Nancy Johnson

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman. The expansion of NATO will foster continued economic growth and political stability in these regions. Moreover, the declining defense budgets of European and American forces necessitate expansion of the NATO security umbrella and the military cooperation it fosters. It is also my understanding that this bill authorizes the President to designate ``other European countries emerging from communist domination'' who might receive assistance. Title VI of H.R. 872 specifically designates the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania These countries will be required to continue to develop their democratic political structures, market economies, and military reforms while contributing to the security of the North Atlantic area. To date, the Baltic States have made significant progress in these areas. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania all have progressed toward democratic institutions by adopting Western-style constitutions and holding free and fair elections. In addition, these states have moved toward a market economy by following tight fiscal and monetary policies, creating strong currencies, and moving toward privatization of housing, small businesses, and industry. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania also constitute the Baltic Peacekeeping Battalion. This force is currently receiving assistance from the U.S. Military and should be operational for security and mutual defense by 1996. As members of the Partnership of Peace, these states hope to maintain cooperation in the areas of defense and peacekeeping while adopting NATO military hardware standards. Further, the Baltic States have been admitted to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe [CSCE] and the United Nations. Besides being members of the International Monetary Fund [IMF] and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development [EBRD], the Baltic States hope soon to be members of the European Union [EU], with which they have free-trade agreements. I am pleased with the language of H.R. 872 regarding the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. This provides the United States a historic opportunity to ensure future regional security by taking appropriate actions now. We can no longer adhere to lines drawn during the cold war. NATO expansion and admissions will lend stability to the entire region, promote U.S. interests, and provide security against a possible resurgence of nationalism. I thank the gentleman from New York for entering into this colloquy with me and am glad that we were able to clarify this important issue.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I believe it preserves the preventive focus of these dollars, and I think it preserves also the best thinking of members of both parties. It preserves for example, the block granting of prevention dollars. It adopts the block grant structure in the Republican bill to govern all those dollars that are going to fund community-oriented prevention programs, things that communities will plan that they will tailor to their particular needs and that will realize our vision of a Federal/ local partnership that truly will be more prevention-oriented. However, it separates out the cop dollars. I think that is important for reasons of accountability, but it does several other things in regard to those cop dollars. It allows them to go directly to the police, and I think that is important, I think that size a grant for police particularly ought to go directly to the department. It continues to require a local match. I think that is better policy. In my own hometown, one that is very strapped financially, we went through a very rigorous, very public debate when we decided to come up with a match dollar for the cops program, and through that debate we were able to demonstrate to all the people in town that at the end of 5 years this grant would not increase our local property taxes, but would enable us to restructure our police force so that it would have more cops and fewer administrators. In fact, these Federal dollars leveraged change in the healthiest kind of way, and by keeping them separate, and by making those grants go directly to the police, we maintain a level of accountability that simply is not possible by simply block granting a merged fund of cops dollars and other preventive program dollars. So, I think separating the cops dollars is better law, better policy. Last, the formula through which these funds are distributed is a formula that I think is healthier because it allows communities to prevent crime. It does not distribute the moneys simply on the basis of what are your crime statistics. It allows small cities like I represent that are, frankly, on the verge of a real explosion of crime to get the critical dollars they need to prevent that explosion. I know we are turning the corner on prevention. We are getting control in the small cities of this terrible gang problem, and we are doing it by increasing resources, dedicating cops, increasing community focus. But we do need resources to maintain this effort and to get us through to where this is a controllable and affordable problem for a force based on local property taxes, and I think the distribution formula that segregates and guarantees a certain amount of money to towns under 150,000 where the problems are just developing and where we can prevent an increase in crime statistics is terribly important. It is the only way that the small cities that I represent are going to get the kind of significant dollars they need, and it is a key reason why I think this amendment is in the interests of my people and good policy.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke], and in regard to my friend, the gentleman from Missouri, I would say that I have a very strong record in support of women having the right to make decisions for themselves and strongly supported the clinic access bill. But I think this bill, which is a bill that provides money to local towns and cities to fight crime at the local level, ought to be as broad as possible and yet at the same time make absolutely clear that communities have the right to use these funds to target their resources at any institution that for whatever reason may be under particular pressure or fire. In recent years it has been abortion clinics. In preceding years in my communities it was synagogues in certain towns. In other times there have been medical research facilities that have been the targets of bombing and terrorist activities. So, I think it is very appropriate that we enlarge the underlying bill that mentions school to also include a number of other types of facilities that sometimes do require the mobilization of specific resources to repeal threats of violence that emanate from vicious, hateful beliefs and feelings, but represent an extraordinary threat to both the people and the facilities. So Mr. Chairman, this amendment does say in and around a school, religious institution, medical or health facility, including a research facility, a housing complex, a shelter, because certainly shelters for abused women, if they become known, can become the target of exactly the kind of violence that we have seen develop around abortion clinics and other facilities that are surrounding where a threat to law and order exists, and then it explicitly allows, and this is the point of the preceding gentlewoman from Colorado's amendment. She fears, if we do not specifically use resources, that local elected officials will feel reluctant to use Federal tax dollars for these purposes since we do not allow, for example, the use of Federal tax dollars to provide perfectly legal medical procedures for Medicaid recipients. So this bill does very clearly say that, if there is a threat of violence, or unlawful or criminal activity in the opinion of the law enforcement officials and local people, that the money can be used for personnel, materials, security measures to carry out the purposes of this act. I think it is a good, solid amendment. I think its a thoughtful response. It is an effort on the part of many who believe that abortion should not be seen and abortion violence should not be seen as singular and unique, but that kind of violence that communities have a right to respond to. So I am proud to support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke]. I think it is a strong addition to the bill. It enlarges on the Schiff amendment in a responsible way, and I urge Members' support of it.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Certainly it is true that we have done a lot of good work on the issue of violence against women. It is not my understanding that there is a specific listing in this bill that addresses those kinds of institutions, and I think, we think that our amendment will be far more specific and cover the concerns that the gentlewoman has brought forward.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment because I believe that the block grant format that governs the expenditure of these funds clearly allows communities to expend funds for the purposes encompassed in the amendment of the gentlewoman from Colorado. On the other hand, I think her concern that we have not sufficiently addressed the problem of the kind of violence that is occurring at this time in our history around health clinics in certain communities is well taken. Later my colleague, the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Longley], will introduce an amendment that not only goes to the violence around medical facilities, but the violence that has plagued some health research facilities, that sometimes is a threat to shelters for abused women and things like that. That is a more comprehensive amendment that addresses the kind of violence that occurs at, in a sense, institutions that have become lightning rods in communities.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, the single biggest factor behind productivity growth is innovation. Two-thirds to 80 percent of productivity growth since the Great Depression is attributable to innovation. In an industrialized society, research and development is the primary means by which technological innovation is generated. However, because firms cannot capture fully the rewards of their innovation--the rate of return to society of innovation is twice that which accrues to the individual company--the market activity alone creates under-investment in R&D. The situation is aggravated by the high risk associated with R&D. Eighty percent of such projects are believed to be economic failures. Therefore, economists and technicians who have studied the issue are nearly unanimous that the Government should intervene to bolster R&D. If the United States fails to provide U.S. companies with competitive incentives to conduct R&D, many U.S. firms in key industries-- aerospace, electronics, chemicals, health technology, and telecommunications, to name a few--will find it harder to compete in an increasingly globalized marketplace, jeopardizing their leadership positions. For the past 13 years we have had an R&D tax credit, designed to provide an incentive for companies to conduct additional R&D in the United States. Some, myself included, believe the credit structure can be improved to increase its effectiveness, especially regarding small business and high-technology industries. As the marketplace changes and industries mature, we must continue to improve the effectiveness and utilization of this important program. We have made such changes on no fewer than four occasions in the past. Most importantly, however, we must remove the uncertainty surrounding the credit's extension and once and for all permanently extend the provision. Study after study has established that the credit's uncertain future reduces its ability to continue stimulating additional increases in R&D expenditures. To the extent that researchers in American laboratories are able to pioneer the new technologies, processes, and products that will drive global markets, we will be able to offer skilled and highly paid jobs to the next generation of Americans. That is why we must now underscore our permanent commitment to a leadership role in global technological advancement. If we fail to act, the R&D credit will expire in June of this year. Such failure is the opposite message we should be sending to U.S. businesses that are gearing up to meet the challenges of a rapidly changing, global marketplace. As we prepare to enter the 21st century, we must remain committed to providing an environment that fosters technological investment and scientific exploration. America's continued economic well-being depends on it. Such investment creates more and higher paying U.S. jobs, increases productivity, and, in turn, increases the U.S. standard of living. There is considerable discussion, on both sides of the aisle and within the Administration, about smaller government, less regulation, and market incentives as opposed to Government-dictated solutions. The R&D credit is an example of a successful program by which the Federal Government has encouraged market forces to dictate where and when innovation and technology should occur. The most recent study on the issue, prepared by KPMG Peat Marwick's policy economic group, concludes that ``a one dollar reduction in the after tax price of R&D stimulates approximately one dollar of additional private R&D spending in the short run, and about two dollars of additional R&D spending in the long run.'' That, in turn, implies long run increases in GDP. Thus, an effectively targeted R&D credit can help set the pace of growth and should not be allowed to expire. Currently the Government spends over $71 billion per year on nondefense R&D. This spending will, and should, come under scrutiny with the rest of Federal spending. This spending can be cut without reducing our commitment to U.S. commercial leaders of the technological revolution. I believe a permanent R&D credit should be enacted as part of a meaningful, market-driven program to stimulate R&D, and I sincerely hope such action can be completed before the June 30, 1995, expiration date. I am pleased to be introducing this legislation with my friends and colleagues, Representatives Robert Matsui, Wally Herger, and Richard Neal. I intend to work actively to ensure a permanent extension of the R&D credit and encourage all my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to work with me in this important endeavor.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Reclaiming my time, if we write legislation as sloppily as we have been writing legislation in the last few years, you bet they will be in court and they will tie it up forever. But if we write precise law, that clarifies responsibilities on both sides, if we do our job well, then it will be perfectly clear who is to pay for what, and I for one will be proud to stand on that territory.

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

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, there is not anything in this bill that will prevent us from passing unfunded mandate legislation. Nothing in this bill prevent us from passing laws that will mandate costs on States that we do not pay for. The only difference is that 51 percent of us will have to vote to do that. But this bill is about accountability. It will force us to write good law that says specifically whose responsibility is what and who is going to pay. I, for one, am going to be perfectly proud to stand on this floor and force States to pay 10 percent of a child-support system; absolutely, we pay 90, they pay 10, and we all benefit. I will vote to force States to pay 25 percent of water-treatment plant costs; absolutely a good deal. But I ought to be voting for that. I ought to be accountable for that, and I ought to go home and take the rap for that and argue with my folks about that being a square deal and a sound partnership. Now, on Medicare, frankly, if the unfunded-mandate law had been in place, our Congress would not have been able to underfund Medicare payments to hospitals and physicians. Do you know who takes the rap because we do not fund Medicare? It is all of those little guys out there who pay their own health care premiums. Their premiums in Connecticut are one-third higher because we underfund Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement rates. That is a disgrace. All this bill will do is make us publicly accountable to say what is important, who is going to pay, and what portion we are going to take and what portion we are going to push on anybody else. This is just honesty.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, women who do not work outside the home contribute as much as their working spouses to the care and support of their families and they deserve equal retirement security. Unfortunately, the Tax Code prevents women who work at home from providing for their own retirement to the same extent as women who work outside the home. The problem is rooted in the rules governing Individual Retirement Accounts [IRA's]. If both spouses in a household bring home a paycheck, each is permitted to contribute and deduct up to $2,000 to an IRA-- $4,000 in total, subject to income limits. If only one spouse works, however, a married couple is limited to contributing a total of $2,250 to an IRA. In other words, a one-income married couple two-income couple. Furthermore, if the wage earner in a one-income couple participates in an employee pension plan, there are further limits on total IRA contributions. Clearly, the tax code discriminates against spouses--primarily women--who work at home. In order to end this unequal treatment and to promote private retirement savings, I today have introduced a bill to permit full, $2,000 IRA contributions by nonworking spouses. Under my bill, a nonworking spouse could make a deductible IRA contribution, just as working spouses do under current law. An identical Senate bill has been introduced today by Senators Hutchinson and Mikulski. Congress should take the lead in promoting equal treatment, equal employment choice, and retirement security for American homemakers. I hope my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this legislation.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I rise in strong support of the balanced budget amendment for three reasons. First of all, we have no choice. We are spending $800 million every single day on interest. Soon we will be spending $1 billion every single day on interest on the national debt. We cannot ask our children to support a growing number of seniors living 20 and 30 years after retirement and spend a billion dollars a day on interest on the national debt. We will destroy their standard of living, we risk our own democracy. It is that serious. We must balance the budget. We have no choice. Let us look at the record of this body. I have been here 12 years, since 1985, and I have submitted balanced budgets, line by line, cuts. They were reasonable when the problem was manageable. I have had the Democratic chairman of the Committee on the Budget get up and say to the moderate Republicans who proposed this budget, ``Good thinking, thoughtful, real good effort. We are going to do most of this.'' But it never happened. I have submitted budgets, I have been part of bipartisan teams to submit budgets, I voted for tax increases and spending cuts, and it has gotten worse and worse and worse. So our record is bad. In the States, that has been the harness, a balanced budget amendment, which forces attention to this matter on a year-by-year basis. It has worked for them. We must try it, because we are squandering the Nation's resources and compromising our children's future. Third point: How do we achieve it? Of course, we cannot tell you. How many times have you walked into factories in your districts? I can tell you I have walked into a factory in my district, faced with the absolute panicked look on the faces of the leadership who had just found out they were going to have to be required to cut 20 percent of their workforce in 1 year. I said to them, ``How will you do it?'' Their answer was, ``We don't know.'' I came back a year later, and I said, ``How did you do it?'' They said, ``Well, we did this, and then we did that, and then we found out we could do this and do that, we discovered that not only could we do it, but we improved the quality of the product.'' I remember in one factory I went to, I said ``So what now?'' I get this terrible stare that said, ``We just learned we have to do it again.'' Now, do we know how to do it? No. But we do know that if we have to do it, we can do it. We do know that if we have to do it, we will face up to the fact that those kids cannot support public employees retiring 10 years before they can retire. We do not like talking about that. We do not want to make that decision. These are tough times. Let us do it, let us have the guts, the courage to serve not only our people but our children.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, my Democrat colleagues make a strange argument against the balanced budget amendment. They say do not pass it because if we do, we will have to cut spending. The corollary of that is that they think it is wise to continue to increase the deficit $100 to $300 billion every year for the next decade. Two, this year the estimates are down, but Members know a well as I do it is only a couple of years until they zoom up to $400 billion a year. Yes, a balanced budget amendment will mean that we will have to cut spending, and to he extent that we do it honestly by downsizing agencies, by raising the retirement age so that Federal employees retire when the rest of the world retires, by means testing Medicare premiums, by doing sensible, realistic, honest changes in Federal public policy, to that extent, you bet we will be able to protect Social Security, health care security for our seniors, and those programs critical to the American people.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a proposal to expand and make permanent the Medicare Select Program. My colleague, Senator Chafee will be introducing an identical proposal in the Senate today as well. The Medicare Select Program is currently a demonstration project that operates in only 15 States. It provides America's senior citizens with a Medigap managed care option. The program has been extremely successful. There are currently over 450,000 individuals enrolled in Medicare select policies. These individuals are enjoying premium savings over traditional fee-for-service Medigap policies that range from 10 to 37 percent. In real world terms, these reduced premiums translate into savings of up to $25 a month or $300 a year. This is obviously a significant savings for individuals on fixed incomes. In addition, these policies are proving to be among the highest quality products available in the Medigap market today. In August 1994, Consumer Reports rated the top Medigap insurers nationwide. Eight of the top rated products were Medicare select plans. To date, there have been no reported abuses or problems with the Medicare Select Program. This program also enjoys broad bipartisan support. Last year, 239 members cosponsored legislation to extend the program. In addition, the National Governors Association, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, National Conference of State Legislatures, Families USA, and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security, and Medicare support expanding and making this program permanent. The savings and benefits associated with the Medicare Select Program should be available to all of America's senior citizens. By expanding the program and making it permanent, Medicare select products will become much more broadly available and hundreds of thousands of seniors will, for the first time, be able to recognize the savings current participants in the program enjoy. Mr. Speaker, Medicare select is now set to expire at the end of June. If this Congress does not move quickly to enact this legislation, America's senior citizens will lose access to one of the most successful programs in recent history. I strongly encourage my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and look forward to providing seniors continued access to this very important program.