Nancy Johnson

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema]. (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff].

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining? The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Bereuter]. The gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] has 7 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] has 6 minutes remaining.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], a distinguished member of the subcommittee.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 45 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise as chairman of the Select Committee on Ethics to lay before you the committee's bipartisan recommendation for final action on the matter of Representative Newt Gingrich. The committee recommends that Representative Gingrich be reprimanded and reimburse the House $300,000. The penalty is tough and unprecedented. It is also appropriate. No one is above the rules of the House of Representatives. This matter centered on two key questions: whether the Speaker violated Federal tax law and whether he intentionally filed incorrect information with the Ethics Committee. While the committee investigated these questions extensively, its findings were inconclusive. Rather, the committee found that Representative Gingrich brought discredit to the House by failing to get appropriate legal advice to ensure that his actions would be in compliance with tax law and to oversee the development of his letters to the committee to ensure they were accurate in every respect. Each Member of Congress, especially those in positions of leadership, shoulders the responsibility of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety. Representative Gingrich failed to exercise the discipline and caution of his office and so is subject to penalty today. As I have said, the penalty recommended by the committee is tough and unprecedented. In past cases of this nature, the House has reprimanded a Member only where the Member was found to have intentionally made false statements to the Ethics Committee. In this case, the committee recommended a reprimand of Representative Gingrich even though the statement of alleged violations did not assert that he intentionally misled the committee. Likewise in past cases where the committee imposed monetary sanctions on a Member, the committee found that the Member had been personally enriched by the misconduct. The committee made no such finding against Representative Gingrich, yet recommends that a cost reimbursement of $300,000 be paid to the House by him. The report before us contains several hundred pages of exhibits and a detailed analysis of the subcommittee's findings. The allegations and the key facts supporting them were laid out by the special counsel during a public hearing on January 17. The committee's recommendations before you today end 2 long years of work. Throughout this process we never lost sight of our key goals: full and complete disclosure of the facts and a bipartisan recommendation. We accomplished both. Even though it would have been easy for Republicans or Democrats to walk away from the process at many stages, we did not, because we believed in this institution and in the ethics process. The investigative subcommittee was ably chaired by Representative Porter Goss. Representatives Ben Cardin, Steve Schiff, and Nancy Pelosi, along with Mr. Goss deserve the gratitude of this House for the extraordinary workload they shouldered and for their dedication to pursuing each issue until they reached consensus. Together with Mr. James Cole, the special counsel, they laid the groundwork for the bipartisan conclusion of this matter. I want to thank Mr. Cardin, the current ranking member, as well, for working with me through difficult times to enable the bipartisan Ethics Committee process to succeed. In the last 2 years the committee was forced to conduct its work against the backdrop of harsh political warfare. It is the first time ever that members of the Ethics Committee have been the target of coordinated partisan assaults in their districts. Coordinated political pressure on members of the Ethics Committee by other Members is not only destructive of the ethics oversight process but is beneath the dignity of this great institution and those who serve here. Despite the pressures, we bring you today a bipartisan recommendation resolving the most complex charge against Representative Newt Gingrich. I ask for both my colleagues' rejection of the partisanship and animosity that has so deeply permeated the work of the House and for their support of the committee's resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that debate on the resolution be extended for a half an hour.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule IX and by direction of the Select Committee on Ethics, I send to the desk a privileged resolution (H. Res. 31) in the matter of Representative Newt Gingrich, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss), the chairman of the subcommittee, and I want to recognize the outstanding job that he did chairing that subcommittee, as I recognize the remarkable service of the members of that subcommittee. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith]. (Mr. SMITH of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, today we take final action on the Gingrich case. I believe passage of the tough, unprecedented penalty package is appropriate and I also believe it can be one important step toward restoring pride and confidence in the people's House of the U.S. Congress. But as important as this vote is today, no single vote can renew public confidence in this institution. Rather, each Member of this House must take personal responsibility to restore civility and mutual respect to our deliberations. The American people are bone tired of partisanship. They want us to work together, and I believe most Members of this House are yearning to return to the deliberative process that alone produces good public policy. We were elected Republicans and Democrats but the core of democracy is building bipartisan consensus by maturing the best ideas from both parties into responsible, effective solutions. Today we conclude this case by imposing a heavy penalty on the leader of this House. It is a tough penalty, unprecedented and appropriate. But if our action fails today to chasten this body and bring a halt to the crippling partisanship and animosity that has surrounded us, then we will have lost an opportunity to grow and learn from this solemn occasion, and that would be a tragedy. I ask for your support of the bipartisan recommendation of the Ethics Committee.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to the time remaining on both sides?

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hobson]. (Mr. HOBSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution just adopted. The SPEAKER pro tempore Mr. LaHood. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Connecticut?

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

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

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for the members of the Ethics Committee who served on the subcommittee. I have great respect for the other members of the Ethics Committee that have worked hard together over 2 years, and I regret as deeply as you do that we are discussing this matter on the floor of the House. It is unfortunate that it came to us 10 minutes before the Republicans were convening a very important conference that went on very late. By the time I finished discussing the matter with my leadership, working on compliance, frankly, everyone was gone. I have studied carefully your proposal. I talked with Mr. Cole about it extensively this morning. Your proposal is no different than the old timetable in terms of the amount of time for public hearing and the amount of time for committee deliberation. It is distinctly different in the amount of time for preparation, and I felt that was a very important point, that the subcommittee has some request for participating in presentation. We can give you 4\1/2\ of the 5 days you are requesting for preparation if we meet this evening instead of tomorrow morning, so tomorrow morning will be a better work space, either for Mr. Cole, who needs a day to work by himself, or for everyone. We can accommodate 4\1/2\ of the 5 days. What we cannot accommodate is the report writing time. He had asked 2 days to complete the report. We can accommodate that. We cannot accommodate the 4 additional days that he had asked for members to review. Now, that means we have to work with him and be part of that review. We know what a lot of the material is about. As to the concern of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] about voting on Inauguration Day, this was slipped to the next day. That was originally the plan, but it has been moved, and members will stay over. But we simply, when I look at what we can accommodate, we can truly accommodate everything important because remember, your proposal only asked till the 25th, not the 21st, so we only had a 4-day problem. We can slip 1 day. That brings it down to 3 days and so on and so forth. This is a manageable problem. The time for hearings and committee deliberations will be identical. Even though I am going to oppose your motion to commit, I am absolutely ready to honor the concerns that lay behind your proposal, and I regret that we were unable to work it out beforehand. But my leadership felt, with, I think, some good reason, that they had made a commitment to the members that they trusted our timetable, which was also supported by all the members and Mr. Cole, and it is just unfortunate but not irreconcilable, not irreparable and does not need to interfere with the quality either of our deliberations or our work.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. The transition rule could not be worked out until we were done, and so we are here. I hope we will work well together to complete the work on this important case.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rules package, and I regret that we must discuss this on the floor of the House. But it is because the Ethics Committee has two responsibilities. One is to the completion of the work before it, and the other is to the Members of the House. I would just like to comment on this issue of timetable. Between Christmas and New Year's the subcommittee members and the counsel and the full committee members spent many, many hours discussing this issue on the phone. We spent 3 days specifically negotiating a time schedule that then was issued under my name, the name of my ranking member and of our counsel. It was bipartisan, supported by Democrats and Republicans and the special counsel alike, and it was a good-faith effort. At the time we were negotiating it, I wanted desperately to have the hearings before today's opening, and I felt it was possible. I also have great respect for the other members of the committee and particularly for the members of the subcommittee and yielded to their desire not to try to do it before the 9th. Our early discussions, since they involved also extending the membership on this committee of a number of Members who had announced they were not going to serve, focused on the date of January 14. We knew that was tight, but that was our focus as a result of my interest. When I learned that the leadership was comfortable with the 21st, we all agreed on the 21st. I reluctantly, and some others reluctantly, but at that time we all said, this gives us ample time; and so we gave the House notice. Members made their plans, and we issued the schedule. Now, there is concern at this time about two things, one is the ability and the right of the subcommittee to prepare itself for the hearings. I have talked at length with the special counsel, and that problem can be dealt with. We are going to be able to give the subcommittee and the special counsel time, the time they request before the hearings. It does leave us a little pressed in terms of writing the report. During our discussions, it was never brought up that we might need 6 days to write the report. I regret that. I do understand that. This is not a matter of malice. This is a matter, this is the kind of thing that sometimes happens. But it does give us some significant time to write that report, and in fact much of that report is already written. I understand it has to be brought together, different umbrella language, and so on and so forth, but I believe the report can be issued. I commit to the Members that as soon as the hearings are complete, which I think will be at least a week before the vote, once those hearings are complete, I will commit to every Member of this body that they can call the ethics committee and we will provide the transcripts of the two counsels' full statement. They will have plenty of time to read and understand the basis on which the allegations were brought forward. That will mean that they will only need to read and understand the package of sanctions offered by the committee and that is a much smaller body of reading. I believe because we will honor the 3-day layover that they will have the time they need and we will have the opportunity to vote knowingly after an orderly process by sticking to the additional timetable. I do appreciate the pressure this puts on the counsel and his staff in terms of writing the report. We discussed that even 2 days after Christmas. A lot of writing has been in progress, a lot of writing has been done. We will work together as we always have and, if we feel we face, at the end, an insurmountable barrier, we will try to deal with that, too. But in fairness to the Members of the House and the schedules they have laid and to our responsibility to conclude this matter, I urge support of the rules package today.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that some of the Nation's most scenic open spaces are disappearing at a time when many cities--large and small--are decaying. This phenomenon is commonly referred to as sprawl. The causes are many: the development of the Interstate Highway System, relatively inexpensive commuting expenses, and tax incentives for home ownership have made it easier for people to live further from the cities in which they work. In more recent years, jobs have followed families to the suburbs, and breakthroughs in telecommunication have spawned telecommuting, eliminating proximity to the office as a factor for many people in deciding where to work or live. Obviously, public safety, the quality of schools, and the financial health of the Nation's cities figure prominently in decisions to move businesses and families to the suburbs. The situation in my hometown of New Britain, CT, illustrates another facet of the dilemma faced by aging, industrial cities and towns, especially in the Northeast and Midwest. A huge, old factory near the center of town sat unused for years, as fears over asbestos and groundwater pollution blocked rehabilitation and re-use of the building and adjacent property. Only recently, thanks to a cooperative effort that includes Federal, State, and local resources, is the old Fafnir site finally being reclaimed. A powerful incentive for manufacturers and retailers to flee the city is being addressed and the promise of new, centrally located job growth is once again on the horizon. In a broader sense, it is tragic that many cities are suffering at a time when the countryside is disappearing. The American Farmland Trust estimates that the United States converts to other uses 2 million acres of farmland annually, much of it on the edge of urban America. The USDA natural resources inventory found that developed land increased by 14 million acres between 1982 and 1992. Many provisions of tax law have come into play as well. Last summer, the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Oversight held a hearing on the impact of tax law on land use decisions. We learned that it is sometimes more difficult to recover many of the costs of development in urban areas. We also learned that estate taxes can have a tremendous impact on land use decisions. According to one of our witnesses, the Piedmont Environmental Council, farmland that sold for $500 an acre in the 1960's is selling for $10,000 to $15,000 an acre today. The tax costs of passing along such expensive acreage to the next generation, coupled with the pressure for development in many areas, is a major reason for the disappearance of open spaces. We learned more about proposals to build on or expand current empowerment zones and enterprise communities. In recent Congresses, several of our colleagues introduced important legislation addressing these issues. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] introduced a bill providing for more realistic cost recovery for improvements to commercial buildings. The gentleman from Florida and my colleague from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly] introduced a bill to provide a tax credit for qualified rehabilitation expenditures of historic properties used as owner-occupied homes. Our colleague from Missouri [Mr. Talent] and our colleague from Oklahoma [Mr. Watts] introduced the American Community Renewal Act, which would create 100 ``renewal communities'' and provide a number of incentives for conducting business within the communities. Our colleague from New York [Mr. Houghton] introduced the American Farm Protection Act, to exempt from estate taxes the value of certain land subject to a qualified easement. The legislation targets the benefit to land adjacent to metropolitan areas and national parks where development pressure and land values tend to be greatest. Our former colleague from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] introduced two bills related to conservation easements. One would permit an executor to donate land or a conservation easement to a government agency and credit the value of the donation against estate taxes owed. Under current law, donations must be provided for before the owner's death. Mr. Zimmer's other bill would change the way that the gain on bargain sales of land or conservation easements is calculated for tax purposes. We should all be grateful for the many hours of hard work our colleagues have devoted to these initiatives. With so many factors contributing to urban decay and sprawl, there is not single solution. Certainly, I would not suggest that all of the challenges facing our Nation's communities can be addressed by tax policy. But there are several provisions of tax policy that are important. That is why several of our colleagues have come up with some important ideas. I believe several others merit consideration as well. Early this session, I intend to introduce a series of measures to address some of the factors that contribute to sprawl. First, I intend to re-introduce a bill I offered in the last Congress, related to the costs of cleaning up contaminated land and buildings in urban areas so that they can be put to productive use. The rules surrounding the tax treatment of environmental remediation expenses are so convoluted and confusing that it is no wonder that a number of businesses decide to sidestep them altogether and invest in previously undeveloped land and newer buildings outside of environmentally distressed urban areas. Repairs to business property can be deducted currently as a business expense, but capital expenditures that add to the value of property have to be capitalized. This means that some environmental remediation costs are treated as a business expense, but others are treated as capital expenditures, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. The administration in its brownfields initiative has proposed to allow an immediate deduction for cleaning up certain hazardous substances in high-poverty areas, existing EPA brownfields pilot areas, and Federal empowerment zones and enterprise communities. This is commendable, as far as it goes, but there is a disturbing trend in urban policy to pick and choose among cities. If expensing environmental remediation costs is good tax policy and good urban policy, and I believe that it is, then it should apply in all communities. My bill would apply this policy to all property wherever located, and would expand the list of hazardous substances to include potentially hazardous materials such as asbestos, lead paint, petroleum products, and radon. This would remove a disincentive in current law to reinvestment in our cities and buildings. Another proposal would address the blight of the many boarded up buildings. Of course, many of these buildings should be rehabilitated. But many buildings that have no economic viability are still standing because the current tax rules provide a disincentive to tearing them down. Before 1978, costs and other losses incurred in connection with the demolition of buildings generally could be claimed as a current deduction unless the building and the property on which it was located were purchased with an intent to demolish the building. In that case, costs and other losses associated with demolition were added to the basis of the land. To create a disincentive to demolishing historic structures, the 1978 tax bill required that costs incurred in connection with the demolition of historic structures would have to be added to the basis of the land. Under the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, the special rule for the treatment of costs associated with demolishing historic structures became the general rule. There was concern that the old rule may have operated as an undue incentive for the demolition of existing structures. But the new rule is a disincentive for tearing down buildings with unrecovered basis. Many boarded up buildings are still standing because the owners are still depreciating them. My proposal would restore the old rule for nonhistoric buildings. While many people prefer the amenities offered by living in our Nation's cities, many new jobs are being created outside urban areas. As the cities are losing their manufacturing industries, 95 percent of the growth in office jobs occurs in low density suburbs. These office jobs accounted for 15 million of the 18 million new jobs in the 1980's. Mass transit is important if people in the cities are to reach the new jobs in the suburbs. Under current law, some employer-provided transportation assistance can be excluded from income. The value of transportation in a commuter highway vehicle or a transit pass that may be excluded from income was $65 per month in tax year 1996. On the other hand, up to $170 per month in qualified parking can be excluded from income. I am proposing to establish parity by raising the cap for transportation in a commuter highway vehicle or a transit pass to the same level as that for qualified parking. Another proposal I introduced in the last Congress addresses a provision in current tax law that limits the deduction for a gift of appreciated property to 30 percent of adjusted gross income. Under current law, the limit for gifts of cash is 50 percent of adjusted gross income. This provision would raise the cap for qualified gifts of conservation land and easements from 30 percent to 50 percent. Under the bill, any amount that cannot be deducted in the year in which the gift is made can be carried over to subsequent tax years until the deduction has been exhausted. Current law gives the donor 5 years in which to use up the deduction. Conservation easements are a partial interest in property transferred to an appropriate nonprofit or governmental entity. These easements restrict the development, management, or use of the land in order to keep the land in a natural state or to protect historic or scenic values. Easements are widely used by land trusts, conservation groups, and developers to protect valuable land. The 30-percent limit in current law actually works to the disadvantage of taxpayers who may be land rich but cash poor. Our former colleague from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] introduced two proposals in the last Congress related to the donation of land or easements. One would encourage heirs to donate undeveloped land to the Federal Government. If the inherited land is desired by a Federal agency for conservation, the heirs would be allowed to transfer the land to the Government and take a credit for the fair market value. The other would provide for more equitable taxation of the gains from selling land or an easement at below market value to a government entity or a nonprofit organization. I intend to introduce these measures, with a few modifications, in the new Congress. Mr. Speaker, to save our Nation's green spaces, we must save our cities as well. There is no single, simple solution, but we here in Congress must do what we can to help our communities. I am looking forward to working with my colleagues to address these challenges in the coming weeks and months.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on the point of order. I would like to remind the Members of this House on both sides of the aisle that rules adopted under the Democrats when they were in the majority, supported by Democrats and Republicans alike, govern the work of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and require that its work be made public. And if the House will have the courage and the civility to let us complete our work, we will complete our work, the matter will be made public, and the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct will hold every Member of this House to those standards.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, as recently as the 1960's, Charles Adams wrote in ``The City is the Frontier'': ``In our own era, the world's cities are witnessing their greatest surge in man's history * * * From 1800 to 1950, the proportion of people living in cities with more than 20,000 people leaped from 2.4 to 21 percent. Our civilization is becoming urban, and the advance into the cities is one of the most spectacular social phenomena of our time. The city has become the frontier.'' Today, the promise of the urban frontier seems to be little more than reminder of opportunity lost. In the latter half of this century, the Nation's landscape has been transformed by sprawling development and urban decay. The movement of families and businesses from our Nation's cities has reshaped the cities themselves, the suburbs, and the countryside. Much of this change has been positive, as families have built homes and communities, fulfilling the American dream; but a great deal has been lost as well. It is tragic that so many cities are dying at a time when the countryside is disappearing. The American Farmland Trust estimates that the United States converts to other uses 2 million acres of farmland annually, much of it on the edge of urban America. The USDA natural resources inventory found that developed land increased by 14 million acres between 1982 and 1992. As the cities are losing their manufacturing industries, 95 percent of the growth in office jobs occurs in low density suburbs. These office jobs accounted for 15 million of the 18 million new jobs in the 1980's. There are many factors that have contributed to the mass migration away from the cities: a desire for greater personal safety, better schools, less congestion, and a way of life. The development of the Interstate Highway System, relatively inexpensive community expenses, and tax incentives for homeownership have made it easier for many people to move to the suburbs. Offsetting some of the costs associated with this trend--urban decay and the loss of open space--will require both private sector and public sector initiative. No single public policy proposal will address all of the problems. Today, I am introducing two bills addressing two of the many factors that contribute to sprawling development. The first is related to the costs of cleaning up contaminated land and buildings in urban areas so that they can be put to productive use. The rules surrounding the tax treatment of environmental remediation expenses are so convoluted and confusing it is no wonder that a number of businesses decide to sidestep them altogether and invest in previously undeveloped land and newer buildings outside of environmentally distressed urban areas. Repairs to business property can be deducted currently as a business expense, but capital expenditures that add to the value of property have to be capitalized. This means that some environmental remediation costs are treated as a business expense, but others are treated as capital expenditures, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. The administration in its brownfields initiative has proposed to allow an immediate deduction for cleaning up certain hazardous substances in high-poverty areas, existing EPA brownfields pilot areas, and Federal empowerment zones and enterprise communities. This is commendable, as far as it goes, but there is a disturbing trend in urban policy to pick and choose among cities. If expensing environmental remediation costs is good tax policy and good urban policy, and I believe that it is, then it should apply in all communities. The bill I am introducing today would apply this policy to all property wherever located, and would expand the list of hazardous substances to include potentially hazardous materials such as asbestos, lead paint, petroleum products, and radon. This bill would remove the disincentive in current law to reinvestment in our cities and buildings. My second bill addresses a provision in current tax law that limits the deduction for a gift of appreciated property to 30 percent of adjusted gross income. Under current law, the limit for gifts of cash is 50 percent of adjusted gross income. My bill would raise the cap for qualified gifts of conservation land and easements from 30 percent to 50 percent. Under the bill, any amount that cannot be deducted in the year in which the gift is made can be carried over to subsequent tax years until the deduction has been exhausted. Current law gives the donor 5 years in which to use up the deduction. Conservation easements are a partial interest in property transferred to an appropriate nonprofit or governmental entity. These easements restrict the development, management, or use of the land in order to keep the land in a natural state or to protect historic or scenic values. Easements are widely used by land trusts, conservation groups, and developers to protect valuable land. The 30-percent limit in current law actually works to the disadvantage of taxpayers who may be land rich but cash poor. Several of my colleagues have introduced important bills to encourage greater use of conservation easements. My bill addresses the disadvantage the 30-percent limit imposes on lower income taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, Gifford Pinchot, the founder of the U.S. Forest Service, once wrote that a nation ``deprived of its liberty may win it, a nation divided may unite, but a nation whose natural resources are destroyed must inevitably pay the penalty of poverty, degradation and decay.'' In order to save the countryside, we must strengthen our cities. Thanks to the leadership of Chairman Bill Archer, fundamental tax reform will be near the top of the agenda of the next Congress. We need to take a look at the impact of tax policy on land use decisions in this country. The bills I am introducing today would go a long way toward correcting two serious problems in existing law.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call attention to the distinguished career of Dr. Katherine C. Ill, president of The Hospital for Special Care, a rehabilitation and long-term care facility in my hometown of New Britain, CT. Doctor Ill's career has truly been a personification of public service. For over 30 years, she has served The Hospital for Special Care and its community as a strong advocate at both the national and local levels, and has developed programs and policies that benefit persons with physical disabilities. It is because of her tireless dedication and unwavering support for improving the quality of life for these special populations that Doctor Ill is to receive the American Rehabilitation Association's prestigious Milton Cohen Distinguished Career Award this year. Doctor Ill has been a visionary leader of The Hospital for Special Care since joining the staff in 1964. Her leadership qualities, continuous pursuit of excellence, and unshakable integrity were evident from the start, and she was named medical director of the hospital in 1966, and president and chief executive officer in 1986. She has been the architect for change throughout her career with the hospital and has led its transformation from a long-term chronic disease facility to an innovative, state-of-the-art center for rehabilitation, respiratory, and medically complex pediatric care. Doctor Ill is well respected by her peers and is deeply appreciated by the men and women who are cared for at The Hospital for Special Care. She is also involved in various community and medical associations, with the same commitment and dedication to service. In 1990, the Hartford County Medical Association not only celebrated its 200th anniversary, it elected its first female president, Katherine Ill. She was elected president because she embodies the mission of the association: ``to promote and represent high quality of care; to endorse and support the highest standards of professional integrity; to work with the community and its representatives for the improvement of health for all people.'' These are the same qualities for which she has been selected to receive the Milton Cohen Distinguished Service Award, and why I ask my colleagues to recognize this remarkable woman, whom I am proud to call a friend.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, Congress took dramatic action last month in the Small Business Job Protection Act (Public Law 104-188) by eliminating the principal tax incentive for economic development in Puerto Rico, section 936 of the Internal Revenue Code. While I supported this measure, it was unfortunate that we could not use this opportunity to construct a long-term replacement incentive program, as urged by Puerto Rico Governor Pedro Rossello. I believe it is very important that we return to this subject in the next Congress to build a new long-term economic incentive for Puerto Rico using as its base the new section 30A of the Tax Code, which we established in the small business legislation. There is consensus that the job creation incentives in section 30A, while a useful start, do not provide the dynamic incentives needed by the 3.7 million American citizens of Puerto Rico to become economically self sufficient. along with Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer, I would like to work with Governor Rossello and other elected leaders of Puerto Rico to develop a sound long-term economic program to achieve this goal. Although section 936 has been eliminated because its benefits were deemed overly generous in the current budgetary climate, the last chapter for Puerto Rico economic incentives has not been written. I look forward to working in the next Congress toward long-term, effective incentives that foster new investment and create high-quality jobs in Puerto Rico.