Nancy Johnson

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out for the Record that no speaker has pointed to any benefit cuts. In fact, our bill guarantees all Medicare benefits, for future retirees as well as for current retirees, an increase of spending per retiree of $2,000 over the 7 years, which is just as much as we increased spending over the last 7 years. Thus, absolutely guaranteeing the benefits will be there for America's seniors.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut. Both Sam and I served in the Connecticut State Legislature when Jim was Speaker of the House of Representatives. While Sam served directly under him, I felt his influence in the upper chamber. Jim Kennelly was probably as brilliant a legislative mind as any State has enjoyed. But not only was he a fine legislator, he was an extremely able politician in the best sense of that word. He really did listen to the concerns of people from different parts of the State with different difficulties, different problems, and, kind of in the tradition of Tip O'Neill, he led in the best sense of that word. The gift that the gave to Connecticut during his years of political involvement, though naturally we did not all agree, was a gift that every single citizen enjoyed with or without their direct knowledge. As we join on the floor here tonight to remember Jim Kennelly, I would like to comment on my heartfelt sympathy for Barbara, his extremely able wife and our colleague, for she has served Jim and her family, this Congress and her constituency and our Nation with extraordinary ability. They were a close couple, a strong family, the best kind of model both of public servants and capable leaders that America is capable of producing. I join you in paying tribute to Jim Kennelly, an outstanding political leader and a special person in the hearts of every Member of the Connecticut constituency.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2. This legislation will help safeguard the rights of taxpayers in dealing with the Internal Revenue Service [IRS]. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights does not involve the substantive provisions in the Internal Revenue Code which determine a person's tax liability. The subject matter does not involve capital gains or depreciation rules. The nature of the subject matter involves the procedural rules and IRS operational practices which apply during the examination of tax returns and the collection process. Many times these rules and practices can have as much importance to the taxpayers as the substantive provision in the tax law from which their liability arises. The original Taxpayer Bill of Rights was enacted as part of the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988. While this action was helpful, there was a general consensus that more could be done to protect the rights of taxpayers. The Subcommittee on Oversight sought to develop a Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2 during the 102d Congress. It developed a package of recommendations for taxpayer safeguards which eventually was introduced as H.R. 3838 in November 1991. A Taxpayer Bill of Rights section, based on H.R. 3838, was included in H.R. 11 the Revenue Act of 1992, which was vetoed by former President Bush. The Subcommittee on Oversight held a hearing on March 24, 1995, to investigate what additional taxpayer safeguards were appropriate in order to provide citizens more evenhanded treatment in their dealings with the IRS. In addition, the subcommittee staff reviewed numerous communications from taxpayers which described their experiences with the IRS and reinforced the position that a Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2 was needed. The subcommittee's recommendations are a combination of many of the provisions which were developed in the 102d Congress, as well as a number of new initiatives. The bill that Representative Matsui and I are introducing today reflects the narrative recommendations which the Subcommittee on Oversight unanimously approved on September 12, 1995. For example, the bill would make it easier for taxpayers who win their cases against the IRS in Tax Court to collect attorney's fees. Under current law, not only does a taxpayer have to prevail against the IRS to collect attorney fees, but she must also prove that the IRS was not substantially justified in pressing its case against her. The bill shifts the burden to the IRS of proving that its position was justified. This is consistent with the judicial principal that the party in control of the facts should bear the burden of proof. Who knows better than the IRS why it pressed its case against the taxpayer? Another major area is the treatment of separated or divorced taxpayers. Under current law, married couples who file a joint return are each fully responsible for the accuracy of the return and for the full tax liability, even though one spouse may have earned the income which is shown on the tax return. This is known as joint and several liability. Spouses who wish to avoid this joint and several liability feature may file as a married person filing separately. The subcommittee learned of many instances where divorced taxpayers who had previously signed a joint tax return during their marriage were treated harshly when the IRS later disputed the accuracy of their joint tax return. In many cases the IRS tried to collect the entire amount of taxes from the wife, even though the omitted income or erroneous deductions which caused the deficiency were attributable solely to her former husband. All too often, the woman, being pursued for payment of taxes due, was not aware that a tax return filed during the marriage had been audited or that a deficiency had been imposed on the return. In an era where almost 50 percent of marriages end in divorce, this problem is contributing to the growing perception that the tax system is unfair. The time has come to reexamine the joint and several standard of liability and consider replacing it with a proportionate liability standard, where each spouse would be responsible for the taxes on that portion of the income which he or she earned. However, replacing the current standard would be changing over 60 years of established practice and so the subcommittee concluded that it did not have information about all the ramifications of such a change to include it in the bill. What the bill does do is direct the Department of the Treasury and the General Accounting Office to conduct detailed studies examining possible changes to the joint and several liability standard in order to better protect the rights of separated or divorced couples. These studies are due within 6 months and I believe they could be a prelude to further legislative action in the 104th Congress. A brief sample of the bill's other features includes: First, allowing taxpayers who have been the victim of reckless collection actions by the IRS, to sue the IRS for up to $1 million in damages, up from the current ceiling of $100,000; second, giving the IRS the authority to withdraw tax liens and return seized property when it would be in the best interest of the taxpayer and the Government; third, creating a civil cause of action for damages for taxpayers who have been harmed by fraudulent information returns; and fourth, requiring the IRS to send out annual reminders to taxpayers with outstanding tax obligations. This will alert taxpayers that the IRS has not forgotten an old tax liability. Mr. Speaker, the public may never be thrilled about the fact that they must pay taxes to the Government. But the Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2 should at least give them more leverage and ammunition in dealing with the IRS.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the more than 200 corporations that donated planes, pilots, and funding for the purpose of flying Special Olympians to and from the World Games in New Haven, CT on June 30, and July 10, 1995 respectively. This airlift, properly known as the Cessna Citation Special Olympics Airlift, was the largest peacetime airlift in history. During the airlift period, which spanned almost 2 days, more than 400 pilots flew 1,500 athletes in and out of Bradley International Airport. The planning and preparation for these pilots, the ground crew at Bradley International, and the Special Olympics travel coordination team was truly remarkable. In fact, during the airlift, each citation arrived and departed Bradley International within a 10-hour window; that's 600 minutes! With 215 citations involved, a take-off or landing occurred every 90 seconds. All of this took place with normal Bradley air traffic in progress. Despite obstacles such as stormy weather over Pennsylvania and New York, speed regulations that restricted airlift arrivals to specific time slots, and, in some cases, picking up Olympians on airstrips that were closed because of recent flooding, each citation aircraft made it safely to and from the world games. This is truly a remarkable accomplishment and one in which all who were involved should be proud. The corporations and all who participated in this endeavor have given a memorable gift to the athletes, their coaches, and families. I feel privileged to have witnessed this historic undertaking, and I extend my heartfelt appreciation to the corporations, their pilots, and all who were willing to volunteer their time, energy, and funding to the world games and the spirit it represents.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, we are all interested in lowering our national debt and eliminating the Nation's deficit. Appropriations Committee members and staff have worked hard on this legislation and I thank them for their effort. Achieving the goal of balancing the budget will mean we must make tough choices in the weeks, months, and years ahead. There are provisions in this bill that I do not like. In education, it is shortsighted to cut 55 percent of the funding from the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Program, Title I, and bilingual education. I oppose eliminating the LIHEAP Program, and strongly oppose the reduction in job training at this time of dramatic and rapid changes in policies. There are cuts in the Older Americans Act that I believe are equally unwise and harmful, and finally provisions that belong in authorizing legislation, where issues can be considered in hearings and Members can have ample time to review information and have consistent discussions before voting on changes in policy. At this time, my anguish over the terrible consequences of $200 billion deficits on average for the next 10 years overrides my concern that certain programs have been cut too drastically in this bill. To balance our revenues and obligations by 2002 or shortly thereafter, cuts in every sector of Federal spending will have to be made, but pace, balance, and fairness are necessary. As you all well know, the Federal budget process is terribly cumbersome and this legislation has a long way to go in the legislative process. As it moves through the Senate and Conference Committee, I am confident that many of the bill's shortcomings will be addressed and I look forward to supporting the conference report next month. In regard to compensation for essential cuts, our children will inherit a diminished national debt and a fiscally strong nation, capable of funding strong essential services and creating good paying jobs.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that as one who probably would not be here today if I had not had the opportunity to participate in a very competitive women's sports program, I am pleased that we are all united on the value of title IX. We would not have the women in basketball, women excelling at the Olympics, women tennis players of the excellence and caliber, women drivers, women excelling in all of the sports, without title IX, and I commend my friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert], and the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], for their commitment to title IX and making sure it works well for women throughout America in the course of our discussions about this amendment. It is very important that the Federal Government be able to work with institutions so that competitive sports is a strong, healthy part of the lives of all Americans, and I believe it is critical that together we assure that not only are these regulations completed on time but they are completed in a way that the universities and colleges of America can comply with them readily, and we can all assure that progress is made toward equal opportunity for sports, to participate in competitive sports in the decades ahead for all of our kids. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for his work on this important issue.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, the current language reads that the Office of Civil Rights of the Department of Education must have updated policy guidance, including objective criteria clarifying how colleges and universities can demonstrate, first, a history and continuing practice of program expansion; and, second, full and effective accommodation of the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex. I believe the word ``objective'' can, ironically, be a subjective standard. It is my fear that parties who oppose title IX, or schools that simply do not wish to comply, could take the policy guidance developed, by OCR, to court over whether or not the criteria developed are truly objective. If such a court case was pending, Mr. Chairman, it is entirely possible that funding for OCR's enforcement of all civil rights laws would be in jeopardy. This is absolutely ludicrous and far from the gentleman's intent and far from anyone's intent in proposing the language in the bill. My concern is alleviated by the substitute amendment we offer today, which replaces objective criteria with specific criteria. This language still ensures OCR must provide more guidance to schools by December 31, 1995. However, it is hard to argue in court that criteria are not specific. Therefore, I do not believe the same threat of a loss of funds for civil rights enforcement due to court cases exists with this language.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to join my colleague from Iowa in support of the Ganske-Johnson amendment. This amendment preserves the traditional process of allowing private accrediting boards to set their standards free from Congressional interference. Let us understand clearly the implications of the underlying bill. It sets the precedent for congressional meddling in accrediting standards for the training of doctors now, but potentially lawyers, teachers, accountants, or any other privately accredited profession in the future. It is ludicrous to presume that Congress is capable of judging and amending the standards set by bodies such as the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, (a professional accrediting board comprised of the American Medical Association, American Association of Medical Colleges, and several others). This body has traditionally determined the standards to which physicians and medical schools must adhere. They revise their accrediting standards on a regular basis, in order to take into account changes in the world around them, and their decisions have been universally respected. Never has Congress sought to intervene! Let me be clear. This amendment is about standard-setting and who should establish professional standards. Are we prepared to judge that inducing an abortion is not medically different from managing a spontaneous abortion (also known as miscarriage) in which some dilation has naturally occurred, and some contraction of the uterus has thickened its walls? Do we want to rule here today that there is no greater danger of perforating a uterus when no contractions have occurred than when contractions have occurred? Do you want a physician who lacks the knowledge of what to expect, and therefore how to react? As a woman, I don't want you judging this. I want the experts setting these standards. The fact that the physicians in this House disagree on the ACGME policy underscores the importance of keeping this issue out of the political arena. I urge my colleagues to keep government where it belongs, outside the process by which America has always set high standards for its medical training institutions. Vote ``yes'' on the Ganske-Johnson amendment.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lowey-Morella-Kolbe amendment to strike the language that would make Medicaid coverage of abortions for poor women who are the victims of rape or incest a state option. The Hyde amendment supported women who are victims of rape and incest. Rape and incest are not about abortion. They are about violence. They are about brutality. They leave life-long scars--fear, anger, inability to love and trust. In the Crime Bill, Republicans sponsored and protected funds and programming to prevent and punish violence against women. How can we now lay aside compassion? Think. Rape is someone grabbing you, assaulting you, overwhelming you with fear for your life and then violating you in the most deeply personal and destructive way. Please, leave to the victim the decision as to whether to carry or not to carry any possible product of such violent, vicious and terrible act as that of rape. Trust America's women. They will choose wisely and in harmony with their consciences. What more could we ask in a society that prizes personal freedom and responsibility? The American people are not divided on this issue. They agree that women who are victims of rape and incest should have choice. That is all, choice. I am proud to represent the voice of victimized women, in their search for their rights, your respect, and the compassion of a society unable to defend them. Please support the Lowey-Morella-Kolbe amendment.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Greenwood amendment and in strong opposition to the Smith amendment. Mr. Chairman, do not be deceived. The Smith amendment is not an innocent block grant proposal. It cuts Federal support for women's health services and pregnancy prevention by two-thirds. In just the maternal and child health block grant section, it cuts funding from $116 million to $34 million as a result of the mandatory set-asides in that program. The Smith amendment cuts the money and cuts access to health care services for uninsured low-income women. It eliminates services in 25 counties nationwide. In my district I have not one community health center and all that maternal child health money goes to the five big cities. In Connecticut 30 percent of all women now receiving pap smears, routine health services, and yes, pregnancy prevention services, will no longer have access to them. Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to the Smith amendment and support for the Greenwood amendment.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing today a bill to extend a tax credit in section 29 of the Internal Revenue Code for producing gas from biomass or synthetic fuels from coal. The credit expires at the end of next year. My bill would extend it for another 4 years through the year 2000. This tax credit was originally enacted in 1980 in the aftermath of the oil embargo as an inducement for Americans to look for fuel in unusual places. The country had just gone through oil shortages, long lines at gasoline stations, spiralling inflation, and record-high interest rates driven by the increase in energy prices, followed by a deep recession. We were determined not be be held hostage again. To this end, Congress enacted a series of measures intended to use what fuel we have more efficiently and to give business incentives to tap sunlight, wind, geothermal fluid, biomass, and similar resources for fuel. The section 29 tax credit was part of the strategy. It was a credit of $3 for the equivalent of each barrel of oil in energy content produced from a list of unconventional fuels. The list included gas from Devonian shale, tight sand formations, coal seams, geopressured brine and biomass, and synethetic fuels from coal. None of these fuels could be economically produced without the credit. Congress provided for a phaseout of the credit if oil prices ever reached high enough levels again so that the market would produce them on its own. Both the amount of the credit and the phaseout prices are adjusted each year for inflation. The credit was originally scheduled to expire in 1989. It has been extended three times. The last time--in 1992--Congress drastically cut back the list of fuels that qualify to only two: gas from biomass and synthetic fuel from coal. An example of gas from biomass is methane produced by decomposing garbage at landfills. To a degree, the logic for continuing the credit shifted by 1992. In the case of landfill gas, the credit produced important environmental benefits by collecting a dangerous greenhouse gas that might otherwise be released into the atmosphere. This was on top of tapping a potentially useful fuel that was otherwise going to waste. In the case of synthetic fuels from coal, the country has tremendous coal reserves, but coal can be a dirty fuel and there was a desire to continue efforts to develop coal-based fuels as an alternative to burning straight coal. Why extend the credit again? My main interest is in seeing an incentive remain on the books to tap methane gas at landfills. We still are not doing enough in this area. Methane gas at landfills is a serious health and safety hazard. It must find an outlet or it can explode. During the 1980's, there were more than two dozen life-threatening explosions and at least three deaths at U.S. landfills. There are two possible outlets for landfill gases. Gas can migrate underground to adjoining properties, where it can kill or stunt vegetation by displacing oxygen from the ground. Alternatively, it can escape into the atmosphere. Contaminants in the gas contribute to air pollution and mix with sunlight to create smog. Landfill operators control the gas either by installing so-called passive systems, like trenches, barriers and vents to prevent gas from migrating underground and to give it an outlet into the atmosphere, or by installing so-called active systems where the gas is pumped to the surface and either flared, vented, or collected for use as a fuel. Use as fuel is still rare. There are approximately 6,000 landfills in the United States. At the end of 1990, gas was geing collected for fuel at just 97. In 1995, the figure is still only 143. Last year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency created a special Landfill Methane Outreach Program in an effort to encourage more collection of landfill gas for use as fuel. Methane is a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming. It is the second largest contributor to global warming after carbon dioxide, and landfills are the single largest source of methane emissions, accounting for more than a third of total methane. Greenhouse gases are expected to increase by 14.5 percent during the 1990's. The Clinton administration committed in April 1993 to hold greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels. The Landfill Methane Outreach Program is an effort to avert this increase. EPA is preparing a report to Congress on barriers to landfill gas projects, it has set up a hotline to cut through redtape, and it is in the process of signing cooperative agreements with States and utilities to encourage more landfill gas production. Air pollution officials--not just at EPA but also at the State and local levels--are eager to see the tax credit extended. The credit is just starting to have an effect at landfills. Most landfill owners have only recently become aware of it, and the pace of landfill gas development is increasing noticeably. It took almost 15 years to get the word out. There was almost a 50-percent increase in landfill gas projects in the last 5 years. The credit needs more time to reach its potential. EPA estimates that approximately 750 of the 6,000 landfills in the United States are candidates for landfill gas production. The experts believe it will not happen without the credit. My bill would do four things. First, it would extend the credit. The credit is currently scheduled to expire for projects placed in service after December 1996. Under the bill, this deadline would be pushed back 4 years through the year 2000. Second, it would push back the so-called expiration date for the credit by a commensurate number of years. Under current law, landfill gas projects must be in service by next year, but if they meet this deadline, then they qualify for tax credits on the gas produced through the current expiration date, 2007. My bill would push back the expiration date by 4 years through 2011. Third, my bill would eliminate a complication concerning expiration dates. There are two different expiration dates in the statute currently. The credit expires for pre-1993 projects in 2002. It expires for more recent projects in 2007. My bill would collapse these dates into a single expiration date of 2011 for all projects. There is a misconception that having made an investment to get a landfill gas project off the ground, the developer will continue producing gas after the credit expires. Many projects will not. Landfill gas production is not economic at most sites without the credit. Production will case, notwithstanding the capital investment the developer made to get the project going initially, because he cannot afford to operate at a loss. In addition, there are continuing capital costs that must be made to keep a project operating. Landfills expand. Garbage shifts underground. Pipes that have been put underground to collect the gas break or bend and new ones must be installed. Finally, my bill would make a technical change in section 29 that, at a 1994 House Ways and Means Committee hearing, the Treasury Department said it does not oppose. To qualify for section 29 tax credits today, the person producing the gas must sell it to an unrelated party. The reason for this requirement is obscure. Most landfill gas is used to generate electricity for sale to the local utility. Landfill gas projects are structured currently so that ownership of the gas collection equipment is in different hands than the electric generating equipment. It would be simpler if the producer of the gas could use it himself to generate the electricity. My bill would allow him to do just that. The bill would treat the unrelated-party sale requirement as having been met in cases where the producer uses the gas to generate electricity which is sold to an unrelated party. The Ways and Means Oversight subcommittee, which I chair, held a hearing on May 9, 1995, about whether to extend certain expiring tax benefits, including the section 29 credit. I look forward to extending the credit later this year before work on new landfill gas projects [[Page E 1564]] grinds to a halt because developers are worried there is not enough time to get them into service.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I submit my remarks in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and in support of the space station.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, achievements in space set the United States apart from other nations with greater distinction than any other endeavor. Indeed, our space program has become the very symbol of American ingenuity, daring, and innovation. It has been more than three decades since Americans walked on the Moon, and no other nation today is even remotely close to duplicating that feat. The space station will be a symbol of U.S. international leadership and preeminence in space science. It brings together many nations to work on this single project, who have, to date, invested billions of dollars. Russia, Canada, the European Space Agency--whose participation includes 9 of its 15 member nations, and Japan are all contributing partners. I would not argue that our agreements with these international partners are, in and of themselves, a compelling reason to proceed with the program. I would, however, emphasize that this is an unprecedented level of international cooperation, undertaken at our initiative, and its abandonment would say nothing positive about our willingness to live up to our commitments. A decision to terminate the space station program will likely put a period at the end of this Nation's manned space program--there will be nowhere else to go, and we will have missed our one opportunity to impel mankind toward a better future. If we continue to move forward, however, we will keep alive our Nation's hope for a better, greater future. Yes, we have social and economic problems all around us. But the problems of the future will surely be worse. For our children and grandchildren, and subsequent generations of Americans to prosper, they will require new ideas, new knowledge, new technology, new products, new jobs, and new worlds to conquer. Your vote for space station is a vote for a stronger America and a better world.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Iowa, for this opportunity to address the House on what I think is a very, very important issue. I rise in strong support of the Hoyer amendment. Mr. Chairman, this is not about abortion, this is about equality. This is about personal responsibility. I am a Republican because I believe in personal responsibility. I believe in choice in health benefits, choice in education, work, responsibility. This is not like the Medicaid issue, where people can argue that this is 100 percent taxpayer dollars, and therefore, we have a right to say what those dollars ought to be spent on. These are wages. This is earned income. Just as I believe every public employee can deal with spending their own earned income responsibly, I believe they can make responsible choices about what health benefit plan they want to participate in, as long as the Federal Government provides them with a significant series of choices of health benefit plans, and indeed, about half of the Federal health benefits plan include abortion and about half do not. We are doing the responsible thing. We are providing our Federal employees the right to make the choice to invest in the health benefit plan that they choose to invest in as a result of the work they are putting in. This is part of their earned benefit. Therefore, this is not a Medicaid problem, this is an employee problem. Let us look at the consequences of reaching into the benefit structure and Congress determining how that benefit structure ought to be shaped because there are public dollars involved. If Members vote against this amendment, the next step will be that this Congress will reach into every American's benefit plan, because there is not an American in this Nation whose benefit plan is not subsidized with tax dollars. We spend $80 billion every single year allowing employers to deduct the cost of health benefits. There is not a health benefit plan in America that is not publicly subsidized. However, those benefit plans that are part of wage structures, where people have earned the right to have salary and benefit, those benefit plans ought to be treated differently than our involvement in Medicaid and ought not to be compromised by this body. Every employee ought to have the right to the full range of legal medical procedures without regard to whether their salary is paid or their health benefits plan is subsidized with public tax dollars. I urge strong support for the Hoyer amendment. Let us differentiate this from the larger debate.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the proposed amendment. The gentleman from Ohio asks, why should these be federal tax dollars? The answer is that there are projects that NEH funds that no private sector group, no corporation, no individual could possibly fund. The brittle books program is a good example. NEH will save 12 million unique items, books, maps, music scores from literally crumbling. How can a great nation shape its future if it does not have the information through which it must understand its past? NEH is also developing a project through which it will put the Founding Father's papers on the computer system so that children in public schools and libraries all over America can read George Washington's letters and Thomas Jefferson's notebooks in their school libraries. This has been a privilege reserved only to those in the most elite institutions. That is the kind of thing that NEH does. That is why it is nationally funded, because it serves a national purpose that addresses the needs of all of our children and adults, to understand who we are, how we got here and to help in the great mission of shaping America's future. I urge opposition to the amendment.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of NEA funding and regret the narrow 2-year window this bill provides for the reorganization and restructuring of support for the arts in this great Nation. First, supporting the arts is as much sound economic policy as the Government building the interstate highway network, funding airports, or paying for basic research in agriculture, energy, health, or any other area. Not-for-profit arts organizations, many leveraged by small amounts of Federal dollars, generate $37 billion in economic activity and $3.4 billion in Federal tax revenues every year. The not-for-profit arts industry provides $1.3 million Americans with jobs and is a key component of the complex of attractions that has made tourism big business in our big, diverse, beautiful and creative Nation. Since NEA was funded, the number of performing arts companies, museums--chamber orchestras, local art leagues--and other arts organizations has grown from 50 to 900 in my State, with all the impact on the economy and cultural strength of our towns and cities that dramatic growth implies. But the arts are not just good business, and preserving this industry that has grown as a result of Federal incentives, is not just good economic policy. Preserving the NEA is about more than money. It is also about quality and culture. The highest quality product in any sector is the result of great knowledge, good communications, and competition. The Federal Government has broadened and accelerated the growth of top quality manufacturing by sponsoring the Mac Baldridge Awards and providing tax credits for research and development. It has provoked great achievement in science by sponsoring national merit scholars and challenging people and organizations to excel and invest in research. The Federal Government plays a key role in fostering a rising standard of excellence in every aspect of our society. Likewise in the arts. Opponents of NEA are overlooking the value of the NEA's role as bringing experienced, brilliant minds to the evaluation of our symphony orchestras, theaters, and arts projects of all kinds. One of the most important aspects of receiving an NEA grant is the imprimatur of quality it conveys. NEA has the breadth and expertise to validate both the quality of vision and quality of organization of specific arts organizations and projects. Few local communities, not even all States, can mobilize an organization that is sufficiently knowledgeable in all areas of the arts to judge the quality of grant applications. Without NEA, fewer private funds will flow to the arts because many contributors are not in a position to judge the value of projects and have relied on NEA for guidance. Not only does the NEA play a very valuable national role in stimulating private support for the arts and the development of arts organizations of international repute, but it has enabled the arts to help our children in the inner cities. An NEA grant--given to the Bushnell for Language Arts Education for Elementary School Students--is creating new options in the inner-city schools of Hartford, helping kids make sense of their harsh world, grow in self-esteem through being able to express their hopes and fears, and see a whole range of career opportunities that they could not possibly see through the adults in their lives. In sum, no nation in history has developed a great culture, or a strong spiritual life, without some significant government involvement, not to determine the message but to assure the resources of growth and to stimulate the competition that produces greatness. Just as the Federal Government funds basic research, pays for a transportation network and funds educational opportunity for special needs kids, so the Federal Government must assure the continuation of those small dollars that enable orchestras and theaters to compete for national recognition, leverage private funds, and make the arts a far stronger component of local economies offering both jobs and inspiration to our people.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. These are difficult times and there are a lot of tough decisions in this bill, not all of which I agree with. But it does afford us a thoughtful outline through which to proceed through this section of the appropriations bill, and the open rule allows us all to bring forth whatever amendments we see fit and to have this body vote on them. I know that there are strong feelings among some that we should eliminate immediately in one year NEA, NEH, organizations like that. I would just remind them that while we cut the TVA and the ARC, organizations that have a [[Page H 6891]] lot of opposition in this body, we did not pull the rug out from under them. We cut them. We gave them time for them and the States that they serve to think through how best to accomplish the goals that so deeply affect the people that benefit from the work of the TVA and the ARC. The NEH does some extremely important things, as does the NEA and the Museum Services Administration. The NEH, for example, is sponsoring the brittle books program. The brittle books program will preserve valuable 19th century works printed on acidic paper which are now crumbling at an alarming rate. Over 12 million unique items, books, maps, music scores, things that are critical to preserving, to tracking the historic and cultural heritage of this Nation, are at risk, and, frankly, only the Federal Government has either the expertise or the dollars to assure the preservation of that heritage.

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

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the preceding speaker for his support of Medicare select. There were 408 Members of this House that voted for it. I hope every one of those 408 Members will vote for it again, because this is an entirely voluntary alternative for our seniors. In the States where it has been available, it has offered them more care at a lower cost and been well-regulated by both the State and the industry and some Federal rules. I also want to point out that as we reform Medicare, as we assure that Medicare will be there for our seniors and provide the quality of care that we have depended on Medicare for, we will over the next 7 years increase spending per senior in America from $4,800 on average to $6,700 on average. That is a one-third increase, a very solid increase in the face of declining costs in the health care sector. Our seniors are going to be well cared for. While change is hard, if it is made with concern and in a responsible way, we can increase the money that we make available for senior care per capita throughout this Nation in an honorable way and one that supports the needs of retirees in this great Nation of ours.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] for his leadership and hard work on getting this program before us for final action. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in support of this final agreement to extend and expand Medicare select. This is the right kind of health plan choice for us to make available to all seniors in America at this time. Medicare select is a Medigap policy. That is it is just insurance covering costs and services that Medicare does not. The difference is the Medicare select enrollees get their care from a preferred provider organization, but they are still Medicare beneficiaries. Medicare will cover health care costs for them even if they go outside the network. By staying within the network beneficiaries make the best use of their coverage because the health plan picks up most or all of their out-of-pocket costs. Medicare select is not, and I repeat, not, an HMO risk contracting plan. Such plans require beneficiaries to get their care entirely within the network or Medicare will not pay. With select, seniors in America have that choice to be part of an integrated system of care, but still go outside that system if they want to and if they choose to. Medicare covers their charges outside that network. It is very important that, as we carry forward this debate and as we give seniors choices in America, they understand clearly what their choices are, and so I want to make clear that my esteemed colleague from Michigan is not quite correct when he says that seniors would be locked into these programs. With due respect, in fact he is wrong. Any senior in this program, any Medicare Select System, can go outside that system and, as a Medicare beneficiary, can receive care under Medicare terms, but in addition any senior in a Medicare Select Program can change plans. They can drop this MediGap policy and pick up another MediGap policy, and in every single State in America there are MediGap policies on the market that have no exclusion for preexisting conditions that do not block any seniors out. In sum, in fact, the idea that any senior is locked into a Medicare select choice is simply not accurate, and that is important for seniors to know. Medicare select also saves beneficiaries money. We know that seniors on fixed incomes have a tough time in this environment, and Medicare select saves them up to 38 percent premium costs. Medicare select is not a Government program. It is an insurance program, and, as such, it is regulated at both the Federal and State levels. It operates around the Medicare Program, and in those States where it has been expanded, it is saving dollars. In California with select the cost of medical services per admission is 20 percent lower than for nonnetwork providers. The average length of stay in a hospital is 73 percent lower than for nonnetwork providers, attesting to the management of care, the integration of care, and only one-third as many enrollees are ever admitted to a hospital from these integrated care systems, a great advantage for the elderly. A Washington State Medicare Select Plan operator has reported that Medicare select policies cost 13 percent less than the traditional insurance policy. Even after adjusting for demographic factors the plans realized a 5-percent savings to the Medicare Program. Now those figures are about real experience. How does that real experience line up with some of the comments that my colleagues have made about the preliminary conclusions of the report that we, as Members of Congress, asked HCFA to do so that we can understand the strengths of this program and the weaknesses more fully? This is basically how it boils out. That report is reporting very preliminary data. The researchers themselves say the results are inconclusive, but listen to what they say about those areas in which they have seen costs increase. The researchers suggest that under these managed care entities, that is the Medicare select plans, and I quote from the report, new patient screening has detected a large backlog of formerly undiagnosed and untreated problems. This has meant that new patients have unexpectedly large, albeit short-term requirements for medicare treatment. In other words, Medicare select plans are offering seniors far more careful, comprehensive analysis of their health care problems, and, yes, short term it costs more, and many of these plans that this report, this study, is reporting have only been in place 3 months, so we have only been through the high cost analysis and the early treatments. In one of the States where the program has been in place since 1992, and they have 4 years of cost data, they are seeing significant savings. I ask, ``Isn't that just what we want? Don't we want early intervention? Don't we want prevention? Don't we want that backlog, the formerly undiagnosed and untreated problems, dealt with for seniors in America? And most importantly, don't we want seniors to have the choice, the voluntary choice, of that quality health plan?'' I, for one, do, and my constituents want this choice as well. As a State that does not have a demonstration project, I get letters daily saying when are we going to have that choice. I urge my colleagues to adopt this conference report and to help us take the first step toward giving seniors in America better choices for their health care.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I introduced, with my colleague Donald Payne of New Jersey, H.R. 1776, the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Commemorative Coin Act. This legislation will direct the Secretary of the Treasury to mint a special coin in commemoration of the many black soldiers who fought for our Nation's independence and our individual freedom. In addition to recognizing the often forgotten contributions of African-Americans during this historic period of our Nation's history, distribution of such a coin will enable the Black Patriots Foundation to succeed in funding the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Memorial, to be located in Constitution Gardens between the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial. More than 5,000 black revolutionary war patriots fought shoulder to shoulder with white patriots, heroically sacrificing so that we can stand here today, a free people and a world leader. This contribution should not be forgotten. As generations of children visit our Nation's Capital and walk the mall, they should have a concrete reminder that we are descendants of men and women of all races and ethnic backgrounds and only together can we create a Nation in which individual social freedom and justice are a reality. I urge my colleagues to join in honoring black revolutionary war patriots through this commemorative coin act and enable the Black Patriots Foundation to complete the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Memorial here in Washington, DC.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced, with my colleague Donald Payne of New Jersey, H.R. 1776, the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Commemorative Coin Act. This legislation will direct the Secretary of the Treasury to mint a special coin in commemoration of the many black soldiers who fought for out Nation's independence and our individual freedom. In addition to recognizing the often forgotten contributions of African-Americans during this historic period of our Nation's history, distribution of such a coin will enable the Black Patriots Foundation to succeed in funding the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Memorial, to be located in Constitution Gardens between the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial. More than 5,000 black revolutionary war patriots fought shoulder-to- shoulder with white patriots, heroically sacrificing so that we can stand here today, a free people and a world leader. This contribution should not be forgotten. As generations of children visit our Nation's capital and walk the mall, they should have a concrete reminder that we are descendants of men and women of all races and ethnic backgrounds and only together can we create a Nation in which individual social freedom and justice are a reality. I urge my colleagues to join in honoring black revolutionary war patriots through this commemorative coin act and enable the Black Patriots Foundation to complete the Black Revolutionary War Patriots Memorial here in Washington, DC.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I plan to introduce shortly, with Congressman Wyden of Oregon, the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act of 1995 and commend the following background and summary of the legislation to the House of Representatives. The Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act of 1995 Extending Malpractice Coverage for Health Centers Under the Federal Tort Claims Act Background Community, migrant and homeless health centers are eligible for coverage for medical malpractice under the Federal Tort Claims Act [FTCA]. Health centers were brought under the FTCA in 1993 by the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act of 1992. Health centers are covered for malpractice claims in the same manner as employees of the Public Health Service who provide medical care. The law provided this coverage for health centers for a three-year ``demonstration'' period, which expires December 31, 1995. Private malpractice insurance is a significant expense for health centers. Prior to the enactment of FTCA coverage, health centers spent $60 million of their federal grant funds each year for private malpractice coverage. Health centers covered under the FTCA has saved an estimated $14.3 million in malpractice insurance costs over the past two years--funds which were channelled back into patient care to serve an estimated 75,000 additional clients. During the last two years, FTCA coverage for health centers has been only partially implemented. Final regulations were only recently issued on May 8, 1995. This lengthy period of uncertainty regarding the law's scope has made it necessary for many health centers to continue their private malpractice coverage. To date, 542 health centers have been ``deemed'' by HHS for malpractice coverage under FTCA, and 119 malpractice insurance for one or more of their clinician. Only 29 percent of health center clinicians are currently covered by FTCA. The number of claims against health centers under FTCA is remarkably low. Since autumn of 1993, only eight claims have been filed nationwide against the 542 health centers approved for FTCA coverage. This low rate of malpractice claims is consistent with the low rate of claims filed against health centers under private insurance. To date, a total of $11 million of health center appropriations have been set aside over the last three years for FTCA judgment costs. None of these funds have been obligated or expended thus far. Summary of Legislation H.R. makes malpractice coverage for health centers under the FTCA permanent. Based on information gained during the demonstration period, H.R. makes several clarifications and procedural modifications in the law to improve the efficiency and operation of the program. The bill: Codifies provisions of the final regulations defining the coverage of officers, employees and contractors of health centers under FTCA, and clarifies that health center governing board members are also covered. Provides for coverage under FTCA of part-time health center clinicians who practice in the primary care ares of family practice, general internal medicine, general pediatrics, and obstetrics and gynecology. Codifies provisions of the final regulations which clarify that FTCA malpractice coverage applies to certain health services health center clinicians may provide to patients who are not registered with the center. For example, health center practitioners participating in community-wide immunization efforts will have FTCA coverage when providing immunizations. Establishes procedures for health centers to apply for and receive malpractice coverage under FTCA. Clarifies that once an application for coverage under FTCA is approved, the coverage applies to claims for services provided during the period for which the coverage determination has been made and is binding on all parties to a malpractice claim. Provides for a full and fair hearing on the record before a health center can be decertified from previously approved FTCA coverage. Provides for timely action by the Department of Justice to remove a malpractice case filed in state court when the case is covered under FTCA. Applies FTCA coverage to health services provided by centers to enrollees of managed care plans who have chosen the managed care plan as their provider. Establishes that FTCA coverage must be accepted by managed care plans as meeting the requirements for malpractice coverage for health centers who contract to be providers for managed care plans. Sets the maximum amount that may be held aside from health center grant appropriations for the FTCA malpractice claim reserve fund at $10 million annually.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion to instruct conferees. We have 35 days left before this program expires. We have 20 legislative days left before this program expires. The preceding speaker talked about this being a payoff to big insurance companies. It is absolutely true that insurance companies are in the business of providing insurance, and that people buy insurance voluntarily and because they value it, because it gives them some security in their lives. My interests and my concern is not the insurance companies. My interests and my concern are the seniors of America, the people. And people who buy Medicare Select policies are getting more health care at a lower cost. That is why they buy Medicare Select policies rather than some other MediGap policy. In some instances the premiums are 40 percent less. If you are living on a fixed income, Mr. Speaker, that matters. Not only are the premiums less, but they get coverage for annual medicals, sometimes for pharmaceuticals, prescription medications, for some vision, some dental. People are buying these policies voluntarily, and because they offer them more at a cheaper price. Our job is not to steer seniors in this market. Our job is only to assure that there is a market that offers choice. The Medicare Select policies are regulated exactly like every other MediGap policy. These policies are not out there in the market with any less government oversight than any other MediGap policy. So let us get on with this conference, let us make sure that this option for seniors in America that offers more health care for less dollars does not expire, let us try this time to meet our responsibilities, to renew the law without a gap. Let me just add one other comment. My colleagues on the other side have said that we are cutting Medicare, and somehow we should not renew this program because we are cutting Medicare. Now remember, it is the trustees, that is the Secretary of HHS, the Secretary of Labor, other members of the President's Cabinet who are saying Medicare is going bankrupt, it goes broke next year. That means it takes in less than it is going to pay out and it goes bankrupt, that means it eats all of its assets in 6 more years. So it is not the Republicans who are saying this. It is the Republicans who are saying we are going to do something about it, we are going to protect seniors in America, preserve Medicare. Under no, [[Page H5582]] no scenario are we cutting spending. In fact, Medicare in the last 7 years for seniors in America spent out $844 million. In the next 7 years if we reform Medicare to serve seniors it will pay out $1.6 billion, almost twice as much. So, the figures are simply there. We are going to increase spending on Medicare and we are going to increase the amount we spend per beneficiary, not only more beneficiaries but per beneficiary, and we are going to do it in a way that will provide seniors better quality health care. Let us not mix debates here. Let us focus this debate on simply preserving a right, a choice for seniors in America, preserving their access to a plan that offers in the 15 States it is available more health care benefits at a lower cost. This is only about preserving existing choice for seniors, existing access to cost-effective care, and I urge the body, remember, almost everyone in this body voted for this bill when it went through, so vote against the motion to recommit, to support timely action on behalf of America's seniors.