Nancy Johnson

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Morella amendment to the Smith amendment. Family planning money that the United States contributes annually to the United Nations Population Fund has had an extremely positive impact in developing countries throughout the world. In the 28 countries with the largest U.S. AID-sponsored family planning programs, the average number of children born per family has dropped from six in the 1960's to about four today, a decline of nearly one-third. Providing women with the means to control fertility enables them to better provide for the children they choose to have. Thailand has made controlling the rate of population growth a priority issue in their development, and it has paid off. The average number of children born to Thai women has declined from 6 in the 1960's to the replacement level of 2.1 now. That means better health; that means less poverty; that means less tragedy in the lives of women and children in Thailand and a far better future for everyone. Let me point out to my colleagues that current law already prohibits the use of U.S. funds to either pay for or lobby for abortion. We do not need the Smith amendment. The Smith amendment, however, would cut off all foreign aid not just for family planning but to any organization that performs abortions so that local hospitals throughout the world that legally perform abortions would be denied any foreign aid for child nutrition programs, disease prevention or other basic health services for women and families, simply because those institutions, according to their national law, perform abortions. This is tragic. This is a stunning example of U.S. hubris that we are willing to micromanage the domestic and health policies of developing nations. I urge my colleagues to support the Morella amendment, maintain the ban against any U.S. dollars for abortion, maintain the ban against any U.S. dollars used to lobby for abortion, but preserve health services for women and children and population growth programs, population control programs throughout the world.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and respect that I rise to commend the many students, parents, educators, and professionals who are members of the Enfield Substance Abuse Prevention Council and will be honored for their efforts to raise community awareness of substance abuse. This evening, at Enrico Fermi High School, the council will be hosting a celebration of youth to recognize the dedication and accomplishments of the volunteers, both children and adults, who have volunteered their time, energy, and experience to causes or projects whose mission is related to substance abuse prevention. Substance abuse prevention is critical to the health and prosperity of all citizens, and I express my appreciation to all of the volunteers who have worked together and daily demonstrate their commitment to the quality of life in Enfield, CT.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and appreciation that I extend my congratulations to the New Britain Musical Club of the occasion of its 75th anniversary. The members of the club, which was formed in 1920 by Theron Wolcott Hart, will celebrate this milestone at its annual banquet this evening. The New Britain Musical Club has grown throughout the decades, with members first gathering in each others' homes and now at the First Church of Christ Congregational. At their monthly performances, members and guests of the club present vocal and instrumental selections representing a broad range of musical interests. The New Britain Musical Club has offered the citizens of the Hardware City an opportunity to attend performances of dance, the classics, and popular music combined with good fellowship with their neighbors. The club members have also demonstrated their love of music through the establishment of scholarships to students with outstanding musical ability for the Julliard School of Music. For close to 50 years, the New Britain Musical Club has sponsored an Advert concert of Handel's Messiah for the community. The club is a valuable asset in New Britain, CT's rich cultural fabric where the presentation of music and art is highly prized.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and respect that I rise to commend the members of the Enfield Rotary Club for their innovative Learn to Earn program. Their program was developed to respond to the many solicitations for donations that both civic organizations and industry receive from local youth groups. Instead of simply making a donation, businesses and civic organizations identify local projects that need to be completed and then give interested children the opportunity to earn the money they need by doing the projects. Projects range from things as routine as schoolyard cleanup to washing windows at a local, town-owned retirement home. The Learn to Earn approach enjoys broad community support. At a time when so many are decrying the loss of government aid, a program such as this offers young citizens the opportunity to tackle projects that meet the needs of the community and, as importantly, highlights for young people the lesson that you can accomplish most anything if you are willing to work to make it happen. Congratulations to the members of the Enfield Rotary Club for their meaningful contribution to the betterment of their town.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the memory of LeRoy Wesley Watts, Jr., professor emeritus of social work at Eastern Michigan University. Some people are able to reach young people at definitive moments in their lives--and open new vistas of insight and opportunity to them. Such a man was Professor Watts. He served in key academic and administrative roles within Eastern Michigan University, was instrumental in the development of the university's African-American Studies Department, and advocated for minority and disabled students. Roy sat on the boards of several civic and professional organizations that focused on health and social welfare and worked quietly but ceaselessly to make the world a better place for us all. He was a friend and mentor to many students and encouraged them to continue educational programs that they likely would not have completed without his intervention. Roy was recognized for his humility, compassion, and abiding respect for the light in each of us.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I submit my remarks at this point. I rise in strong support of reaching a balanced budget by the year 2002, under the solid work of the Committee on the Budget and the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich]. Mr. Chairman, I rise to congratulate the Budget Committee for its fine work in putting together a budget resolution that for the first time in many years puts us on a path toward balancing the budget. I am pleased to support this resolution, because I believe it is imperative that Congress regain control over our spending practices and leave our children an economically strong America. The process that we undertake today will not be easy. Indeed, the cuts that are going to be necessary to bring our budget into balance will be painful in some instances. And while I do not agree with every line item in the Budget Committee's resolution, and will fight hard in the weeks ahead to shape appropriations bills that meet our targets, I support it as a fair and honest document from which the House can start its deliberations on spending. In 1993, gross interest payments equalled $293 billion, greater than the total outlays of the Federal Government in 1974. If we continue current policies into the next century, we will be forced to enact fully $500 billion in deficit reduction each year just to restrain the deficit to 3 percent of gross domestic product. For too long, this Congress has chosen to continue the status quo, pushing this Nation further and further into debt and forcing the results of overspending today on the generations of tomorrow. The budget was last balanced in 1969, an entire generation ago. As representatives of the American people, we have no choice but to start on the course of fiscal responsibility. And that is what this budget resolution before us today sets out to do. There are two areas on which I would like to focus my remarks today: Medicare and the Commerce Department. I cannot stress how important it is to reform our Medicare system. This budget resolution addresses head-on the impending Medicare crisis facing senior constituents. We must take steps now to shore up Medicare financing and benefits to keep our Medicare promise to today's beneficiaries--seniors--who will need these health benefits 10 years from now. Our friends on the other side of the aisle tell you that we are ``cutting Medicare, slashing [[Page H5154]] the benefits.'' This is simply not true. We will increase Medicare spending over the next 7 years by 45 percent. We will spend $1,500 more on each beneficiary 7 years from now. How can anyone call this a cut? But keeping Medicare merely solvent is not all we must do. We will make Medicare work smarter, and serve seniors better, just as employers have been successful in bringing down costs and increasing quality and consumer satisfaction. And we will let seniors choose how to use their Medicare dollars to join plans that cover prevention, that cover prescription drugs or home care, that provide benefits and individual senior desires. This budget proposal for Medicare represents a tremendous challenge, but, it gives us a great opportunity as well. Second, while I support the budget resolution's cuts in spending growth, I oppose eliminating support for U.S. exports, and the thousands of American jobs they create every year. Proposals in this budget to eliminate and cut trade and export enhancement programs, while well-intended, are shortsighted and ignore our dependence on U.S. exports as the fastest growing component of GDP, growing 2\1/2\ times faster than the overall economy. The continued globalization of business, and the global shift toward market-oriented economies will create substantial new opportunities for U.S. goods and services abroad. To access these markets, it is imperative that the United States maintain or create a Cabinet-level agency dedicated to coordinating these vital export and import finance and promotion programs. Eliminating the functions of the Commerce Department will certainly not enhance job growth in this fast-growing area of our economy, though many of the savings proposed in Commerce are thoughtful and meritorious. Again, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of House Congressional Resolution 67 and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, preceding speakers have provided plenty of examples of extreme and arrogant actions by EPA, and certainly it is true that we are here in part to reform the Clean Air Act because EPA has been high-handed and was abusive of the people of America. But let us do it right. If we adopt the Boehlert amendment, we will be adopting the recommendations of the Governors themselves as to how to make the Clean Water Act effective and citizen friendly. We will adopt all of the exemptions from the wetlands permitting found in the underlying bill, normal farming, ranching, plowing, seeding, grazing, repairs of dams and levees and so on. We will also be adopting expanded use of general permits. We will be adopting a fast track permitting process for minor and general permits for people seeking to fill or drain a wetland area in one acre or less. Those folks will have an answer in 60 days. We will be providing landowners with an effective appeals process using the very same language in the underlying bill, and we will be giving the Secretary of Agriculture total control over agricultural wetlands issues as in the underlying bill. This is a good, modest, logical amendment, but it does a couple of things that the underlying bill does not do that are terribly important to Connecticut. It provides, for instance, grants for technical assistance to small towns. Our towns have wetland commissions, and they are dealing very well with the permit process, but they need better information. They fear the classification system. They fear the classification system will do to my people what some of the arrogant EPA bureaucrats have done to people in other parts of the country. They fear the classification system with deny them the right in a State with lots of wetlands and very dependent on groundwater, will deny them the right to determine best use of properties within their boundaries. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the Boehlert amendment.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and appreciation that I rise today to commend Rees Harris, a lifelong resident of Salisbury, CT, for his generosity and leadership in forming the Salisbury Volunteer Ambulance Service in 1971. Rees is known throughout the northwest corner of Connecticut for his vision of community life and his commitment to and support of programs that support the needs of the residents of the small towns, like Salisbury, that comprise the northwest corner. In 1971, through Rees' personal generosity, the Salisbury Volunteer Ambulance Service was established. Today, Rees will be honored by the board of trustees of the service in recognition of his dedication and compassion for his neighbors and for contributing to the quality of life they all enjoy. In a small, tight-knit community such as Salisbury, many good deeds are accomplished, as neighbor helps neighbor in a quiet fashion. Rees is a humble man, a gentleman who has earned the respect of his peers for his unending concern for all those who call home the very special community of Salisbury, CT. I know Rees finds deep, personal satisfaction through helping others, and on behalf of my Salisbury constituents, I express appreciation for his contributions to the lives of many and for strengthening the services and institutions on which the community relies.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, as a step toward creating a national health care policy that assures continuity of coverage for all working Americans, I am introducing the Working Families Health Access Act of 1995 and invite your co-sponsorship. The text of the bill follows:

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, faced with serious water quality problems a generation ago, the state of Connecticut passed its only Clean Water Act, and this is why I wanted the 30 additional seconds. We passed the first one. The Federal law is modeled on our act. And since its passage, we have become the Nation's leader in the production of oysters because we have so cleaned up our offshore waters. With that, I ask Members' support of the Boehlert amendment.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, this would have a harsh effect on Connecticut where at least 60 percent of the wetlands would be declassified. Though I support the concept of classifying wetlands, this bill sets out criteria for classification not based on sound science, according to the newly released National Academy of Sciences wetlands report. Further, the costs associated with classifying every wetland in the Nation would be staggering. A far less extensive plan to map all flood plain areas, which in Connecticut we have accomplished, wound up taking 10 years in the nation and cost a billion dollars. In contrast, the substitute's wetlands provisions allow the Army Corps greater flexibility in wetlands delineation and encourage states to adopt their own permitting program independent of federal control. It encourages wetlands classification based on science with exceptions only for certain functioning wetlands and certain agricultural lands. State and individuals have had difficulty applying current wetlands laws in recent years, but I am confident that the proposal put together by the States themselves and incorporated in the Saxton-Boehlert substitute addresses these problems effectively.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Saxton-Boehlert substitute to the Clean Water Act. I have serious concerns about the impact of certain provisions of H.R. 961 on my State of Connecticut. First, the Shuster bill repeals the coastal water protection program established by the Coastal Zone Management Act, which recognizes the unique water pollution issues facing coastal States and requires these States to take special steps to control nonpoint source pollution. Connecticut has been a leader in this area, developing an innovative and successful program. Scaling back the Federal program would have serious negative consequences for my State's shores because no matter how committed Connecticut is to coastal quality, negligence by neighbor states could pollute our shores and our waterways. Nonetheless, the significant changes in the Coastal Zone Management Act are long overdue and to address these problems with the current program, the Saxton- Boehlert substitute adopts the recommendations made by the coastal State Governors, to preserve the benefits of the Coastal Zone Management Act but gives States greater flexibility to delineate the scope of their managed areas, expand the time frame for implementation of reforms and allow States to select and prioritize the projects they believe will address their nonpoint source pollution problems. Given the facts that in the past 5 years over 10,000 beaches in the United States have been closed because of coastal water pollution and that over one-third of all shellfish beds are closed or threatened by water pollution, including 32 in Connecticut, we must focus greater attention, not less, on the problems of water pollution in our coastal zones. This is both an economic and an environmental imperative. The pollution threatening our coasts stems mainly from nonpoint sources, storm water runoff from urban, suburban, commercial and industrial areas now accounts for 30 percent of water quality impairment. The current Clean Water Act mandates a program to control polluted storm water from municipal industrial sources and has already been phased into effect in most of the largest cities and industries. Even though 342 cities and 134,000 industrial sources already have their permit and abatement programs in place, the problem of controlling storm water runoff has proven to be quite complicated. EPA has placed a 6-year moratorium on any new requirements on smaller cities or smaller industries while it works out the problems the programs have encountered in regard to small cities and small businesses. The substitute adopts the EPA moratorium as law and extends it for 10 years. This is the right approach, because it maintains the pressure on States to deal with these issues while at the same time relieving States of taking irrational steps in regard to small towns and small industries. Another provision with serious potential implications for Connecticut is the wastewater treatment standards, specifically secondary treatment waivers. The current Clean Water Act establishes secondary treatment as a minimum standard for municipal sewage treatment plants, governing how clean wastewater must be before it is discharged into rivers, oceans and other bodies of water. All municipally owned sewage treatment plants were required to provide secondary treatment by 1988 and all municipal facilities in Connecticut have already attained at least secondary treatment capability and some have gone beyond that standard. Despite the fact that this requirement has been in effect for almost 7 years, the underlying bill seeks to exempt towns of less than 10,000 people from secondary treatment requirements. Along the Connecticut River, which cuts through the heart of all of New England, this exemption would create havoc. Most of the towns in New England are smaller than 10,000 people. A town of 10,000 people gives off a million gallons of sewage a day. Like most other States, Connecticut still has a long way to go in achieving its clean water goals. More than a third of the assessed rivers and estuaries cannot sustain fishing, permit swimming or maintain aquatic life year round. Exempting the majority of our towns as a majority of less than 10,000 people from secondary treatment requirements will not continue the progress we have made at great expense. Finally, I am pleased to support the wetlands provisions of the Saxton-Boehlert substitute. This title adopts the recommendations of the National Governors Association with input from State wetlands managers. I would remind Members that both in the wetlands section and in the coastal adopts the recommendations of the State Governors for the reforms that their people say are needed in these programs. I am troubled by title VIII of H.R. 961 for several reasons. The bill establishes a new entitlement for property owners whose property value is diminished by 20 percent. We have discussed this at great length. I will not repeat that discussion. Secondly, the bill would require the Army Corps of Engineers to classify all wetlands into three categories with only the top category being fully protected.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take my full 5 minutes either. But this is a very, very important issue to coastal States. I do not believe this amendment does any damage to the underlying bill. I think it is, in fact, perfectly compatible with the underlying bill. My colleague from California says we do not want more bureaucracy, we are trying to stop bureaucracy, we are trying to create local control. That is exactly what this amendment does. Now, California takes up almost the entire coast of the Western United States. They only have a couple of neighbors to worry about. Little States in New England have lots of other States to worry about, and so New England with its number of little States along the coast, needs a regional plan, needs Federal conformity. And this amendment preserves the underlying coastal zone management law, but reverts to the States the kind of flexibility, the kind of relief from know makes for a more cost effective and solid response, that combines the environmental interest of the State with the economic interest of a State. Now, the Governors have proposed, through those who have worked to make these plans and to implement that law, three things, and let me tell you how they affect my district. The reforms in this plan will allow States the flexibility to delineate the scope of the management area. That means EPA cannot come in and tell you that every little stream that feeds into every river is part of the coastal area management section. So it means that a lot of my farmers are no longer going to be attacked by EPA to do things that they do not know how to do, and that we do not know how to help them to do. That ability in this law to let States delineate their area, let States even select the projects that they think are important, and implement those projects, that is exactly what the States are asking for, and that is what we are going to get. But why do we need the underlying law? We need it because no matter how much money Connecticut puts into this, if Massachusetts does not, if Maine does not, and if New York does not, then we will lose those fisheries and those shell beds that we have spent millions of dollars to bring back on our intracoastal water, and if we lose those, we lose jobs in an industry that is growing. We lose a coast that attracts tourism. This is a big economic issue for our State, and I do not think the interior States quite understand what a big economic issue this is for the coastal States and how impossible it is going to be for us to achieve the level of coastal water cleanliness that is essential to our economies as well as to our environments if we do not have the Federal uniformity that the underlying coastal zone management law provides, complemented by the reforms that the Governors have asked for. This amendment does no damage to the underlying bill. It achieves the objectives of the underlying bill in harmony with the consistency of principle and program that an area of old industrial States, which is what the Northeast is, so we have got lots of old site land, that is a problem in terms of nonpoint source pollution, gives us that uniformity of goal that will return our shores and our shoreline waters to the level, to the quality that will assure the economic benefits of clean coastal waters as well as the health and environment benefits. So I urge you to think about what is the difference between living in the middle of the United States and what is the responsibility of the coastal States. And, please, do not take from us the program that we all now support and give us the flexibility we need to make it work right economically and environmentally.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address an extremely important issue facing the automotive and auto parts industry. The United States-Japan framework talks were initiated in July 1993, but no agreement has been reached in these critical areas which amount to 60 percent of the United States bilateral deficit with Japan. Now these 1993 talks are only part of an effort that is now 10 years long to deal with very substantial nontariff barriers that Japan throws up to American auto parts and American automobiles even though that is the biggest item of our bilateral deficit. In recent years, as a result of these talks and all of the efforts that have been made, yes, Japan has increased the purchase of American parts, but only for those factories that produce in America. Mr. Speaker, if we are to maintain a strong industrial base in America, we must be able to export quality, cost-competitive United States auto parts and automobilies everywhere in the world, even to Japan, and I strongly support the need for a negotiated agreement with Japan and support our United States Trade Representative, Mickey Kantor, in his efforts.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today, along with my distinguished senior colleague from the Ways and Means Committee, Robert Matsui, the Orphan Drug Tax Credit Amendments of 1995. In 1983, the Congress enacted legislation that granted a tax credit for the clinical testing of drugs used to treat rare diseases with limited commercial potential, commonly referred to as orphan drugs. This legislation, in conjunction with orphan drug market exclusivity, has been successful in encouraging the type of narrow research critical to finding answers to the many questions posed by rare diseases. Currently, there are approximately 600 drugs that have received orphan drug designation and more than 100 of those have been approved for marketing. Because of the orphan drug legislation, we now have drugs to treat such diseases as cystic fibrosis, hepatitis B, multiple sclerosis, renal cell carcinoma, and pituitary dwarfism. The bill we are introducing today would make two significant changes to the orphan drug tax credit: First, it would make the orphan drug tax credit, which expired at the end of last year, permanent. Uncertainty over the future of the tax credit has caused a significant decline in the investment of capital in the biotechnology industry. Second, this bill would allow companies to carry the tax credit back or forward pursuant to section 39 of the Internal Revenue Code. Most of the companies engaged in research of orphan drugs do not qualify for the tax credit. Under current law, a company can only claim a credit against their current year tax liability. Since most companies involved in orphan drug research are biotechnology firms that are still developing and have yet to market a product, they have no tax liability against which to claim the tax credit. This structural change would allow a developing company, such as a biotechnology firm, to use the tax credit at such time that it had a tax liability. I am pleased to note that this bill is endorsed by both the Biotechnology Industry Organization, which represents the biotechnology industry, and the National Organization for Rare Disorders, Inc. [NORD], the primary nonprofit organization representing patients with rare diseases. I commend this bill to my colleagues and look forward to its prompt approval by the Congress.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Central Valley Square Dance Club of Farmington, CT, on the occasion of its 25th anniversary celebration. The club's appreciation of square dancing, both historically and practically, are worthy of distinction. The Central Valley Squares sponsor dances twice a month from September until June and encourage all dancers, young and old, to participate in a truly noteworthy cultural experience. This wholesome activity transcends age, race, and cultural lines and is deeply rooted in the American experience. Mr. Speaker, I commend the Central Valley Squares on this accomplishment and join the people of Connecticut in looking forward to their continued success. I am pleased to provide a recent article from the Bristol, CT, Press that describes the Squares activities in greater detail. [From the Bristol (CT) Press, Apr. 25, 1995] Dancers to Celebrate 25 Years Central Valley Squares is celebrating its 25th anniversary. Twenty-five years ago three struggling clubs: Bristol Rhythm Squares, Southington Valley Stompers and Farmington Valley Squares, joined to form the present Central Valley Squares. The club boasts 110 members with 13 of them as charter members. Club festivities and a special anniversary dance are planned for May 6 at New Horizons Village, Farmington. Internationally known caller, Jim Lee from Ontario, Canada, will call for this special event. The officers and board members consist of Dan and Shirley Lodovico of Bristol as president; Dick and Lucy Tedesco of Bristol as vice president; Fran and Goldie St. Pierre of Farmington, program coordinators; Al and Beverly Dakers of Farmington, secretary; Ken and Andrea DeMello of Southington, news and corresponding secretary; and Bob and Libby Sujecki of Bristol, treasurer. Bill and Jessie Saxton of Farmington, ways and means; Tony and Florence D'Angelo of New Britain special events; Hank and John Fitzgerald of Bristol, refreshments; Marcel and Noella Roberge of New Britain, class coordinators; and Joanne and Earl LaVallee of Bristol, travel. Alan and Anne Bartleet of Bristol, publicity; Arleen Wilson of Bristol, historian; Norman and Pat Landry of Plainville, CASDAC; and John and Mary Napier of New Britain, advertisements. The plus level dance club dances every first and third Saturday of the month at New Horizons Village, Farmington. New dancers classes begin every September with graduation in May. Dances are $3.50 per person and are smoke-free and alcohol free. Callers and cuers are nationally and internationally known.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, but I am pleased that the underlying bill has broad bipartisan support. We are joined together in wanting to make available to seniors a lower-cost, high- quality Medigap insurance policy. The amendment, however, jeopardizes that choice for seniors because if the amendment passes, it will require Medicare select plans to offer a benefit that no other Medigap policy is required to offer, and by doing that you will force the price of Medicare select policies up, you will kill the savings that seniors now enjoy by buying Medicare select policies. So you will effectively eliminate a choice that has been very good for seniors, very helpful to them in a tough world, saves them $300 a year, and offers them prescription drugs and broader coverage than other Medigap plans could offer them. We would do ourselves and we would do the seniors of America a great disservice if under the guise of reform we denied them alone any access to participate in, on a voluntary basis, a managed care plan. Medicare is a fee-for-service system. Medicare also has a very tight, closed panel HMO component. The only access seniors have to participate in integrated systems of care is through the Medicare select plan. If today under the guise of reform we force those plans to offer a benefit that no other Medigap policy in the market has to offer, we put that plan at a competitive disadvantage that will kill it, and we will deny to seniors the most cost-effective, high-quality plan in the market. I urge a ``no'' vote on the substitute and a yes vote on the bill.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill, and urge my colleagues to support it with enthusiasm. A number of issues have been raised from the other side, but they are issues that were thoroughly addressed in the hearings that we have had on this bill. First of all, this is not a failed program. This is a very strong program that seniors are choosing, and they are care that is also high-quality health care. Their premiums are anywhere from 10 to almost 40 percent less than the premiums of other Medigap policies. That is why they choose it. That is why seniors all over America should have the right to choose it. Are these good policies? According to the Consumer Reports, 8 of the 15 top-ranked policies were Medicare select policies. That is pretty good. Second, there have been essentially no complaints. Members heard my colleague, who was an insurance commissioner himself, say in his State there was not a single complaint. Nationwide in 1994 there were only 9 complaints in regard to select plans, when there were 967 complaints for regular Medigap policies, another reason why seniors choose these policies in the Medigap market. They are good. Third, when we look at the consumer satisfaction surveys, Medicare select rates very high, another good sign. Lastly, no program that was not well regarded would be supported by the National Governors Association, the National Council of State Legislatures, and the insurance commissioners of 50 States, so this is a good program, it is a successful program and, futhermore, it is a well-regulated program. It is regulated by the States; it is regulated by the Federal Government; it is regulated in exactly the same way that plans are regulated for people of other ages. There is no problem with seniors who choose this option getting locked in. Later we will hear an amendment that says that these plans ought to be required to offer a fee-for-service option. In every single State, in every single State, there are at least seven policies offered by Blue Cross or Blue Shield or AARP that guarantee issue at predetermined rates for seniors, so anyone in a Medicare select policy has a choice of choosing another Medigap policy at the same rate anyone else would be able to buy that policy, and without any danger of exclusion for preexisting medical conditions. Therefore, there is no need to pass a law that would force this kind of policy to do something that none of its competitors have to do. This is a good bill. It is strictly structured. This program has succeeded. I ask Members' support of it, and I ask the Members' opposition to the following substitute, because it would force this plan, in certain States, to offer benefits that no other Medigap policy has to offer. That would effectively kill this low-cost choice for seniors. If it was forced to age rate its premiums, base its premiums on attained age rating, premiums for young seniors would go up. In the market now, seniors of every age can choose whether they want to buy an attained-age-rating Medigap policy or a community-rated Medigap policy or an issued age-rated Medigap policy. They are all there. Seniors can choose that. Why should we not allow a 67-year-old healthy senior to choose a lower cost policy, if that is what he prefers, and face the higher rates of a 70-year-old when he hits 70, if that is what he wants? He has the right under current circumstances to choose a community-rated or an attained-age-related policy when he is 67, if he wants to do that. I ask Members to support the bill, to oppose the alternative, and to guarantee that seniors in our Nation will have the choice of a lower cost, high-quality Medigap policy. National Governors' Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, National Association of Insurance Commissioners, March 15, 1995. Hon. Bill Thomas, Chairman, Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Thomas: In an effort to promote consumer choice and the offering of affordable health care coverage for senior citizens, the National Governors' Association (NGA), the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) call to your attention an urgent problem facing over 400,000 Medicare beneficiaries: the imminent expiration of the medicare SELECT program. This program has provided significant savings to Medicare beneficiaries in demonstration project states. We urge its permanent extension and expansion to all fifty states. As you are aware, the Medicare SELECT program is a three year demonstration project (extended another six months by the 103rd Congress) that authorizes managed care networks to offer Medicare Supplement policies in the fifteen demonstration states. Medicare SELECT offers significant savings to seniors, many of whom live on fixed incomes. It also offers seniors a choice among health plans. In the absence of Congressional action on this issue, more than 400,000 Medicare beneficiaries will be faced with higher premiums and less choice. If the Medicare SELECT program is not continued, Medicare SELECT carriers could not enroll new members after June 30, 1995. This will result in significant increases in premiums for Medicare beneficiaries already enrolled in the program. Further, those beneficiaries not enrolled in the program will no longer have the opportunity to choose this low-cost and choice-enhancing option. Nearly every federal health reform proposal before the 103rd Congress included a permanent extension of this program to all fifty states. The momentum and broad-based political support behind this program should not be allowed to dissipate simply due to the absence of more comprehensive Congressional action in the health care reform area. The health care coverage of too many Americans is at stake. As we testified before two House subcommittees on this issue, we urge you to support the provisions of H.R. 483 that extend and expand the Medicare SELECT program to all fifty states. The NGA, NCSL and NAIC would be happy to answer any questions and provide you with any additional technical background upon request. Please contact Mary Beth Senkewicz at the NAIC Washington office at 624-7790. Thank you for consideration of this recommendation. Sincerely, Raymond C. Scheppach, Executive Director, NGA. Carl Tubbesing, Director, Washington Office, NCSL. Kevin T. Cronin, Washington Counsel, NAIC. medicare select: the facts Medicare Select is Point of Service coverage--Beneficiaries can go out of the Select network at any time and Medicare still pays for covered care. Medicare Select Saves Seniors $'s--Premium savings range from 10 to 38% over regular Medigap policies. Medicare Select provides Quality and Value--Consumer Reports ranked 8 Select plans among the top 15 plans. more med select facts Medicare Select Works for Seniors--In 1994 the National Association of Insurance Commissioners reported only 9 complaints on Select plans vs. 967 for regular Medigap. Medicare Select Offers Choice--Gives seniors an option similar to that enjoyed by millions of working Americans. even more med select facts Medicare Select Satisfies Seniors--Select plans are highly rated in consumer satisfaction surveys. Medicare Select has bipartisan Support--Ways and Means bill passed 31 to 2, Commerce bill passed by voice vote. Medicare Select Wanted by States--NGA, NAIC, and NCSL support the 50 state option.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this rule permitting us to vote an extension and expansion of Medicare Select. I urge my colleagues to support making these health insurance plans, which Consumer Reports has rated so highly, available to seniors in all 50 States. I support this rule because it allows us to get to the central issue, preserving a low-cost, high-quality insurance option for seniors while not allowing requirements to be imposed on a single Medigap policy that cannot under this bill be imposed on all MediGap policies in the market. Mr. Speaker, it is important that we not add requirements to Medicare Select that would treat these plans differently from other MediGap prices. During each committee's markup, amendments were defeated because they would have required select plans to offer benefits, plan options and rates that would not apply to other Medigap policies. The time to address these issues is when we make changes to all Medigap plans. Otherwise, Medicare Select plans would operate on an unlevel playing field and at a competitive disadvantage, eroding the savings seniors now enjoy by choosing these plans. The Ways and Means Committee approved extension and expansion of the select program with a very bipartisan vote of 31 to 2. The Commerce Committee reported its legislation by voice vote. My esteemed colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], agrees that this bill has broad bipartisan support. If Congress does not act to extend this program this week, nearly a half-million seniors risk losing low-cost MediGap coverage. Companies offering these policies need to begin making plans now to prepare providers and beneficiaries about the future of their program. Medicare Select is a MediGap policy--covering costs and services that Medicare does not. The difference is that select enrollees get their care from a preferred provider organization. Enrollees are still Medicare beneficiaries: Medicare will cover their health care costs even if they go outside the health 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 a Medicare HMO/risk-contracting plan. Such plans require Medicare beneficiaries to obtain their care entirely within the network, or Medicare won't pay. With select, beneficiaries can still get Medicare to cover their charges even if they go outside the network, and in cases of emergency, the plan will reimburse charges in full. Medicare Select saves beneficiaries money. Seniors on fixed incomes can save from 9 to 38 percent on the cost of their MediGap premium--up to $300 a year. Mr. Speaker, Medicare Select is not a Government program. Medicare Select is a MediGap insurance policy and regulated at the Federal and State levels just as all such policies are. Mr. Speaker, it operates around Medicare requirements. But it has indirect benefits to Medicare, however, because enrollees are using health providers within an integrated delivery system. Thus, inappropriate utilization of medical services is avoided. A California select plan found that the cost of medical services per admission for network providers was 20 percent lower than for non-network providers. In addition, the average length of stay for network providers was 50 percent lower than for non-network providers. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and support the extension of Medicare Select to all States before we adjourn.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. McCrery].

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon].

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger]. (Mr. BALLENGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.

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