Nancy Johnson

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the House already has acted favorably on the contents of H.R. 2337 when it passed the 7-year Balanced Budget Act on October 26, 1995. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights II was part of the Committee on Ways and Means title of H.R. 2491. The freestanding bill which the Committee on Ways and Means approved on March 21, 1996, is substantially the same as the provisions which passed the House last October as part of the 7-year Balanced Budget Act, with only minor technical changes and adjustments to some of the bill's effective dates. Upon the President's veto of that bill, Mr. Speaker, Commissioner Richardson implemented a number of our recommendations by administrative action, and for that I thank her. I commend her as well and appreciate her concern with our point of view by enclosing my remarks in which I expressed great concern for the IRS's use of economic reality audits with the distribution of her guidance to her staff in the use of these extensive audits for the purpose of assuring that people do pay their fair share. I have enjoyed working with Commissioner Richardson and her staff, and my colleague the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui] and I believe that the bill we bring before you today will move us forward in assuring taxpayers' rights in dealing with the IRS, but also will do so in a way that is harmonious with our underlying law and the responsibilities of the IRS. Yesterday was April 15, the deadline for American citizens to file their income tax returns for 1995. Most citizens filed their tax returns, will receive their refunds, and never hear from the IRS again. They are the lucky ones. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights aims to expand the protections for the unlucky taxpayers who become involved in a tax dispute with the IRS. These taxpayers often feel as if they are engaged in a David versus Goliath contest. H.R. 2337 gives taxpayers some important procedural tools in defending themselves in controversies with the Goliath of the IRS. While procedural tax rules may not seem glamorous, they can be extremely important in deciding the outcome of a tax dispute. For example, TV viewers who followed the O.J. Simpson trial last year learned that procedural rules can have a major impact on the outcome of a legal controversy. In a similar way, the procedural tax rule changes and the Taxpayer Bill of Rights II will have a significant effect on the outcome of tax disputes with the IRS. For example, the committee learned of cases where the IRS began auditing a taxpayer's return, and then the IRS employee conducting the audit was transferred to a new division and the return sat for another year or two before the audit was completed. Under current law, the IRS has no authority to abate the interest which ran up during this period. H.R. 2337 addresses this problem by giving the IRS expanded authority to abate interest charges that occur as a result of unreasonable delays caused by the IRS's own process. The bill will also make it easier for taxpayers who win their cases against the IRS in Tax Court to collect attorneys' fees. Under current law, not only does a taxpayer have to prevail on the merits against the IRS to collect attorneys fees, he must also prove that the IRS was not justified in pressing the case against him. H.R. 2337 would switch the burden to the IRS of proving that its position was substantially justified. This is consistent with the judicial principle that the party in control of the facts should bear the burden of proof. Another provision would help taxpayers who enter into installment payment agreements with the IRS. Under current law the IRS does not have to give notice to the taxpayer before it revokes an installment payment plan. This can result in a hardship when the IRS revokes an installment agreement based on faulty information. H.R. 2337 would require the IRS to give 30 days advance notice before it revokes an installment agreement in order to give the affected taxpayer an opportunity to challenge this action. Further, in the extreme cases where the IRS damages the taxpayer because its employees act recklessly in collecting taxes, the bill would raise the ceiling for damage claims by taxpayers against the IRS to $1 million. The current ceiling is $100,000. Finally, for the first time, the experience of the IRS ombudsman as to the most common problems experienced by taxpayers will be relayed directly to the Committee on Ways and Means, without passing through the many layers of administrative filters of the IRS and then the Department of the Treasury. This will enable us here in Congress to respond in a far more timely fashion to the problems, indeed the snares, taxpayers get caught in as they deal with the IRS. That will allow us to deal with the legitimate problems, while assuring that the IRS can collect the legitimately owed taxes. Mr. Speaker, the Nation's taxpayers probably will never enjoy paying taxes, but they should not feel powerless in their dealings with the IRS. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights II will establish many new procedural protections for taxpayers. Like the David in Biblical history, the average taxpayer may be smaller than the rival IRS, but we are giving him some significant weapons with which to defend himself. I support the passage of H.R. 2337, urge my colleagues to do likewise, and I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui], and his able staff, for their work with us on this matter over the last many months. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous remarks on H.R. 2337.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment that my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Matsui], and I and our staff have worked very hard, not only together and with Members and with constituents who have testified, but also with the IRS. These provisions are going to front- load those defenses that taxpayers need so that we should not be getting into the kinds of problems that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] describes. By assuring taxpayers better information, more open communication and better procedures, we believe their rights will be defended long before they get into the level of controversy that has concerned the gentleman, and rightly so. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2337) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for increased taxpayer protections, as amended.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I think it ought to be also in the record that the government of East Timor is a Timoran, well respected by the people of that island, and Indonesia has a way of sharing the benefits of mining and timber throughout the islands of Indonesia. So development money is coming in, and not only are they beginning to deal with the terrible economic problems of this island, but they are beginning also to deal constructively with the human rights issues.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Thank you. I thank my colleague for yielding to me. The President and the members of the Cabinet are the President and the members of the Cabinet for all Americans, and I am privileged to be here tonight to help you celebrate the life of Ron Brown and honor him as our former Secretary of Commerce and recognize the leadership he provided and the quality of the job he did. When I was first elected in 1982, I came here from a district that had been devastated by what we called in those days unfair foreign competition. Some of it was just a very strong dollar combined with an American industry that was not efficient and was not strong. I watched Mac Baldrige try to develop the Commerce Department into a fighting partner with American business in a developing international market. I saw him struggling through, trying to help us see the importance of developing a department of trade. I saw Mac Baldridge and some of his successors build the capability of the Department of Commerce to help American business get into the export market, sell abroad, be present in other markets in the same way foreign producers were present in our market, provide the same challenge in the world market that foreign producers were providing in our market. And that opening of vision that started with Mac Baldridge culminated in some really remarkable successes under the leadership of Secretary Brown. He understood and developed that in a way none of his predecessors had. Each of them made unique and remarkable and very valuable contributions to beginning to look forward to how the American economy could be strong in the decades ahead and serve our children in the same way it served us and our grandparents and our great grandparents. But Ron Brown understood, in a sense, in a more practical vigorous way than any of the rest of us the need for the American Government to back, to partner, to encourage, to lead, to pressure, to force, to incite, to get American business to understand their own power in the international market, the quality of their product, the possibilities for them, and he got right out there with them. He got right out there with them in China at a time when, frankly, the State Department was having a little trouble with China. But he understood if you learn to produce and you learn to trade, if you force ideas, if you award intellectual property, if you reward personal energy, we as a Nation will be OK. We will be economically strong and we will be peaceful. I remember him talking about that connection between prosperity, peace and trade, and in his own way he was as dynamic and as vigorous and as committed an individual as the world has ever produced in support of business, trade, and the economic strength and prosperity that flows from a dynamic business community in an international market. He got out there with big companies and small. He got out there in countries like China. He got out there all over the world. And it is tragic but, in a sense, not surprising that he lost his life taking business into what was a devastated, war-torn area, because that was his idea of giving hope to a people torn, devastated; their goods, their economy, their hearts, their minds destroyed by years and years of war. He understood that the only real bond; that healing would only truly take place when there were jobs, when there was an economy, when there was competitiveness, when there was strength, and that America could not only offer goods but we could offer hope through example. We could offer leadership through guidance.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I would be happy to yield.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. One of the things that I think is wise to remember from the death of a man like Ron Brown is that he was extraordinarily capable in many ways, and one of them was that he was an extraordinary mentor.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I had the privilege to travel recently over the recess, and I ran into some of the young people that had worked with Ron. And it was really interesting to me because you do not see this all the time. Cabinet members are not necessarily either warm and fuzzy or mentors. They are important and they do a great job for America. They serve an important need. But Ron has inspired many young minds, and they are there and they will serve us. And they are both parties. Some of them are lifelong, quote, ``bureaucrats.'' And so he has passed on and was able to pass on a belief and a faith in America, in us as a free people, and in us as a governing democracy, and felt strongly the need for us to be a part of the international community both as an economic force and as a force for democracy. I thought it was so interesting to listen to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton] talk about how he never saw himself as a black man. He saw himself as an American, as a man, as a power, as an individual, and as a proud black citizen. But he never felt anything stood in his way. If he wanted to do it, he had the intellect and resources to do it. And it is that legacy that inspired those he traveled with, that made a difference in the countries he went to. And it is that attitude that he leaves to those whose lives he touched. I thank my colleague for organizing this recognition of former Secretary Ron Brown tonight. It is well deserved, and I appreciate having had the opportunity to join you.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this constitution amendment. The greatest sin against our children is the sin of the deficit, spending more than we are willing to raise in tax revenue. It will impose a paralyzing burden on our children, crippling government in their adulthood, robbing it of the resources necessary to provide even essential services. The deficit is the greatest threat we face. It destroys the lifeblood of economic growth, robbing our neighbors of their jobs and our kids of a strong, vital economy. We must cut the rate of growth in spending. We must reform entitlements to address real, not imagined, need. But if we fail, we must pay for the services we are enjoying. High taxes have finally elected a Republican majority that is finally discipling spending, providing important public services in a more efficient, cost-effective way. That is the real answer. That is the right answer in a democracy, disciplined spending, balancing the budget. I am proud as a Republican that we have had the courage to offer and to pass a balanced budget to cut spending, to wipe out the annual deficit over 7 years, but I leave each generation free to establish that balance between taxing and spending that they believe is in their interest. Democracy is about taking responsibility. Responsibility to identify and serve society's needs, to appropriate and to tax, that is democracy, and I am for it. I oppose this amendment.

Ms. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Ms. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1834.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a bill, for myself, Representative Shays of Connecticut, Representative Franks of New Jersey and Representative Horn of California, to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to require that OSHA inspections of commercial and residential construction sites be conducted by inspectors who have been specifically trained for such work by the Department of Labor. My proposal will require that inspectors of commercial and residential construction meet certain experience and training requirements and be specifically certified to perform construction site inspections. Although many construction inspectors take courses offered by OSHA, they are not required to do so, allowing many to perform this important work with little or no formal training in the often complicated procedures used in the construction industry. Construction site inspections comprise nearly half of all inspections done by OSHA. More seriously, the rate of accidents in the construction industry is significantly higher than in other industries. Based on 1994 Bureau of Labor Statistics data, the rate of nonfatal injuries per 100 full-time workers is 11.8 percent for the construction industry compared to 8.4 percent for all private industry. Total deaths from occupational accidents in 1994 were 6,588 or 5.3 per 100,000 employed, but there were 1,027 deaths or 14.8 per 100,000 in the construction industry. Therefore, I believe that it is not only prudent and sound public policy to make sure that those who do construction site inspections are well qualified, but that this reform is overdue. Under current OSHA rules, OSHA inspectors can go from inspecting beauty salons to inspecting high-rise steel structures on a daily basis. Since most work-related deaths occur in the construction industry, I believe that my proposal will significantly improve the quality of OSHA inspections, the overall effectiveness of OSHA, and save lives. I urge my colleagues to join in support of this important effort to improve the way OSHA construction inspections are performed.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the substitute, not because it is not an admirable bill. In fact, Senators Kassebaum and Kennedy deserve enormous credit for bringing this issue of insurance reform to the top of the agenda of both Houses, but our bill is literally better. My amendment conformed this bill in many of its details to the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill, working with my chairman. Our bill actually adds protection, not in the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill, to assure that genetic information about an individual cannot be used to exclude that person from health coverage. Our bill is far better on portability. It is far more generous in its determination of what is continuous coverage and what is a break in service because it counts, that is gives credit for coverage, time on Medicare, Medicaid, DOD's Tricare, the Indian Health Service, the Federal Employees Health Benefits programs and State risk pools. Furthermore, our bill gives protection that the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill does not give to people covered under individual policies to assure that they can get into a new policy without discrimination if they move outside the service area or if the insurer goes out of business. In many of its details, our bill is simply an improved version, a stronger bill than the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill. In its breadth it is also superior. This Chamber has had before it for 5 years, proposals to allow people to deduct the premiums of long-term-care insurance so that we can get employers providing long-term-care insurance and we can encourage seniors to buy long-term-care insurance so that in the future, seniors will not have to spend down to poverty, spend every cent they worked for and were able to save, to cover the costs of nursing home care. That kind of public-private partnership is imperative to providing security and dignity to our seniors in their retirement years. This is the only bill that has ever brought those long-term-care provisions to the floor of the House in a form in which the President would sign the bill. Furthermore, this bill will allow deduction of long-term home care costs. Think for how many seniors that is terribly important. For many, it will probably wipe out their entire tax liability. So this bill is a thoughtful broadening, an inclusion of a number of terribly important health policy solutions that this House at other times has supported, that are not that controversial, that the President will clearly sign, and ought to be part of a health care reform--and part of this Congress' accomplishments. So do not yield to the siren song of all we can pass is Kennedy- Kassebaum. It is simply far too little. It is too narrow a vision. It does not answer the needs of the American people.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, the chairman of the committee, for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, this is a great day or night for Americans. Health security is important to every man, woman, and child. Tonight we take a giant step toward guaranteeing coverage, in spite of preexisting conditions, protecting millions of Americans and their families. I introduced the first insurance reform bill, and in fact, with our former colleague Rod Chandler, introduced the first legislation to enable small businesses to group together to provide lower cost insurance for businesses. Tonight we bring a lot of that thinking, 5 years old, to fruition, and for the first time, we are going to put on the President's desk a reform bill that will really directly affect the lives of our constituents and create for them the opportunity to move from job to job, developing their careers, without fear of losing health coverage for their spouse and children. Twenty-five million workers and dependents are affected by changes in employment every single year; 3.6 million will face job lock. That is 3.6 million workers, but all of their dependents as well. They are the people whose fears will be allayed by tonight's legislation. One hundred and thirty-eight million workers and their dependents are covered by employer plans, and any one of them at any time could need what we do here tonight. This is, indeed, a giant step toward health security for all working Americans. Underneath that bill, included in it, is the accomplishment of other goals that we have long aspired to. For 5 years we have tried to spread long-term care insurance to protect seniors against the cost of nursing home care, without forcing them to spend down to poverty. This is a remarkable piece of legislation. It is long overdue. It represents the culmination of solid study over 5 years. Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members' support.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado for yielding me time. If your daughter and son-in-law were faced with the extraordinary tragedy of discovering extreme fetal deformity late in pregnancy or a life threatening development with abortion being the only alternative, would you, would you, each individual Member of this body, want her to have available to her the procedure that was the least threatening to her life and the most protective of her future reproductive capability and the most respectful of the need for the parents to be and their living children to mourn their tragic loss? Consider the experience of Coreen Costello. Mrs. Costello and her husband hold strong pro-life views, but were suddenly faced with the terrible and painful truth of the problems with her pregnancy. Specialists had determined that the baby had a lethal neurological disorder. Doctors at Cedars-Sinai told the Costellos that their daughter would not live, and due to the amniotic fluid pooling in Mrs. Costello's uterus, as well as the baby's position, there was a serious risk of a ruptured uterus. Natural birth or an induced labor were impossible. Coreen Costello then considered a caesarean section, but the doctors at her hospital were adamant that the risk to her health and life were simply too great. She and her husband chose not to risk leaving their other children motherless by opting for a D&E procedure. Because of the safety of the procedure, Coreen is now pregnant again. What right have we here in Congress on this floor to say to this family that you should have risked mom's life and ignored your doctor's advice? By what authority do we tell these women that we know more in each of their cases than their own physicians? It is ironic that some of you here are advocating legislation that would assure that managed care plans guaranteed physicians the right to tell women all the medical possibilities for treatment, and yet you will legislate here tonight the denial to women of America who face terribly tragic, painful, personal circumstances of the right to have the medical procedure that in truth is safest for them and most protective of their reproductive capability, assures them to the maximum extent possible that they will have more children in their future. Men of the House of Representatives, women who are Members of Congress, if it were your daughter, would you not want her life and reproductive hopes and dreams protected? Of course you would. Do not do this shortsighted, mean-spirited, terrible thing to women in our Nation.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

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

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I want to share with my colleagues a letter addressed to the Members of the House of Representatives written in May 1994: We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. I will not read the rest of the letter, but those are the two opening sentences of a letter signed by former Republican President Gerald Ford, former Democratic President Jimmy Carter, former Republican President Ronald Reagan. This is not radical stuff. The letter goes on to refer to the 1989 import ban that resulted in an impressive 40- percent drop in the imported assault weapons, passed, administratively by President Bush, Republican President Bush. That import ban is mirrored in this ban on assault weapons. All this does is to prevent the domestic manufacture of the very same weapons a Republican President prevented the import of. Logical, simple, fair. That is why the American people support it. The second amendment was not drawn with modern weapons in mind. And as the development of modern communications technology has required us to modernize the communications law, so the development of modern weaponry available on our markets has required us to modernize first our import policy and then our domestic law.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I first want to commend my colleagues for the attention they have brought to Women's History Month. Their hearings, seminars, and legislative measures have focused much needed attention on women--their health, their reproductive rights and the need for gender equity in class and on the courts. I am pleased to be a part of tonight's activity saluting extraordinary women from our districts and from around the world. I rise today to salute Connecticut's Katharine Houghton Hepburn, one of the earliest advocates for gender equity in education and reproductive rights for women. Her name may sound familiar for other reasons as she was the mother of actress Katharine Hepburn. But not enough is known about her own achievements. Orphaned at 14, it's been said that her mother's dying words to her were ``get an education''-- and she did, entering Bryn Mawr's Class of 1899 at the age of 16. She obtained degrees in chemistry and physics--precisely because those were the subjects she most dreaded, and later earned a master's degree in art history from Radcliffe. After college, Katharine Houghton married a prominent Connecticut doctor and became a determined suffragist and an outspoken birth control advocate. Her opposition was formidable. Connecticut State obscenity laws at the time made it illegal to mail any information on birth control and it was even a crime for doctors to distribute birth control information or tell anyone where it might be obtained. In a 1941 interview, Houghton said that when she confronted Connecticut State Legislators with the birth control issue, they were embarrassed and terrified. ``They nudged each other like schoolboys,'' she said, ``but after ten years of it, they got used to us.'' And one can only imagine what her neighbors of upscale Fenwick, CT, thought of her views. Houghton once said that they were worried her campaign to make birth control available for all women would only lead to their corruption. She responded by saying: We are not trying to produce immorality * * * we are trying to explain the use of human intelligence to control human nature. At the same time, her work on behalf of the suffragist movement continued. And in 1920, right after the 36th State gave women the right to vote, Connecticut Democrats approached Houghton and asked her to run for the U.S. Senate. Connecticut had not yet ratified the 19th amendment, though, so she continued with the task at hand. As her daughter's fame grew, so did her own and in 1933, she led a procession of women up to Capitol Hill to push for a bill that would have permitted physicians to distribute birth control information. Among the marchers--Margaret Sanger and Amelia Earhart. Houghton worried that her activities would harm her daughter's burgeoning acting career. But Katharine Hepburn strongly supported her mother's work. ``I detest the newspaper's reference to her as Katharine Hepburn's mother,'' she said, ``My mother is important. I am not.'' Let's all remember Katharine Houghton's importance today. She fought for women when the country, her State, and even her own neighborhood, were opposed to her causes. But she continued on for decades for most of her life--inspiring women and creating an America that would make good on her promise of equal opportunity and equal justice for all. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield now to my friend and colleague from North Carolina [Mrs. Eva Clayton].

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Chrysler-Berman amendment. The case has not been made for reform of our legal immigration system. The backlog is the result of the past immigration reform effort and will be taken care of by the system. Any abuse of the welfare system by legal aliens will be taken care of by the strengthening of the sponsors obligations in this bill and the provision in the welfare reform bill. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Chrysler-Berman amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote likewise. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hard work and leadership of my colleague from Texas, Lamar Smith, and strongly support the provisions in the bill that would stem the flow of illegal aliens that now impose unfair financial burdens on many States. Increasing the number of border patrol agents, improving border barriers, and cracking down on document fraud are all forceful steps in the right direction. In addition, limiting the number of public benefits available to illegal aliens--while still allowing emergency medical care and school lunches for children--should help States reduce the now truly overwhelming costs of providing public benefits for illegal aliens. But while I agree that illegal immigration is a problem that must be addressed by Congress, I am not convinced that our legal immigration program needs reform, and I am concerned that our hard working legal immigrants have been unfairly criticized during debate on this issue. Most immigrants come to this country in search of a better life for themselves and their families, not to receive a welfare check. The strong work ethic of immigrants has fueled American economic strength throughout our history and will continue to do so. These immigrants deeply cherish the freedoms and opportunities of their adopted country, having left behind family, friends, and the familiarity of their native land to come here. H.R. 2202 would significantly restrict the admission of parents of U.S. citizens, admit only a small number of adult children, and eliminate the current preference categories for adult children and brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens. Some say we need to do this because immigrants are more prone to use welfare benefits. Though there are areas of concern, particularly in regard to the elderly immigrant and the refugee populations, welfare use among working age immigrants is about the same as in the nonimmigrant population. It's especially illogical to reduce legal immigration on the grounds of welfare use, when other parts of the bill will address the matter by strengthening the obligation of sponsors to support immigrants and when our welfare reform bill will reduce access to benefits by limiting the eligibility for benefits of legal aliens and illegal immigrants. You will also hear supporters of restricting legal immigration say that people enter the country legally with tourist and student visas and then overstay them. This is true and a legitimate problem--however, it has nothing to do with our family based immigration system. Those who overstay their visas are nonimmigrants, not family sponsored immigrants. Do we punish family members overseas who are patiently waiting to enter the country through legal methods because this country is not able to adequately track temporary visitors and students who have overstayed their time here? Of course we shouldn't. The provision that pilots a new tracking program to make sure that visitors return to their country of origin is far more appropriate. Finally, you will hear that we must limit legal immigration in order to reduce the backlog of family-sponsored immigrants now waiting to enter this country. This backlog does exist and does need to be addressed but we do not need to eliminate the visas for the adult children and siblings of U.S. citizens in order to do so. The backlog is due to our one-time Amnesty Program in the 1980's overtime is will be cleared. We do not have to give out extra visas in the name of backlog reduction at the expense of the family-sponsored immigrants now on the waiting lists. These are people who have chosen to wait patiently for years in order to come to America through the proper and legal methods. Do we punish them by denying them admittance when their perseverance and values prove that they are just the kind of people who would thrive given the opportunities America has to offer? I met with legal immigrants in my district who have been the best citizens a country could hope for--bright, hard working, and raising children who will continue in their footsteps. It pains and angers them to know that legal immigrants like themselves might not be able to reunite their families, see their siblings, their parents, or their adult children as their neighbors. Finally, I want to acknowledge a teach in Connecticut named Jean Hill who was recognized in the 1995 Connecticut Celebration of Excellence Program for a lesson she taught in her elementary school class. It's a lesson from which we all could learn. Titled ``We Came To America, Too'' foreign students study the Pilgrim's voyage to America and then compare that experience to their own voyage to the United States and Connecticut. They learn that they are no different from our Nation's first immigrants--immigrants who went on to create the country we know today. We are a nation of immigrants, each with the potential to make this country a better place. So I ask my colleagues, when you find yourself swept up in the tide of antilegal immigration fervor this week--stop--remember your own heritage--and that we came to America, too.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to urge support for legislation that I have introduced, the Graphic Postcard Act of 1996. My bill, formulated after postcards showing a dismembered fetus were sent unsolicited to a number of towns in Connecticut, requires that material depicting violent or sexually explicit acts sent through the U.S. Postal Service be enclosed in an envelope emblazoned with a large print warning. It is not unusual for parents to allow small children to open the mailbox and examine the contents. Bills, letters, and most advertisements pose no threat to young children. Sexually explicit material is already required to be covered when sent through the mail. The right to free speech is one we all cherish. This legislation will not interfere with free speech; it does not prohibit graphic materials to be mailed, but instead places a simple requirement on their mailing in order to protect children. Like it or not, those responsible for these postcards have every legal right to use the U.S. mail to express their viewpoints. However, I believe that parents have an equal right to protect their children from graphic presentations of frightening or violent actions. Requiring an envelope and warning does not infringe on the sender's freedom of speech, it simply guarantees protection for our Nation's children. This is rational action to stop potentially dangerous behavior. Hundreds of my constituents have called or written to let me know they were outraged by these postcards. The level of violence in our society has reached an unprecedented level and is eroding the values that have made us a strong society. We have a special obligation to protect young hands and eyes from unsuitable material, and this is step one. I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Graphic Postcard Act of 1996.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, my Ways and Means colleague, Bob Matsui, and I today have introduced a bill to extend the lives of several important tax provisions that expired last year. We have done this to encourage support for prompt consideration and expeditious enactment of tax provisions affecting research and development, orphan drugs, and employer-provided educational expenses, among others. If tax payers are to meet their obligations by April 15, it is imperative that we act quickly to reinstate these effective programs. Extension of the so-called expiring provisions was included in the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, legislation that was vetoed for reasons unrelated to these specific tax items. We believe that these targeted tax provisions serve a critical role in enhancing economic growth and long-term job creation. Just as importantly, various loophole closers were identified in the Balanced Budget Act to pay for these extensions. In addition to the narrow tax credits for R&D, orphan drug research, nonconventional fuels research, and work opportunities for disadvantaged citizens, we call attention to the importance of continued favorable tax treatment for employer-provided educational expenses. This popular, low-cost inducement for working people to enhance their educational credentials and move up the economic ladder has now been moribund since December 31, 1994, causing many program beneficiaries considerable inconvenience as tax time approaches. The measure also restores reasonable incentives for taxpayers to make gifts of publicly traded stock to charitable institutions, a particularly worthwhile mechanism at a time of great need for charitable giving. The bill also extends section 120 benefits regarding group legal services and makes permanent the FUTA exemption for alien agricultural workers. The importance of these expired tax provisions to various segments of taxpayers--from folks suffering from rare diseases to landfill owners wishing to create clean-burning energy from their property--cannot be understated and we urge our colleagues to give them the priority they deserve.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and admiration that I rise to pay tribute to the work being done by RoseAnne Bilodeau and her staff at the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program of New Britain. There is no question that the dramatic increase in the incidence of teen pregnancy is one of the major causes of poverty amongst women and children. As the director of New Britain's program, Ms. Bilodeau was invited to join President Clinton and Health and Human Services Secretary, Donna Shalala to discuss the President's task force on teen pregnancy prevention and the establishment of public-private partnerships. The work being done by the dedicated staff of New Britain's Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program is exceptional and even in these uncertain times, the program is thriving. The staff and board have demonstrated forward thinking in reaching out to private industry and foundations for funding and in doing so, has captured national recognition and the attention of the President of the United States. I am proud to have such a noteworthy and successful program within my district and will continued to work in support of their efforts to make a positive long term impact on the lives of New Britain's young people.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, it is with pride and great respect that I rise to recognize the retirement of Capt. Patrick L. Higgins from the Thompsonville fire district in Enfield, CT, after 30 years of unparalleled and dedicated service. Throughout his exceptional career he has been active in his community, not only through his role in public safety, but also with his membership in such organizations as the VFW. In 1969, early in his career with the fire department, Captain Higgins traveled to Wisconsin to pick up and deliver Thompsonville's first firefighting foam unit. Later, although not known for being foam unit specialists, Captain Higgins led his department to victory in competitions at Westover Air Force Base, defeating the renowned Westover department in foam unit firefighting. Captain Higgins was born and raised in Thompsonville and is married, with two children. Today we pay tribute to his years of valiant service and outstanding contributions and wish him well in all his future endeavors.