Nancy Johnson

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I would like to note that the 25 percent discount means you pay 25 percent less. And once the subsidies go into effect, you pay 75 percent less, and half the Medicare recipients are women and half of those women will be covered totally. So this is a big, powerful prescription drug bill that will help half the women on Medicare by providing all of their drug coverage. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a member of the committee.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to the time remaining.

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

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton).

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I ask what time remains on each side.

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

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. The gentlewoman from Oregon should know that with this prescription drug insurance plan Medicare recipients in Oregon who are covered will go from 60 percent up to 96.6 percent. This bill brings a benefit to Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I rise in strong support of this legislation. And, indeed, I believe its founders would be proud that tonight we bring a voluntary, generous drug benefit to all seniors under Medicare. This is a milestone. That is why AARP describes it as a historic breakthrough in the Nation's commitment to strengthen and expand health security for its citizens. Something that has not been talked about much here tonight is the new support for seniors with chronic illness. We forget that one-third of our seniors have five or more chronic illnesses and use 80 percent of the money under Medicare, and yet Medicare has no way of supporting them to prevent their chronic illness from progressing. In this bill, we couple the drug benefit and the disease management program to help our seniors prevent their chronic illness from progressing and thereby keep them healthy and keep Medicare costs under control. This is particularly important for minorities, for they tend not to use the medical system early, and they tend not to be diagnosed early. In this bill, we provide an entry-level physical so we can see what early signs of chronic illness they have, and we can help them prevent their chronic illness from progressing. This will be an extraordinary boon to the well-being of our senior citizens. This is a historic advancement in both bringing prescription drugs to Medicare and improving the quality of health care Medicare is able to deliver, and in assuring that Medicare will be able to deliver 21st-century, cutting-edge health care. And this is a historic bill for the rural communities of our Nation. Without it, they will not be able to attract the next generation of physicians as the current generation retires. They will lose small hospitals. They will lose small home health agencies. In fact, without this, our inner-city hospitals will not be able to continue to provide clinics for the poor, clinics for those with mental health problems. This is an important payer package because it restores fairness to our payment system. And lastly, it cuts prices dramatically. It cuts prices dramatically by bringing the bargaining power of the seniors to the table to reduce prices and piercing right through that price support system that keeps State prices high. I am proud to support this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise, for half of America's women will experience free health care under this bill.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from Maryland. There is a lot of interest in the States having flexibility to tailor their programs to their own specific needs, but exactly the structure of that authority is a matter of disagreement at this time; and we will look to see how the Senate resolves those issues and then in conference find an agreement that we think will meet the needs of the majority of the States.

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

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, this legislation is nearly identical to H.R. 3146, a bill the House unanimously approved last week. The only change is the addition of a 6-month extension of expiring Medicare payment provisions affecting hospitals in small cities and rural areas. These provisions need to be passed today and signed into law immediately to ensure the continued smooth operation of programs affecting health, welfare, and commerce throughout the country. I urge the support of this body.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. It is simply my belief that within the time frame of this extension, we will be able to permanently reauthorize the welfare program and add to it the more flexible provisions that are in the underlying bill with some interest that the Senate has expressed in additional waivers.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I certainly appreciate my colleague from Oregon's concern with his State's inventive approach and successful program in support of women on welfare, individuals on welfare seeking the independence of returning to the workforce. I am pleased that the next round of welfare reform will allow a great deal more flexibility in State programs. As the gentleman is aware, a number of State waiver programs have expired in recent years. In June 2003, Oregon Senators were informed by Secretary Thompson that, despite the expiration of Oregon's waiver that month, Oregon was not in danger of failing to satisfy work rate requirements in the future. The reason is because Oregon's caseload reduction credits totally wipe out any effective work rate requirement in the State. Here is how Secretary Thompson put it: ``Oregon is not in violation and, based on Oregon's history, is not expected to be in violation, and, therefore, Oregon will not be subject to penalties for the next 3 months or until reauthorization. Even without its waiver, Oregon's program would have met its all-family work participation requirement in 2002 because it effectively had no participation requirement. Should reauthorization not occur prior to the end of the fiscal year and current law be extended again, I would remain confident, based on the facts that I have before me, that Oregon could continue to operate its program without becoming subject to participation rate penalties.'' As the gentleman knows, the House-passed welfare reauthorization bill, H.R. 4, includes provisions that would allow States to apply for new waivers of the TANF program. That reflects additional flexibility for States and is a positive step. I will fight in conference for enhanced waiver authority for States in conference with the Senate.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. It will certainly be an issue that we will discuss together before the expiration if we think reauthorization cannot be finalized.

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

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I would indicate to the gentleman that the bill that passed the House has a very broad waiver of authority in it. There are some that think it is too broad and would like narrower waiver authority. We will see what the Senate has done, and then we will see if the conference committee can come to a conclusion about the structure of the waiver authority in the future. But there was a waiver authority in the last welfare bill. I think there is universal agreement that States need flexibility to structure their programs to meet the specific needs and circumstances of their own people, and so this will be a significant issue that will be addressed. I cannot tell the gentleman at this point whether there will be precisely the narrow State waiver authority there is under current law, but I would also remind the gentleman that that waiver authority under current law has a defect. The waivers expire and are not reauthorizable. Under current law, they have to reapply for them. So under current law there is a problem about how do we move the successful waivered program into the mainstream, and I think that is an issue that the conference needs to resolve as well because my State also has a waiver that has expired as well as the same kind of unemployment rate, unfortunately, that Oregon has. So there will be a number of people in conference concerned about this issue, but I certainly cannot assure the gentleman that there will be exactly the same kind of state-based waiver authority in the reauthorization that there has been in the past bill. There is a lot more interest amongst many in a broader waiver authority that encompasses a greater variety of bills so that they could better integrate broad services for people coming off welfare. So it is a long debate. We are not going to resolve it here, but I do appreciate the gentleman from Oregon bringing to this floor his concern about his State's rights to tailor its welfare program to meet the needs of its people. In the end that is really what makes a Federal program successful or not successful is that local control and local power, and I agree with the gentleman that that is terribly important to the quality of Federal programs and their success.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Farmington River Watershed Association (FRWA) on its 50th anniversary of actively protecting one of our state's crown jewels, the Farmington River. The Farmington River is the most fished river in Connecticut, provides drinking water to over 600,000 residents of the Farmington Valley and Greater Hartford region, and was the first river in Connecticut and one of the first in New England to have a section designated as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. While the river's outstanding value to fish, wildlife, and people speaks for itself, it would not be so today without the Farmington River Watershed Association. Since its founding, the FRWA has always focused on substance over style, plugged away effectively behind the scenes rather than basked in the limelight, and worked locally to arrive at solutions to regional conservation issues. FRWA lives by the credo ``Eighty percent of success is showing up,'' and show up they do with compelling facts, figures, and enthusiasm. FRWA shows up at public hearings, provides their Congressional Representatives with great information, presents educational programs to the public, initiates research on key issues, shares its findings broadly, and unwaveringly focuses on its mission of river protection. Fifty years ago, John Ellsworth and John Leonard discovered that the Farmington River was receiving over 3.4 million gallons of untreated industrial wastewater every day. They and other community leaders decided to do something about this and together, they founded the FRWA. As a result of dedicated, local leadership over many years, and the benefits of the Clean Water Act and designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the Farmington River is today a healthy, vibrant river, beloved and protected by its people. Now the challenge for FRWA and for all of us is to continue to solve the parade of problems that threaten river life and preserve the outstanding quality of life enjoyed throughout the watershed. On the occasion of this 50th anniversary, let me add a personal note. When I was elected 21 years ago, the FRWA had sought recognition of the river under our Wild and Scenic River program but had failed to be designated for study, the first step. Working together, we introduced a new bill and I maneuvered for a hearing. I can attest to the simple, plain fact that FRWA at that hearing won our case. Their testimony simply mowed down the opposition with solid facts and documentation of the river's problems and potential. Their answers to all questions were calm, in depth, and substantive. The committee was won over. But that was just one battle. Over the next three years there were many, many challenges and it was always the steady, knowledgeable leadership of the FRWA board members and executive directors that got the needed volunteers to serve on the study committee, that helped all to lay aside their suspicions and differences and focus on the facts, and that helped me win additional funding for the national study when the need became clear. I am proud that together, the federal, state, and local team developed the best base data and analysis of any river in our state. It has also been the FRWA that has helped towns learn how to implement the Wild and Scenic designation protections and round up funds when needed. Rivers run through many towns and river health depends on there being a strong river voice, focused, informed, dedicated and steady. That voice has been the Farmington River Water Association in the form of skilled executive directors and very active board members and volunteers. I congratulate you all on your fine work over 50 years! We and our children are the richer in environment and spirit because you were there to fight like heck to reclaim the Farmington River and then to husband this outstanding natural resource. May you have many more anniversaries and continue to keep our Farmington River the beautiful, vital part of our lives it is today. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter a timeline of 50 Years of Accomplishment by FRWA into the Record in recognition of their outstanding efforts, and wish them well on the next 50 years of protecting the Farmington River. 50 Years of Accomplishment: FRWA Timeline 1952: Chief Engineer for the State Water Resources Commission informs John Leonard that over 3.4 million gallons of untreated industrial waste is entering the Farmington River daily. 1953: 70 business leaders, farmers, sportsmen and teachers meet at the Ensign-Bickford Toy Building and form the Farmington River Watershed Association. John Leonard becomes President. 1957: John E. Ellsworth reactivates FRWA (after John Leonard's death in'55). 1958: FRWA hires its first Executive Director, Sydney Howe, who begins the newsletter, educational lecture series, and ecological demonstration site. 1960: FRWA expresses concern over Colebrook Dam design. Army Corps incorporates FRWA comments in final design (1964). 1962: FRWA convinces Governor of CT to investigate effects of DDT use. DDT banned nationally in 1972. 1964: FRWA helps secure Talcott Mountain as a State Reservation. 1967: With the Appalachian Mountain Club, FRWA sponsors the first white-water slalom races at Tariffville Gorge. 1970: FRWA publishes the first `Farmington River Guide.' 1970: FRWA initiates negotiations between the Stanley Works and the State for a shad fishway at Rainbow Dam. Fishway is completed in 1976 and shad pass dam for first time in 50 years. 1972: FRWA holds a public meeting to explain the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Bill. 1975: FRWA and the Granby Conservation Commission sponsor an educational meeting on cluster housing. 1980: FRWA becomes first CT conservation organization to receive U.S. Interior Department's highest award. 1981: FRWA launches a campaign to educate the public about Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) plans to divert the West Branch of the Farmington. Referendum is defeated. 1983: The FRWA Hazardous Materials Spill Plan is published and over 120 copies distributed to watershed towns. 1985: Congresswoman Nancy Johnson introduces legislation for Wild and Scenic feasibility study. 1987: FRWA receives the prestigious ``Outstanding River Advocate'' award from American Rivers. 1989: FRWA sponsors 1st ``Annual River Clean-up.'' 1990: FRWA hosts 1st ``RiverSplash'' river festival. 1990: FRWA builds public awareness and support for Wild and Scenic designation. 1991: FRWA implements land protection program. 1992: All CT watershed towns show support for Wild and Scenic designation. 1993: FRWA adopts Watershed Ecosystem approach, expanding mission to include all watershed lands. 1994: Wild and Scenic legislation passes on August 26, 1994 creating protection for the 14 mile segment from Hogback Dam in Hartland to Canton. 1996: FRWA incorporates GIS mapping technology as a conservation tool. 1998: FRWA negotiates agreement with the MDC to establish a Farmington River watershed withdrawal limit which would require MDC to develop groundwater resources outside the watershed for additional water. 1999: Farmington River Resource Center is established to collect, analyze and disseminate scientific information and encourage stakeholders to develop a long-term sustainable watershed management plan. 2001: FRWA launches the Farmington Valley Biodiversity Project with towns of Avon, Canton, East Granby, Farmington, Granby, Simsbury, and Suffield. 2002: `State of the Farmington River Watershed' is studied. Report published in 2003. 2003: FRWA publishes the Farmington Valley BioMap. 2003: FRWA launches Farmington Watershed Education Project. 2003: FRWA celebrates 50 years of protecting and preserving the Farmington River and its watershed at Peoples State Forest in Barkhamsted.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I want to commend the chairman for crafting a bill that will reward average taxpayers for their generosity and eliminate unnecessary barriers to giving. This is a bipartisan bill that will expand our communities' ability to help each other. However, there are some additional provisions that I hope we will be able to work on with the Senate. First of all, the social services block grant enables communities to address special needs in a very flexible and very local manner, and I am thrilled that this bill reinstates the 10 percent right of transferring money from the TANF block grant to the social services block grant. But more needs to be done, and the Senate bill does offer us that opportunity in the conference. Secondly, I hope that it will look at some of the charitable incentives for conservation in the Senate bill, a higher deduction for donating land to qualified land trusts, for example, that will enable small landowners to be part of conservation and preservation in their communities.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. Mr. Speaker, it is very important for everyone to understand that this Medicare bill provides to the choice for seniors. It is entirely voluntary. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

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

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Absolutely. That is exactly what I am saying. The fallback provision in the Senate bill will lead to drug prices that will cost our bill 8 to $12 billion more.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. You bet it does. It gives every one of those pennies to the drug manufacturers. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maine has some very important concerns. It is unfortunate that he has not read the bill. This is the very best bill for rural America that this House has ever considered. It addresses the problems of rural hospitals, of rural physicians in a way that no preceding bill ever has. And that is in part because of bipartisan support that it attracted in the House. It is also true that this bill provides a prescription drug benefit to every citizen, every senior. And it is a disservice to seniors to imply that it does anything else. It provides an entitlement to prescription drugs for seniors, every senior. Secondly, it does not allow plans to discriminate between healthy seniors and unhealthy seniors. Now, I do not fault the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) for not really understanding this. He is not a member of the committee. He has not been deeply involved in this bill, but if he were involved in this bill, he would know that the administration has now developed ways to risk adjust in 62 different categories, and it is not going to be possible for these plans to select healthy seniors and discriminate against unhealthy seniors. That is an issue of the past. So this bill does not in any way privatize Medicare. It provides exactly the same program for seniors that we have been providing but a far better program, a programming that meets the challenges of 21st century medicine to manage chronic illness, that meets the challenge of Medicare covering prescription drugs, that meets the challenge that our seniors face in their everyday lives in their battles with chronic illness and their need and desire and health demand for prescription drugs. This is an extraordinarily progressive modernization of Medicare, and this motion to instruct the conferees in two portions of the bill is extremely misguided, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it. It is important that in Medicare, Medicare control all parts of the plan, fee-for-service and also the plans. We have had those plans for a number of years. All those plans are controlled. All we want is for seniors to have a strong fee-for-service program, and for seniors to have the kind of choice that the Federal employees have, and that is exactly what this bill provides. But the government controls all the choice plans just like they control all the Federal employee health benefit choices as well. This is a progressive plan. This is an ill-thought-out motion to instruct, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. With all due respect to my friend from Maryland, for whom I have a lot of respect and have worked on many issues, his quote from Mr. Gradison is in regard to last Congress' bill, which was written entirely different. We do not hear anyone making that claim in regard to this bill. So to say that no one would offer this benefit about a bill that is not this bill is really misleading. Secondly, my colleague's motion to move to strike the very section that guarantees Medicare's defined benefit package is duplicitous. I mean, why would they move to strike the section that guarantees, and here is the title, page 260, no change in Medicare's defined benefit package, no change. This is voluntary, this bill, and any senior who wants to continue to choose the Medicare defined benefit package and couple it with a prescription drug program is free to do so, and that defined benefit package is going to offer seniors a far more modern benefit than current Medicare because it is going to help them deal with chronic diseases which current Medicare does not help them deal with. Thirdly, I am appalled that my Democrat colleagues want to provide this giveaway to the drug companies. CBO and CMS actuaries agree that the plans will be available to 95 percent of the beneficiaries, but CBS has said that if we choose the fallback provision in the Senate bill, it will cost 8 to $12 billion. My colleagues know who gets the 8 to $12 billion, the drug companies. They know what our bill does. It pierces the best price process in the States and goes below that and saves $18 billion for seniors; and if they are serious about doing something about drug prices, they will not put in law the fallback provision in the Senate bill because it will cost 8 to $12 billion and give it all directly to the drug companies.