open Chinese society and influence it from within. I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution of disapproval. Only through continued normal trading relations will the United States be capable of influencing future Chinese actions.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

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

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. As we work through this transportation appropriations bill, I hope my colleagues will recognize that we have another piece of it to come forward.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, Amtrak is an essential part of our National Transportation System, providing 22 million inner-city passenger trips per year with over 500 destinations in 45 States. Last year the Congress and the administration agreed that Amtrak must reduce its reliance on Federal funding. The budget resolution and the authorization directed Amtrak to operate without Federal funding support by the year 2002. However, as you are aware, the funding recommendations in this bill are below the authorization levels that is in the budget resolution and the level Amtrak says it needs to stay on the path to operating self-sufficiency. Between 1995 and 1997, Amtrak received $1.2 billion less than their proposed transition plan called for. Unfortunately, next year's capital funding level is again drastically cut and inadequate to sustain Amtrak's capital expenditures. To facilitate Amtrak's transition off Federal assistance I have introduced H.R. 2789, creating a dedicated funding source for Amtrak which would allow it to make the necessary capital infrastructure investments during this period of transition. H.R. 2789 does not create a new tax, does not increase the deficit, and does not cut any other programs. With an estimated $4 billion needed for capital improvements, H.R. 2789 will allow Amtrak to improve its rolling stock, upgrade its maintenance facilities and prevent the deterioration of track and signal equipment. These improvements will cut Amtrak's cost to customers, to consumers, reduce air pollution, fuel consumption, highway congestion, and urban parking problems. We can make Amtrak self-sufficient, but only if we adhere to our budget plan transitioning Amtrak off Federal assistance and only if we create a temporary capital funding source for investment. On a final note, Mr. Chairman, the Senate recently passed a sense of the Senate resolution in support of this proposal. I bring it up here tonight on the floor of this House because in this transportation bill the capital funding for Amtrak is so significantly cut that Amtrak will be unable to make the transition to self-sufficiency. If working cooperatively with the appropriation in this bill this Congress can pass the Amtrak capital fund, then we can, over years, enable Amtrak to become completely independent of Federal funding and be a first class rail service for passengers in America. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], for his concern and his interest in Amtrak and for his work with me on this important issue, and I understand perfectly the problems that he has faced in this appropriations bill. I only ask that he and my colleagues help me in this effort to develop a capital fund for Amtrak to enable it to achieve our goal and its goal of independence of Federal funding.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Lazio amendment to restore funding for housing for the elderly and disabled. The Lazio amendment would restore $140 million for section 202 elderly housing and section 811 housing for the disabled. This amendment is deficit neutral because it is offset from reductions in HUD's annual contributions fund, HUD's unallocated dollars. By adding these funds over the life of these buildings, tens of thousands of our Nation's seniors and disabled persons will have housing opportunities they would otherwise not have. These funds not only provide affordable housing; they also provide those key supportive services that mean independence to seniors and our disabled citizens. Madam Speaker, I strongly urge all Members on both sides of the aisle to support the Lazio amendment.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and rise in support of the Kolbe amendment. Mr. Chairman, because of Japan's trade barriers, the United States of America negotiated an agreement with Japan to have free, open, and transparent trade in government procurement of supercomputers. yes; this does violate that agreement. It is written so broadly it does violate that supercomputer bilateral agreement. It also violates the World Trading Organization's, the WTO's, antidumping agreement. It also violates a WTO government procurement agreement. Now, who wins from this international trading system? America wins. If the international trading system goes under, we lose international protection of property rights, of intellectual property rights. If is all part of the same system. We benefit from the international protocol that governs trading, and we cannot go out there and violate the agreements that America has put her signature to. As a result of this agreement, whose goal it was to overcome Japanese barriers in their market, the United States has sold 12 supercomputers to the Japanese Government. Now a Japanese company is about to sell one to our Government. That is a pretty good deal. The American market is growing only slowly because our population is growing only slowly and our population is aging. Older people do not buy as much as younger people. If we are to have a rising standard of living for our folks, if we are to have faster growth in our economy, we must be competitive in the international market and we must have solid rules that govern international trading, or our kids will not have the career opportunities they want and they will not have the rising standard of living they hoped for. If there is one thing my constituents are concerned about and one thing they say to me day after day, it is, ``We're concerned about wage stagnation''. And believe me, Connecticut has had a tough time in the last 5, 6, 7 years. Wage stagnation, slow economic growth; those are the problems we face, and if we persist or if we go forward with this proposal that blatantly violates an agreement we put our name to, we will not only lose in the short term, as Japan retaliates in whatever industry she targets, but in the long term we lose the protection of international trade law and that will cost us jobs. Retaliation hurts. It is not neutral. It costs jobs. It cuts incomes. But worse than that, it sends a terrible signal. The affirmative action to abrogate an agreement we are a party to, following passage of Hill-Burton and the legislation offering trade with Iran, sends a signal to the international community that we are not prepared to adhere to the only trade protection that can assure fair trade. I have fought all of my years here in Congress for fair trade. I fought for the machine tool industry, I fought for the bearing industry, I fought to preserve our dumping laws, I fought for 301 retaliation. I have been over there in Geneva with many of my colleagues with Chairman Rostenkowski, former chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, as the final deals on the GATT agreement, were made. We fought hard to get our way and we won on most points. For us now to purposefully, consciously, by legislation, violate agreements that we put our name to and that are benefiting us simply is nuts, and it is going to destroy our credibility as a member of the international trading community. It is going to hurt international trading companies, and more and more we know it is the small companies who are in our export market, and it is going to cost jobs. It is going to undermine the very export promotion programs, the export growth, that is driving America's economy. We do not domestically have the buying power anymore to guarantee our people a rising standard of living. We do not have it. We are not growing that rapidly, and we are aging rapidly. We depend on success in the export market. Not to support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) to strike this provision from this bill is to say to people, ``I'm more interested in politics that I am in your wages and in your economic future and in the strength of this Nation and the preservation of the very regimen that guarantees, that has the best hope of creating for us free and fair trade worldwide, and with that free and fair trade over the decades ahead, prosperity and peace.'' I urge support of the Kolbe amendment.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the amendment that would literally eviscerate the National Endowment for the Humanities. Eliminating $12 million from the grants and administration account for the NEH with the expectation that private-sector donors will make up the difference is a misinformed position and a naive proposal. Corporate giving has declined steadily since 1985, and from 1984 to 1994, donations decreased by about one-sixth in real dollars. Corporate giving is very market-driven. While I certainly believe businesses have the right to watch out for their bottom lines, we have to acknowledge that the consequences of this are that grants are determined by location and benefit to employees. This means that that a relatively small number of institutions in a limited number of geographic areas receive a disproportionate share of the funds. The NEH makes the humanities available to all Americans. Only a Federal agency like the NEH has the size, scope, and expertise to bring the humanities into the lives of all Americans. Federal funding serves as a catalyst for corporate contributions. Many NEH grants require from $1 to $4 in non-Federal money for every NEH dollar. Since the NEH began, these grants have attracted $1\1/2\ billion in private funds, which demonstrates that the seed money provided at the Federal level stimulates huge increases in private giving. Moreover, private corporations know that the NEH has the institutional knowledge about disciplines and they rely heavily on the NEH to identify organizations that have a sound organizational structure, as well as the scholastic excellence worthy of further corporate support. An NEH imprimatur is a stamp of quality and that is what spurs private-sector donations. Without the NEH, there will be no private dollars to be distributed. It is that simple. In our country's poorest and most isolated areas, cultural and scholastic activities do not attract private-sector donors. Thankfully, the NEH has taken the lead in serving these areas and has wisely invested in the education, the lives, and the futures of the children living in these communities, whose abilities are too often overlooked. Given that the cost to each American is only 42 cents a year and that the humanities--history, literature, languages, philosophy--are fully two-thirds of America's school curriculum, the NEH is a bargain for taxpayers. Finally, the local economies of small towns and big cities are stimulated by NEH sponsored exhibits and projects. Supporting the NEH is good business sense and good historical sense. It is as much a sound economic policy as the Government building interstate highways, funding airports, or paying for basic research in agriculture, energy, health, or any other area. Given that the NEH suffered a 36-percent cut last year alone and that many worthy projects have already been canceled due to this reduction, reducing funds even further would be foolish and shortsighted. Everyone from children just beginning school to the country's greatest scholars depend on these funds.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Walker amendment. Let me give my colleagues one example of the productivity of these research dollars. Just as NIH research has been critical to the great strength of the American medical products sector, so R&D dollars have been critical to the development of clean energy alternatives. Fuel cell technology. It has taken more than a decade of time to develop this technology. The private sector has invested $3 for every $1 the public sector has invested and the result is a very clean energy technology that is going to demand, as we get into production, iron- making, and especially steel manufacturing, electrical systems, heat exchanger and boiler manufacture, piping vessels, piping vessel capability, primary industries that are essential to keep our economy strong. Secondary industries, plating, transportation of scrap, recycling of scrap metals, handling equipment and so on and so forth. It is just the kind of product that America's future depends on if we are going to be a strong manufacturing economy, capable of producing state-of-the-art energy sources. I rise in strong opposition to the Walker amendment.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern with the precedent that could be set by provisions of H.R. 3107, legislation originating in the International Relations Committee, and referred to the Ways and Means Committee on which I serve. No one argues that the goal of bringing the Pan Am 103 bombers to justice, nor with containing international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We must find ways to increase United States and international pressure on these rogue nations and the threat they pose to U.S. interests. However, I do have concerns with H.R. 3107's provisions that may rely on unilateral actions rather than multilateral cooperation. The concept of a secondary boycott was opposed by the United States when the Arab League used it against Israel in the 1970's and 1980's, and remains contrary to the principles endorsed by this very body when it approved NAFTA and GATT. Indeed, U.S. law, most recently enacted in the Export Administration Act, has long prohibited any U.S. person from ``complying with or supporting'' a foreign boycott against another country. The use of trade sanctions to accomplish trade law compliance is vital and appropriate but the use of trade sanctions as a foreign policy tool to coerce other sovereign nations to do our bidding breaches America's commitment to preserving independence from international control. It is fundamental to U.S. participation in trade agreements that other governments should not be permitted to dictate business relationships among U.S. firms and citizens, as H.R. 3107 could do for our trading partners. Mr. Speaker, as the world's greatest exporter, the United States benefits tremendously from free and open trade with our allies. Given our past commitment to an international trading regimen, the United States should not expose United States exporters and investors to possible retaliation through abrogation of international rules, or exacerbate the dispute with our allies over policies toward Iran and Libya. If it becomes possible for countries to dictate each other's policy under threat of trade sanctions, U.S. participation in these important organizations could be threatened. Put at risk by unilateral U.S. action are the benefits to the U.S. economy created by strong protection of intellectual property rights, the guarantee of competitive bidding opportunities under the Government Procurement Code and dramatic tariff reductions for U.S. exports--all of which were improved and expanded by NAFTA and GATT. Instead, I would urge that we work to avoid the painful consequences of trade retaliation and continue pressing for additional multilateral action and enforcement of existing agreements. As in the case with the extraterritorial Helms-Burton law which penalizes firms outside the jurisdiction of the United States for trading with Cuba, foreign governments will not permit their firms to comply with such legislation. As we seek to contain and punish terrorists and those states that sponsor them, we do not want to drive a costly wedge between the United States and its allies whose support we are seeking. While I will be supporting H.R. 3107, I am doing so because it provides the administration adequate discretion in executing the provisions of this bill. Moreover, in doing so, it is my hope that the administration will effectively implement multilateral sanctions against Iran and Libya.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 241, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''. personal explanation

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this is an extraordinary opportunity for this House and this Congress. We have the opportunity in the conference process to come to agreement on a bill, and we can already see the agreement out before us that will guarantee to the working people of America the right to move from job to job without losing their health insurance due to preexisting conditions. Why would we want to limit conferees' ability to merge the fraud and abuse provisions of the House and Senate bill and choose those provisions that are really strongest but also most protective against small minor mistakes and making those as criminal? Why would we want to tie the conferees' hands and not let them include administrative simplification provisions worth billions and billions of dollars in savings to our health care system? Why would we not want them to consider a compromise in the medical savings account that does not open up the right to medical savings account to the big givers of the Republican Party, as my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark], claims, but rather only opens it up to the employees of small businesses, 50 or under? Frankly, Mr. Speaker, those folks are not big givers to either party. They are just folks who do not have health insurance and need an opportunity to have this choice. It is a small, modest compromise. It requires a study, and it requires a congressional vote after 3 years before an expansion. It is just the right kind of compromise that the House and Senate are capable of coming to to move forward with the public business so that we can guarantee portability to America's workers, so that we can guarantee long-term deductibility of long-term insurance premiums; truly the right answer to controlling Medicaid spiraling costs, absolutely the right answer to make long-term health care premiums deductible. That is in this. As important a reform as this Congress has ever considered in the health care area. We have the opportunity to serve the public well. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the special instructions of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell].

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I have real concerns with this legislation. The Conte Refuge is unique. It is an urban refuge. Its goal was never to be achieved through the acquisition of large tracts of land. Rather, its goal was to restore the Connecticut watershed through partnerships, conservation easements, cooperative agreements, environmental education with the Fish and Wildlife Service providing technical expertise and serving as the catalyst for the effort, and in fact it is moving along very well and holds enormous potential for the whole Northeast as being a very positive contribution to the preservation of our wilderness areas and the quality of our life in the Northeast. As my colleagues know, we have preservation laws not only to preserve lands, but to preserve historic buildings, and whenever we try to preserve something, people do give up certain rights because preservation carries with it certain responsibilities. Now, in my district the Appalachian Trail runs right through it, and the Government does have the right of eminent domain, if they need it in that instance, and we had to go through a very painful relocation of a portion of the trail for very good reasons of safety and so on. And in the course of those negotiations with various property owners we were able to negotiate good solutions with all but one, and that one person simply could not see the public interest, but could only see the private interest. And if the Government had not had the right of eminent domain, which they never had to exercise, but if they had not had that right, that citizen would never have been required to stay at the table. And by staying at the table we did finally get a negotiated solution that was satisfactory to the citizen and satisfactory to the Government in terms of achieving the public goal of a safe and beautiful trail across the Eastern Seaboard. So eminent domain is rarely used by the Government, but it does provide clear and convincing, in a sense, elbow to remind the individual citizen that there is a larger public interest that the Congress recognized in establishing the Conte Refuge. I think the goals of the Conte Refuge can be achieved without any eminent domain actions; I am absolutely convinced of that. But to withdraw that from the law for this particular project I think is to set a precedent that is very destructive and also fundamentally counters the public interest that lies behind not only this designation, but other designations, and also underlies our belief in things like historic preservation tax credits. So I oppose this bill.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3268, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act [IDEA] and commend Chairman Goodling and Subcommittee Chairman Cunningham for their thoughtful, fair, and important work on this issue. I am pleased that this bill received strong bipartisan support from the committee and that a broad coalition of interested groups was able to work together in the development of this legislation. I believe in the right of a child with a disability to a free, appropriate public education and I believe IDEA needed revision to assure the goals of our laws are achieved in a way that preserves opportunity for all and better reflects the advances that have been made in the area of special education. Also, we needed change so States can better manage the regulatory and financial burden of the current law so our resources can be more effectively focused on educational needs. Unfortunately, schools have had to spend valuable time and resources dealing with discipline and litigation problems that are wasting valuable education dollars and preventing a fair and consistent approach to schools' efforts to develop personal discipline in students. H.R. 3268 will help address these issues in a positive way to benefit all students in the Nation's schools.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Visclosky amendment eliminating the President's authority to waive the bill's prohibition on Economic Support Funding to countries that restrict the delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance. Last year, at this time, I stood on this floor with my colleagues to cut $25 million in U.S. economic assistance to Turkey during consideration of the FY 1996 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill until the blockade of U.S. humanitarian assistance was lifted. Since that time, the Turkish government has not adequately addressed its behavior against its neighbors, in particular, its internationally- condemned blockade of U.S. humanitarian assistance to Armenia. On May 16, 1996, President Bill Clinton disregarded this Congress' intent by waiving the application of the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act to Turkey. This act prohibits U.S. economic or military assistance to any country that blockades the transport of U.S. disaster and relief assistance. I am here today in support of the Armenian people and in support of this amendment. By narrowing the Presidential waiver contained in the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, we will limit the President's ability to provide up to $25 million in FY 1997 economic assistance funds to Turkey. Since the president has failed to address this issue, it is now up to Congress to make a clear decisive statement. In addition, it is also important to continue a positive and active relationship with the government of Turkey to resolve this and other mutual matters. Mr. Chairman, in addition to this amendment, I would also like to express my support for the Radanovich amendment which will be offered to this bill. This amendment would limit the amount of Economic Support Funding for Turkey to $22 million until Turkey acknowledges the Armenian genocide and takes steps to honor the memory of its victims.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding time to me, and I congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and the Republican leadership for allowing this vote on the minimum wage, but in addition rising to the greater challenge of looking at the minimum wage in the context of this Nation's need to strengthen the small business sector, the only sector that is creating jobs. Mr. Speaker, as we move forward, and yesterday's tax package was a big step in the right direction, we have to recognize the reality that productivity and quality are the ultimate guarantors of employment. So in the Goodling amendment, the opportunity wage allows small businesses, now required to pay a higher minimum wage, to pay the current minimum wage as a temporary training wage for teenagers while they develop the productivity and the quality of performance on which the future of their employment depends. I rise in very strong support of the work opportunity wage for teenagers and the computer professional fix and the tip credit adjustment in the Goodling amendment, because those things are all part of enabling small business to be strong and productive in a very competitive environment, while at the same time we assure to employees a minimum wage that will better meet their needs as full-time employees. As a strong advocate of the minimum wage, I am urging support of the Goodling amendment to pass a work opportunity wage as I strongly supported the tax package yesterday and its work opportunity tax credit, to provide a wage subsidy for new employees needing a lot of training. But I am discouraged by the almost deceptive nature of the debate around the second Goodling amendment to reform the current law exclusion of very small businesses from the minimum wage. That small business exclusion policy is law now. It has been broadly supported by Republicans and Democrats over many years. While I do not quite agree with the fix that is being offered to deal with some of its problems, it is misleading to imply that the small business exemption is controversial. Such exaggerated statements as these that have been made on the floor today, simply mislead rather than enlighten the public and our colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the first Goodling amendment and passage of the minimum wage increase.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to commend the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], for his leadership in this Congress on tax reform. It is unfortunate, in my mind, that the really excellent tax bill that we sent to the President I believe twice, and he vetoed, was talked about in the press only as a bill containing capital gains relief and a $500 credit for families with children, because in that bill were many, many provisions whose goal it was to stimulate growth and create jobs in our economy, providing educational opportunity for our people, work opportunity for women on welfare, and retirement security for many, many women who work at home and many, many people who work for small businesses. So I am very proud to stand here today as a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and recognize my chairman's leadership, because over all the years that this body has legislated tax law it has not cared about small business. In fact, over the years we have built a tax code that rested on the interests of big business in America, thinking that big business was the job creator in our economy. We now know differently, so we have here before us tonight a bill that drives growth in the small business sector; that for the first time will expand expensing for small businesses, allowing them the money to buy the equipment to create the jobs and hire the people to drive our economy forward. This is an economic growth package, because it addresses the tax needs and alleviates the tax burden on the very sector that is creating the most jobs in America and that holds the potential for future strength. It also renews that opportunity for employers to supplement the education of their people; and we know education, quality, expertise, that creates high value-added jobs, high-wage jobs, and an opportunity. Mr. Speaker, in addition, this bill renews the work opportunities tax credit, formerly known as the targeted jobs tax credit, which again will help those people on welfare get jobs. We want women to have the independence and the self-respect of work, and this is one key piece of the policy pyramid that has to be developed to give women that independence and self-respect. In addition, the pension reform section of this bill restores to small business the opportunity to provide their employees the same right to create retirement security as larger businesses have. I commend my chairman on an excellent bill.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise to announce yesterday's introduction of an outstanding bipartisan bicameral bill that will have a tremendous impact on the lives of millions of American families--the Child Support Improvement Act of 1996 (H.R. 3465). My colleague from Connecticut, Barbara Kennelly, as well as Senators Olympia Snowe and Bill Bradley, have joined me as sponsors of this important legislation. The Child Support Improvement Act is not new language; it is the child support title of H.R. 4, the welfare reform bill that has been bogged down in negotiations for over a year. Because we have reached agreements on all aspects of the child support title of the welfare reform bill, we believe it is imperative that we liberate these provisions of the bill so that they are ready to move forward independently if necessary. Let me make this clear--we prefer sending to the President a comprehensive, bipartisan welfare reform bill that includes our child support enforcement provisions. But no matter what happens with welfare reform this year, our goal is to have the child support enforcement provisions signed into law by the time this Congress adjourns. Imagine this--as recently as 8 years ago, just about every State had its child support orders in file cabinets. We approved legislation in 1988 that brought us into the 20th century by requiring computer automation of this information. The bill we introduced yesterday will take us to the next level by linking States to a central Federal databank. At one time a deadbeat parent from Connecticut could find work in California and never have to worry about being tracked down to pay child support. To all deadbeat parents, you are now on notice. Once this bill is enacted, you will not be able to hide. We will find you. We will make you live up to your parental responsibilities of supporting your children.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Pete Geren, has raised a very important issue in regard to adoption in recent weeks. While he is unable to be here tonight, he and I share great concern about current IRS procedures which result in unnecessary financial burdens on adopting families by making it difficult to claim a dependent deduction for Federal income tax purposes for a newly adopted child in a timely manner. It is my understanding that the Internal Revenue Service has assured us, Mr. Geren and I, that it is committed to working with the Committee on Ways and Means and with my oversight subcommittee and with Mr. Geren to develop as soon as possible an administrative solution that minimizes these burdens on adoptive parents while balancing processing and potential compliance considerations. During our markup on H.R. 3286 in the Committee on Ways and Means, Treasury Assistant Secretary Samuels said that both the IRS and Treasury will work with our committee to develop appropriate administrative solutions. I appreciate Mr. Geren's leadership on this matter and the IRS's willingness to give this problem the immediate and serious attention it deserves. I would like to include for the Record a letter sent to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Pete Geren, by the Internal Revenue Service stating their intent to solve this problem and any additional remarks he would like to make thereto. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, May 9, 1996. Congressman Pete Geren, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Geren: Jim Feroli of your office asked me to address the issues you raised regarding the difficulties that some adopting parents face in obtaining a Social Security Number (``SSN'') for their adoptive child and thus timely claiming the dependency exemption on their federal income tax return. I understand that this situation occurs in both foreign and domestic adoptions where the parents satisfy all of the dependency support requirements of section 152 of the Code but the adoption is not yet final. Treasury and the IRS are currently looking into the SSN difficulties faced by such adopting parents. As you may be aware, Treasury Assistant Secretary Samuels told the House Ways and Means Committee last week at the Adoption Credit Bill mark-up that both IRS and Treasury will work with the Committee to develop any appropriate administrative solutions to minimize the burdens on adoptive parents while balancing IRS returns processing and potential compliance considerations. Nonetheless, I thought it would be helpful to explain to you our current understanding of the SSN issue. With regard to foreign adoptions, the Social Security Administration (``SSA'') told me that they will issue an SSN to adopting parents upon receipt of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (``INS'') documentation required to legally bring a foreign child into the United States. If the adopting parents satisfy the support requirements for their adoptive child but the child does not yet qualify for an SSN (e.g., the parents do not have the appropriate INS documentation), the adopting parents will soon be able to obtain an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (``ITIN'') to claim the dependency exemption for the foreign adoptive child. ITINs are a new taxpayer numbering system that the IRS expects to implement by July 1996 for non- resident aliens unable to obtain SSNs. Individuals eligible to receive an SSN may not receive an ITIN. With regard to domestic adoptions, the situation is more complex because an adoptive child may have an SSN as a result of actions taken by the child's birth parents, the state or an adoption agency. We are currently trying to assess when such SSNs are available to the adopting parents and when they are not available because of the privacy concerns of either the birth parents or the adopting parents. We also understand from the SSA that they will issue an SSN for a child to a state or an adoption agency which is acting on behalf of the adopting parents, but we have yet to confirm how often SSNs are issued in such situations. We are thus currently assessing different possibilities to resolve the potential problems adopting parents have in the domestic context, and we will certainly keep you informed of our progress. I hope you find this information helpful. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, John M. Staples, Assistant to the Commissioner. Further, Madam Speaker, I would like to tell a small story. In the fall of 1954, Bertha and Harry Holt, Oregon farmer, attended a missionary conference in which they learned about the plight of Korea's war orphans, especially those that had been fathered by American GI's. The Holts, who already had 6 adolescent and young adult children, were so moved by what they saw and heard that they decided to start sending money to Korea to meet the needs of as many children as they could. Over the months, they felt the tug of the plight of those children and decided to adopt several biracial GI babies. In fact, they decided to adopt not two or three but eight children. At the time immigration law only allowed Americans to adopt two children from overseas. So a special bill was needed. Though Senator Neuberger introduced it promptly, no action was taken by the wee hours of the closing night of that session. All seemed lost, when Senate passage happened. And in the House Representative Green had been promised the bill would be called up for action as soon as it won Senate approval. But that Saturday morning, the clerks could not find the bill and its accompanying report anywhere. Mrs. Green started digging. And with the help of Speaker Sam Rayburn, they dug through the stacks of bills and reports that were flooding in from the Senate and finally, late in the afternoon, she found the bill. And before sundown it was passed and sent to the White House. Several years later, haunted by the memory of the children who had been left behind, the Holts established an orphanage in Korea. From that humble beginning, the great tradition of intercountry adoption was established. As important as the tax credit provided by this bill is the provision related to transracial adoption, Madam Speaker, Harry Holt would be horrified to learn that American children languish in foster care in America today because they are of a different race than waiting parents. Rev. Jesse Jackson asked the critical question about transracial adoption, the question we should ask ours today: What is the color of love? Indeed, Madam Speaker, what is the color of love? I want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning], the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari], and the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce] for their leadership in fashioning this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and appreciation that I rise today to congratulate the members of the Rotary Club of New Britain, CT, as they celebrate their 75th anniversary. It was on April 20, 1921, that Leon Sprague, the Rotary's organizer and charter president, brought into being the first local organization of professional, industrial, and business executives to serve the community. From the very beginning, the members of the Rotary Club of New Britain have committed themselves to their creed, ``service above self,'' by generously providing the community with time, money, and unselfish service in the important fields of education, orphanages, hospitals, civic amenities, and scholarships to needy students. I am so proud of the men and women of the Rotary who work tirelessly to assure that needs of citizens are met. Today, I congratulate the Rotary Club of New Britain on its anniversary and I commend its members on their dedication and lasting contributions.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw].

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentleman from California for his good work. He did contribute to this bill very substantially, and I thank him for his comments today. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to recognize the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], and in so doing I want to recognize his tireless efforts to promote the rights of taxpayers in their dealings with the IRS. He has long been one of this body's most steadfast champions for the Nation's taxpayers, and he deserves much of the credit for provision in this bill relating to burden-of-proof issues, including the provision relating to the award of attorneys fees and costs, which shifts the burden to the IRS to prove that it was justified in bringing its case against the taxpayer. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox].

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, and I thank him for his participation.