Nancy Johnson

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

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

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs Meyers], the chairman of the Committee on Small Business. (Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I thank the chairman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. It is a fine and necessary tax bill. First, it will make our economy grow more rapidly. Small business, the creator of most jobs, will gain the right to expense $30,000 worth of equipment, We all know that any small business can expand more rapidly if it can afford the equipment to produce its product. Expensing has long been the No. 1 demand of the small-business community to accelerate the pace at which it will be able to grow. Estate tax law reform, home office deduction reinstatement, capital gains, all will help small business grow, prosper and create the jobs that America needs. Second, this bill helps big businesses that compete in a very tough international market where you can not pass on new costs through higher prices. In Connecticut, one company invested $4 billion over the last few years in capital investment in manufacturing facilities in this Nation and paid higher taxes than other manufacturers who invested not $1 because of the alternative minimum tax. That is wrong. That is bad policy. That is anti-jobs. That is anti a strong economy. and create jobs, but it also helps families and seniors, and it takes a giant step toward health care reform. Young families are carrying a heavier burden in our society today than they have at any time in our history. Surely we can agree to give them this $500 tax credit per child. Seniors have been disadvantaged by the tax hike we imposed on them a couple of years ago. This bill repeals that; it gives them tax relief, raises the earnings limit, so that those with low pensions can work without penalizing them $1 for every $3 they earn. It also creates the long-term care partnership that protects our seniors and families from the catastrophic costs of long-term care and home care. Is this a perfect bill? Absolutely not. I disagree with the Neutral Cost Recovery section. I want the $200,000 threshold lowered because I think it is better policy, fairer to all Americans. I think the solution in this bill to the underfunded Federal pension plans may not be the best, but there is no problem in this bill that is not entirely solvable as we move along. And this bill is critical. Mark my words, it is critical to achieving a balanced budget. If we are going to achieve a balanced budget by the year 2002, that spending plan must not only enable us to provide the services we need in those years but also the tax policy we need to create jobs, to create economic strength and to assure a fair distribution of burden among the families and the seniors of America. I urge your support of this bill.

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

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

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday evening, April 26, 1995, Paul J. Manafort, a friend and admired community leader will be honored as Citizen of the Year by the New Britain Lodge of Elks. Paul's remarkable leadership and contributions to the greater New Britain community have spanned many decades and represent a broad spectrum of civic, professional, community and charitable endeavors. Paul will be honored for his leadership, dedication and many achievements, both personally and professionally. He has dedicated his life to his family and community. Paul Manafort's elective service began on the New Britain Board of Aldermen. He was elected as mayor in 1965 and served three terms during a period of great cultural and societal change. His thoughtful and proactive leadership resulted in strong economic development and responsive public policies for the city. The respect Paul earned during his elective tenure led to his appointment as commissioner of the department of public works where his statewide service was widely acknowledged. Community service and volunteerism have been the cornerstone of Paul's commitment to enriching the quality of life in New Britain. He has enjoyed membership in numerous civic, community and charitable organizations. His work with ethnic, veterans, disabled and church organizations is legendary. His active Club, New Britain General Hospital, the Police Athletic League, his leadership with the Greater New Britain Opera Association, the Sons of Italy, the Colombian Federation, St. Ann Church and civic groups such as the Elks, Lions Club and the Knights of Columbus have afforded Paul many awards and much acknowledgement throughout his many, many years of service. Those who have known and worked with Paul know that his tremendous contributions to the community are founded in the deep personal satisfaction he has found in helping others and his commitment to the city of New Britain and her citizens. Veterans, the disabled, young and old citizens alike, fellow volunteers, his family and friends will gather on April 26 to share their very great appreciation, respect and admiration for one of the very great gentlemen and leaders in the city of New Britain.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, Hooray for the University of Connecticut Women's Basketball Team, which won the national championship yesterday. In a come-from-behind victory, the Huskies capped a perfect season, finishing the year with 35 wins and zero losses. Just one other team in women's basketball history has managed to win the national title undefeated. For the past 5 months, the Huskies have defeated their opponents by an average margin of more than 30 points. Though yesterday's game was a nail-biter to the end, UConn did not let us down. Led by player of the year Rebecca Lobo, Jamelle Elliott, and Jennifer Rizzotti, the Huskies rallied in the second half to overcome a nine point second half deficit. A strong team effort, supported by Kara Wolters, Nykesha Sales, Carla Berube, and Pam Webber, helped UConn pull ahead and stay ahead within the final minutes of the game. Women's sports have come a long way since I played basketball and I was pleased to be able to watch the extraordinary skill and grit of the UConn women on national television yesterday. The UConn women's team has raised Husky-mania to a new level in Connecticut, and has also inspired thousands of young women to pursue their athletic dreams. Once again, congratulations to the UConn Huskies. You have made the entire State of Connecticut proud.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make clear that in the hearing it was Rabbi Jack Moline, it was Bob Turner who was on the Senate staff when they wrote the Jackson-Vanik amendment that brought up the issue that this would function as an exit tax. And, in fact, CBO's estimates are not based on how much money they think anyone will pay as a result of this tax. The estimates are based on keeping those people here and the assumption that they will therefore continue to pay taxes as American citizens. So if you do not think that everybody is seeing this as a way of preventing people from leaving, frankly, the testimony was all in support of this is an exit tax. Even the administration's estimates are based on that assumption. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers]. (Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas]. (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I think it should be made clear that there is no other nation in the world that imposes a tax such as that contained in the Senate bill and supported by my Democrat colleagues as part of the motion to recommit, and, when a nation makes the decision to oppose a unique and extraordinarily broadly burdensome tax, even if it is on a small group, it sends a message to all those choosing to invest that investing in America could be hazardous to their interests. Now let me just go into this a little bit more because I think it is important that we operate from the facts, and I think it will be clear that this is not about idea. It simply needs to be done in a very much more specific, targeted and well written manner. There are only two countries that impose an exit tax. One is Canada and one is Australia. Australia imposes a tax only on those assets that are non-Australian. No security is required. We are going to impose a tax on absolutely everything, assets, world income and assets worldwide, and not only are we going to require them to pay up, but, if they do not, if they take the deferral plan, we are going to charge them interest compounded daily. We are going to charge them interest on their obligation whether or not they have any way of selling their property and realizing the resources that they would need to pay their tax. There is simply no precedent for this in any other country. In Canada, for instance, they are allowed to defer their tax. They must provide some security, but they do not have to pay any interest, and furthermore, they are only taxed on the accrued gain on any asset when the asset is sold. So, other countries looking at the same issue of people giving up their citizenship who leave the country, the citizens of that country wanting to be able to gain the legitimate tax obligation, tax debt, of that citizen who is foregoing their citizenship, they have solved this problem in ways that are fair and equitable. We can do that, too. For example, we had testimony in the hearing that it would be grossly unfair to force people to pay taxes on the underlying value of a trust when they had no power to either sell their interest in that trust or relinquish their interest in that trust. By imposing a tax on people that they literally cannot pay, we have the effect through that of imposing an exit tax because we require people to pay money that they literally have no way of coming up with. Let me read to my colleagues from the testimony of Rabbi Jack Moline because it shows, when tax policy becomes irrational when it imposes a burden on people that there is absolutely no way that they can assume, we do create a human rights violation because we, through that tax burden, prohibit them from exercising their right to leave the country. Rabbi Jack Moline: I respectfully ask the Members of the House of Representatives to reject the tax on citizens who choose to renounce their United States citizenship. I have spent many years struggling with foreign governments on behalf of Jews wishing to leave oppressive societies for the freedom afforded by our country and others. I traveled to the Soviet Union in 1978 for the purposes of meeting Jews who wanted to emigrate, but were denied that opportunity on the basis of legal technicalities and, most onerously, excessive taxes placed on their request to emigrate. Their stories were heartbreaking; indeed, many members of this committee remember well their own advocacy on behalf of refuseniks. Outrageous exit taxes that a person has no way of generating the resources to pay have traditionally been a way of denying people the right to emigrate. Now, I have absolutely no opposition to and I fully support going after the 12 and 24 people that are manipulating this in a way that they renounce their citizenship, get the benefits, but then stay in the country and do their business. And we will be able to amend this bill, given the work of those interested in it and their willingness to report back to us on how we do that, but we cannot amend it in time to provide the right for self- employed people to deduct their health care premiums. In other words, we cannot do this in the time frame, in the time we have left before April 15th. So I assure you that I think the goal of the President's proposal is a proper one. This is not a good bill. It will impose onerous taxes. It is an exit tax. It will create human rights violations. And no other Nation in the entire world imposes this kind of tax. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, yesterday we had a very long debate on term limits. I opposed the adoption of a constitutional amendment to limit terms, but I acknowledge that the interest in that approach springs from the American people's deep-seated belief that somehow this body is out of touch, that what we talk about is not real. It disappoints me that this debate is becoming an example of exactly that. This debate is not about Gingrich Republicans defending the wealthiest. That is the most misleading rhetoric, for purely political purposes, that I have heard on the floor. This debate is about the following: It is about the little people of America. It is about the self-employed person. That person's deduction for their health insurance, and we know how expensive health insurance is, expired, expired in December of 1993. Under the Democrat majority, we could have prevented that, or we could have reinstated it under the Republican majority. What we are about today is to reinstate that deduction retroactively, and we must do it before April 15 if we want all those little folk out there who establish their own businesses and are self-employed to get that deduction. If pass the 30-percent health insurance deduction for little people in America, the people who count, the people who do think we are not listening for exactly the reason of the quality of the debate today. That is our No. 1 goal, to assure that by April 15 and the tax filing season, self-employed people will again be able to deduct 30 percent of their premiums. They could have done it, remember. They lost this right in December 1993. We are now into 1995. This could have been done any time over the last year and a half and it was not done. It is going to be done. I am proud of that. That is our No. 1 goal. The second goal, the second goal is to act on an issue that President Clinton identified. That is those people who are using expatriation to avoid taxes. We agree on that. However, we did not hold a hearing on this matter until we saw it was actually going to come forward. In that hearing, very significant issues were raised by the proponents. The supporters of it say ``If you do not fix certain provisions it will fall very unfairly, not on those 12 to 24 wealthiest, but on the little people who came from Cuba.'' For example, a woman comes from Cuba or a family comes from Cuba fleeing Castro, build from nothing, from zero, their own business. Then Cuba becomes free, and they want to go back and help. They are going to be subject to this tax, so it had better be fair. That is our obligation. Even the proponents who testified for it said ``You have to fix two or three provisions.'' I said to them ``How do you fix them?'' They said ``It is complicated. We can do it. We have got working teams preparing it, but we don't have the language for you.'' I said ``How soon can you have it?'' They said ``Three weeks to about two months, because it is tough, and we do not know how much agreement in the tax community we are going to be able to develop.'' We can fix it. We can do exactly what we all agree needs to be done, but we must do it right. I was fascinated by the minority whip's comment that there are 12 to 24 people affected. I asked that from the representative of the Treasury specifically. He did not know how many people were affected. He did not know what the impact would be. All he could tell me was how many people left, gave up their citizenship, each year. That is insufficient information on which to do this. In the other body, they held no hearing on this provision at all before they acted on it. After they acted on it, they did hold a hearing. Some of these issues were raised. We held at least a hearing before we came to the floor, so we have real information. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate to toy with the interests of all those hard-working Americans who need that deduction, and to pretend that we are not in agreement. We want to strengthen our law to prevent people from leaving America and getting tax benefits as a consequence of citizen renunciation. We are able to do both, and I urge Members' support of a fair rule.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. First, Republicans have done exactly what we promised to do in the Contract With America. We have brought the term limits debate to the floor of the House so that the arguments can be publicly and thoroughly aired. That is what we promised, and that is what we are delivering. I believe the interest in term limits reflects people's belief that Congress has been out of touch, that we have not in recent years debated the issues that people felt were at the heart of their concerns, and in that I agree with them. I agree that this body has been out of touch, but it is not for lack of Member turnover. More than 50 percent of the Members have been here less than 4 years. What great corporation with formidable responsibilities would seek greater turnover than that? The problem has been the entrenched power structure that governs what this body is allowed to consider. That is the problem. The solution is the solution adopted by the Republican majority this term. We have limited the terms of committee chairmen, limited the terms of all of our leadership, so that we will assure that turnover in committee chair and in leadership positions will guarantee that indeed the agenda will change, that there will be no chairman that can limit the agenda to his interests and the interests of those who sent him to Congress. Limiting the terms of committee chairmen and reforming our campaign finance laws so that challengers have a genuine opportunity to win are the answer. The solution is not term limits, because that simply transfers power to staff. They stay longer than Members, they get to know the law better than Members, and they end up steering Members and controlling the agenda when they are not elected and do not go home. I do not want to transfer power to staff, but I also do not want to compromise the quality of the solutions that we develop here as this Congress. And if we limit terms, we will surely compromise quality. Limiting terms will not simplify the problems. The problems are complex because American manufacturing and agriculture now employ highly toxic chemicals to produce their products. That means we have to have clean air laws, clean water laws, and when we write those laws, we have to know a lot about industry, agriculture, and chemistry. Our security depends on understanding what kind of conflicts we will be a part of in 20 years, and for that reason then we need to understand what force structure we will need, what armaments we will need, and what investments in research and development we must make now for the security of our children. These issues take time, they take study, they take years of understanding, knowledge, and work. Our economic security depends on our success in the international market. Child and family security depends on getting rid of drugs. The issues demand an intelligent, knowledgeable, and dedicated Congress. Vote against term limits.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion, although I do not rise in opposition to the concerns expressed by the gentleman from Florida, for whom I have great respect, or for my colleague and ranking member on the Oversight Committee, who also supports the motion. I am not defending the status quo. I think the administration has found a real problem. I think we need to deal with it. I do not believe, from the testimony we received yesterday, that it is possible to deal with it in 5 days. However, we can, by retaining that portion of this bill in conference, retain the date and therefore have the same effect in a month or 2 that we would have this week, if we bring it out of conference. Now, it is important that we do the right thing in creating a more effective law in this area. Let me give you an example of the kinds of misinformation that is afoot. For instance, in the Germany situation, Germany only taxes you if you own 25 percent of a corporation's stock. And then they only tax you at one-half of the normal rate and only on that stock that you own. The scope of this bill is extraordinary. It is absolutely everything you own. Furthermore, it forces you to pay taxes on something that you may have no way of generating income to pay. Now, I was very interested that my colleague from California said there were 24 people involved. I questioned the representative of the Treasury Department yesterday. He did not know how many people were involved. He never mentioned numbers like that. He never gave any examples. I am not confident that we are going to catch in our net so few people. Those people do need to be caught. There should be no tolerance in America for using relinquishing of your citizenship as a way of avoiding taxes that you are responsible to pay. But this bill has some very serious and very significant problems. First of all, as I mentioned, the scope of the bill is enormous. It covers every kind of asset and it treats every one of those assets as if you could turn them into cash so that you could pay taxes on them. In the area of trust, even the advocates of the bill said you must fix the problems in the trust area, but we do not know quite how yet. So, even those who testified in favor of the bill had some real concerns about some of its significant technical problems. In the area of double taxation, this will require that we renegotiate all our tax agreements with other nations or we will subject people to terribly unfair double taxation. We are a Nation where justice matters. If we are going to adopt a law that will guarantee that everybody pay the taxes that they should--and we should do that--we should not want them to be taxed again on those same assets in another country. And without renegotiation of those tax agreements, that is exactly what will happen. We had to negotiate an agreement with Canada to prevent that kind of action when they adopted legislation in this area. We will have to renegotiate all those agreements as well. Let me close by commenting on two other aspects of this bill. If we act precipitously in a way that appears hostile to foreign investors--and this bill from the outside, without hearing our debate, can easily appear hostile to foreign investment--we run a very grave risk. We are a Nation whose currency values are plummeting, we are a Nation that depends on foreign investments to fund our debt, a Nation that depends on foreign investors to fund our economic growth. We cannot afford to chill the interest of foreign investors in our economy by acting precipitously in a way that is not rational. Finally I would say in regard to the human rights issue, Let me quote from the testimony of Robert Turner who was the staffer when they passed the Jackson-Vanik amendment. He says: If the proposed ``exit tax'' is designed to discourage citizens from exercising their right to renounce U.S. citizenship, I think it is contrary to the law. If it is designed to impose an immediate and substantial financial burden upon citizens--on the specific and expressed grounds that they have elected to renounce their citizenship and emigrate to another country--and it is a burden that would not be imposed upon otherwise identically situated citizens who elected to remain American citizens (and did not elect to sell or dispose of their property or take other action that would recognize capital gains liability), then I think you have a very serious problem. In that event, I would want my money ``up front'' if I were asked to argue before an international tribunal that the proposed U.S. exit tax complies with the spirit of the Jackson-Vanik amendment. Mr. Speaker, I say: My colleagues, if you impose a tax that a person cannot generate the resources to pay, you automatically prevent that person from having a choice about whether they continue to be a citizen or they don't continue to be a citizen. That is an entirely different issue than holding them liable for taxes they owe our country. To impose a tax that compromises the right to choose to be a citizen or choose not to be a citizen is a very serious human rights matter in this world, and it's one that we have been closely identified with over decades in our long struggle against communism. So I would urge my colleagues to be patient in this matter. We can address this problem. We can use the effective date in the bill that is in the conference, but we absolutely must address the domestic and international implications of this proposal and do it wisely.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I do want to reiterate that I do not oppose amending the law so that people cannot use renunciation of citizenship to avoid the payment of legitimately owed taxes. But this bill does need amending. We cannot accede to the Senate language. And I want to make very clear that we are not just talking about 24 multimillionaires. Do you realize that any Cuban-American who came here to escape Castro, started their own small business, it could be a single woman, the small business did very, very well over time, she bought a very nice house, she bought a very nice car, made some other investments, now Cuba gets freed, she wants to go back. She wants to for symbolic reasons renounce her American citizenship, but she wants to leave a trust for her kids here and wants to leave her business here moving along. But she wants to sell her house, she wants to take a lot of her assets back, and she wants to be a Cuban citizen. This bill catches her, and the trust provisions are such and the tax she would owe on the business she built are such that she would have to sell them to pay this level of tax. This is not just about billionaires. This is about everybody who renounces their citizenship, and it is going to catch a lot of Cuban- Americans, it is going to catch a lot of Hungarian-Americans, and Czech-Americans and others who flew Communist nations and came here and worked with extraordinary energy and resources and built something for themselves and now decide to leave. So let me say that this is a tough provision. It needs some improvement. My colleague said it is not tougher than the taxes of other countries. He used Finland as an example. Listen to what Finland does. A Finnish citizen who leaves the country is deemed to be a resident for 3 more years. In other words, they are treated for tax purposes as being a resident for 3 more years. Current law treats people as deemed to be a resident for 10 years. Our current law is tougher than the Finnish law. Let us look at Germany. Germany has been held out saying they are tougher than we are. To pay this tax, you have to own 25 percent of the stock of a corporation, or more, of a corporation. You have to be a big stockholder in a German corporation to be caught in this tax, and then you are taxed only on the gain in the stock in that corporation and at half the regular tax ratio. This is an entirely different tax than the tax being proposed; it would have an entirely different impact on foreign investors. Furthermore, if you came into Germany and then left, you would only be taxed on the gain during the period you were in Germany. Now, my friends, we are absolutely obliged to support the administration in closing a loophole they have identified. But we must treat noncitizens and citizens the same way, and must not adopt a tax that is so extraordinarily different than that of other countries that it has ramifications for people who are making investment decisions. We also must adopt a tax that is respectful of trust obligations and other obligations for which it is not possible to generate cash to immediately pay off tax obligations as defined under this bill. It is perfectly possible for us to solve these problems. I only ask that in conference you give yourselves the time to do that, and not bind yourself to the Senate language. I do not ask that my colleagues, because this is a difficult issue, vote with me. I do not ask that. I do ask that this debate be considered by the conference and that we not adopt a policy that would be destructive for us as a Nation and probably in the long run destructive of our economic strength.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, before yielding to my colleague from Ohio, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I do want to mention that this amendment was put in well before that poll. This is not a poll response. This was put in after all the bills came out of committees. We had a chance to evaluate their interaction and how the program would work, and this is the money that then we decided was needed to be added in order to ensure that welfare reform will work for women and children and provide security and opportunity in the future. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce].

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 13, printed in House Report 104-85.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the chief sponsor of this amendment.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I respect the effort of my colleague, the Gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal], whose bill does many of the things we know need to be done now to make the current approach workable. But it only loosens the reins of Washington in those areas we see as necessary now. When flexibility is needed for States to implement a new idea, it will again take years for States to gain temporary waivers and even longer for Congress to change the law. Let me give you an example. The Deal bill does not give States the right to make rent payments directly to landlords. Under current law, States must comply with cumbersome Federal regulations on a case-by- case basis to prove the recipient is not capable of managing his or her financial affairs. This is so burdensome and takes so long that States simply do not pursue it. Yet the need is compelling. A recent grand jury investigating crime in a Connecticut police department uncovered a direct tie between welfare dollars and the drug trade. When taxpayer-provided benefit checks hit the streets, drug purchases soared. In the same city, kids are not staying in the same school the whole school year. Many classes turn over nearly 100 percent each year, compromising children's education severely. Families are on the move, and children are the victims due to nonpayment of rent, due to parents' drug addiction, subsidized with taxpayer dollars. Can we not do better from Washington? We simply cannot construct a flexible enough system to meet the needs of kids and their parents. Direct payment of rent is only one example of the need for far greater State control and authority than the Deal bill provides. It absolutely goes in the right direction, but the only block grant with Federal accountability that can foster development of a welfare system that will move people off welfare into jobs is the Republican alternative. Are we taking a risk by creating a block grant system? Yes. Change is inherently risky, but it is a solid risk, because in every other sector of our society, pushing authority and responsibility down to frontline folks has worked. This week we have the opportunity to rise to the challenge of making systemic real reform in America's welfare system. Vote to move from caretaking dollars to wage dollars, to restore dignity to need. Vote against the Deal amendment.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and in support of this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the child support provisions in H.R. 1214, the Personal Responsibility Act, including the amendments to it that we will consider today. I would like to take this opportunity to commend my colleagues on the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues who have worked long and hard on child support issues. In particular, Congresswomen Marge Roukema and Barbara Kennelly, who served on the U.S. Commission on Interstate Child Support, have brought years of leadership and experience to our debate. The Child Support Responsibility Act, which we introduced earlier this year along with Congresswomen Connie Morella, Patricia Schroeder, and Eleanor Holmes Norton, has been largely adopted into the welfare reform bill before us today. Consequently, I am extremely pleased that the child support title in this bill will go a long way toward solving some of the most difficult problems in the system. If focuses on locating parents who move from State to State in order to avoid paying support, and puts into effect tough enforcement mechanisms that will force reluctant parents into paying even when we already know their whereabouts. The legislation sets up interacting State databases of child support orders, which will be matched against basic ``new hire'' data so that State child support officials can locate missing, non-paying parents. It applies the same wage withholding and enforcement rules to Federal employees, including military personnel, as currently apply to the rest of the workforce. It makes enforcement of orders for parents who are self-employed easier through a number of means, such as the newly adopted amendment to administer liens on an interstate level. Finally, this legislation contains my provision adopted in the Ways and Means Committee that will put work requirements on many noncustodial parents who are behind in paying child support, often due to their not having a job. Just because a person is not employed does not mean his or her obligation to support the child ends. Many children are on welfare because one parent is not paying their court-ordered child support. This provision requires parents to either pay their child support, enter into a repayment plan through the courts, or work in a government-sponsored program. Since the government is paying for the child's support through a welfare check, it is entirely reasonable to expect something in return from the non-paying parent. And we do. I am confident that the child support legislation we have before us today will result in millions upon millions more dollars being put toward the support of children by their parents. It is with great enthusiasm that I support the child support enforcement title of the bill, as well as the bill as a whole.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers].

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, is it not procedurally correct that I close?

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer]. (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge support of the child care amendment which I am offering along with Congresswomen Pryce, Dunn, and Waldholtz, which raises the authorization level for the child care grant by $150 million a year for 5 years. Mr. Chairman, there are three main points I would like to make with respect to this amendment. First, requiring adults to work in exchange for their benefits will increase the need for child care. This is inevitable. Fully 63 percent of families on AFDC have children age 5 and under. A significant number of children who are in school still need after-school care, since the school day and school year are much more limited than the typical workday and work year. In an ideal world, extended family would be able to provide some amount of this care. But in today's world day care and the need for day care is a reality for those on welfare and those gaining independence. Second, reduced child care funding puts the squeeze on the working poor. In recent years, AFDC participation rates have resulted in States offering the program tilting more and more toward welfare families and away from the working poor. Thirty-five States reported last year that they have a waiting list for subsidized child care for working poor. My State of Connecticut does not even maintain a waiting list anymore, since all slots opened up are already spoken for. As we require more women on welfare to work, this problem is going to get more serious, not less serious. I am pleased to be proposing this amendment today because I think it expands our resources significantly to address the child care needs that will develop as we reform welfare. But this amendment is not the whole answer. That is a point that is very important to make because there was a lot of misunderstanding in recent days as we debated this bill about how we are going to manage the child care needs that welfare reform will impose upon society. The heart of the solution is actually not this amendment; the heart of the solution is moving welfare from a cash-gift basis to a cash-wage basis because if everyone receiving welfare were also working and we used our day care resources to pay very skilled administrators and lead teachers, child development experts to run these day care centers, with welfare recipients now being paid to staff them, then we would in fact have the child care slots that we need at the money that is currently available. So this is simply one step forward, giving States time and resources to create really the much greater, broader child care opportunity, better connected to education, work, and training that real reform demands. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.