Sam Johnson

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I advocate lawful and legal interrogation, and it must continue because it does save lives on our side. And I would also like to point out that the Bush administration has recently declassified and released hundreds of pages of internal documents that show that torture against detainees has never been authorized and will never be authorized by our Nation.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) for her comments, and I agree that it is barbarous what is going on over there. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the stories of our veterans should be preserved for future generations. These accounts will serve as a valuable record of the price of freedom. Richard S. (``Dick'') Agnew, of Plano, Texas is a shining example of the American veteran. He's dedicated fifty-seven years of patriotic service to our nation and his fellow veterans . . . all without much fanfare or tribute. Well, today that's about to change as the country and the Congress say, `Thank you.' In 1947, Mr. Agnew enlisted in the U.S. Army and served proudly with Airborne Infantry units. He rose through the ranks and was commissioned through Officer Candidate School as a Second Lieutenant in 1952. He served in combat in Korea with the 40th Infantry Division in what was dubbed the bloody Heartbreak Ridge sector. On the night of July 19, 1953, Lieutenant Agnew engaged in hand-to- hand combat with enemy soldiers deep behind enemy lines. For his extraordinary heroism in that engagement, he was awarded the U.S. Army's Distinguished Service Cross, our nation's second highest award for valor, and the Purple Heart medal for the wounds he sustained in that life-and-death struggle. Dick Agnew endured what people today only watch in movies. Promoted to Captain while on active duty, Agnew later attained the rank of Major in the U.S. Army Reserve. After he left active duty, Mr. Agnew attended Suffolk University in Boston, MA, from 1961-1964. He graduated Cum Laude in the top 3% of his class with a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration. A successful career in business ended with his retirement in 1996. Mr. Agnew has devoted his life to promoting patriotism and improving the quality of life of his fellow veterans. He is the North Texas Commander of the Legion of Valor, a national organization chartered by Congress, whose members were awarded the Medal of Honor; also the Distinguished Service Cross, Navy Cross, and Air Force Cross. It is a tremendous honor to recognize an unsung hero like Dick Agnew. You know, there was an inscription on the wall where I was held captive as a Prisoner of War in Vietnam--and I think it sums up Dick Agnew's experience. It read--Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die for it that the protected will never know. Dick Agnew knows about freedom. Dick Agnew loves that freedom. And Dick Agnew loves America. God bless him and God bless America. I'd like to insert his medal citation into the Congressional Record.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this international tax bill. We worked for the better part of 3 years to get to this point. Everyone in here knows we need it. I want to congratulate Chairman Thomas for leading us. The bill strikes the right tone in the repeal and replacement of FSC/ETI. This section of the bill was debated long and hard, and I am proud of the deal we have reached on this section. I am also glad to see long overdue international competitiveness reforms are still in this bill. In addition, I want to mention my strong support for the return of the State sales tax deduction. Since 1986, the residents of seven States, including Texas, that rely upon sales taxes rather than income taxes have been unfairly denied this deduction. From every corner of my congressional district, my constituents are thrilled at the prospect of being given this tax deduction. We like to say no taxes in Texas. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this international tax bill. We have worked for the better part of 3 years to get to this point and I want to thank and congratulate Chairman Thomas for leading us. The bill strikes the right tone in the repeal and replacement of the ``FSC-ETI'' benefit. This section of the bill was debated long and hard, and I am proud of the deal we have reached on this section. I am also glad to see long-overdue international competitiveness reforms are still in this bill. In addition, I want to mention my strong support for the return of the State sales tax deduction. Since 1986, the residents of seven States, including Texas, that rely upon sales taxes rather than income taxes, have been unfairly denied this deduction. From every corner of my congressional district, my constituents are thrilled at the prospect of being given this tax deduction. We like to say no taxes in Texas. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. I want to urge caution however on the revenue raisers that are used to offset some of our tax cuts. I find the revenue raisers in the House bill to have many flaws-- large and small. I have been sharing my reservations with the Chairman and other committee members who are likely to be conferees. My reservations about the House offsets, however, are magnified into grave concerns when I look at the Senate tax increases. In particular, I cannot accept retroactive tax increases and will not support a conference agreement that includes retroactive tax increases. I am firmly in the camp of those who believe that tax cuts do not need to be offset with tax increases. This is simply money the Federal Government is not collecting that belongs to individuals or companies that have earned the money. However, to the extent that we are forced to offset some off our tax cuts, I urge the Chairman and other conferees to pick through these offsets so that the ``pay-for'' is not worse policy than the items we are trying to fix.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is a tremendous honor to salute our soldiers of tomorrow--the service academy bound students of the Third District of Texas. This district of Texas is home to some of the best and the brightest young people. I'm truly confident that they are ready to join the premier military force of the world. It is a privilege to send such fine young people on to our nation's prestigious service academies. We lift them and their families up in prayer for their future service and ssacrifices. God bless them and God bless America. I salute them. The appointees and their hometowns follow. Third Congressional District--Service Academy Appointments

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I missed votes on May 19 and 20, 2004. The following is an explanation on how I would have voted had I been present: Rollcall No. 191 ``Yes,'' Previous question--budget rule. Rollcall No. 192 ``Yes,'' Adoption of the budget rule. Rollcall No. 193 ``Yes,'' Previous question--DOD rule. Rollcall No. 194 ``Yes,'' Adoption of the DOD rule. Rollcall No. 195 ``Yes,'' H. Con. Res. 424--Memorial Day resolution. Rollcall No. 196 ``Yes,'' Goode amendment (DOD) military on border. Rollcall No. 197 ``No,'' Davis (CA) amendment--abortion. Rollcall No. 200 ``Yes,'' Kennedy (MN) amendment--BRAC delay. Rollcall No. 201 ``Yes,'' Weldon (PA) amendment--destroying Abu Ghraib. Rollcall No. 202 ``Yes,'' Slaughter amendment--sexual assaults policy. Rollcall No. 203 ``Yes,'' Tauscher amendment to H.R. 4200--bunker buster. Rollcall No. 204 ``Yes,'' Ryun amendment to H.R. 4200--Taiwan training programs. Rollcall No. 205 ``No,'' Democrat motion to recommit. Rollcall No. 206 ``Yes,'' DOD final passage. Rollcall No. 207 ``Yes,'' S. 2092--Taiwan in the World Health Organization. Rollcall No. 208 ``Yes,'' H.R. 4359--Child tax credit.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my support for the legislation introduced today by my colleague from Georgia. I think that all 4 of Mr. Norwood's bills on the floor today will improve workplace safety, level the playing field for small businesses, and ensure that employees and employers are treated fairly. H.R. 2731 encourages OSHA to really look at the merits of a case before it brings unnecessary enforcement actions to court against small businesses. Current law does allow small business owners to recover attorney's fees if they successfully challenge a citation But in the real world of OSHA, this simply does not work for small businesses. In the last 23 years, small business employers have been able to recover costs from OSHA only 37 times! Last year alone, only one employer was awarded attorney's fees, despite more than 80,000 citations issued by OSHA. H.R. 2731 limits its scope to small businesses with 100 employees or less and less than $7 million in net worth, thereby assuring targeted and meaningful relief to those businesses that are least able to cope with these hefty and ongoing litigation costs. This reform is necessary for the vitality of America's small businesses and the job security of America's workers. Again, I applaud my colleague from Georgia for introducing this much needed legislation and I look forward to seeing it pass today.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as the House moves forward with its competitiveness agenda to make America's businesses more attractive and efficient, it is imperative that we help the backbone of our economy: small business. Health care costs are rising at a rate of 15 percent annually, and double that for many small businesses. What is astounding is that according to the Congressional Budget Office, for each percentage point rise in health insurance costs, the number of uninsured increases by 300,000. That is a terrible ratio. Since this trend shows no sign of slowing, it means we need to act now. By allowing small businesses to band together in trade associations, this bill will give small businesses access to more affordable health care, give them freedom from costly State-mandated benefit requirements, and lower their administrative costs by as much as 30 percent. Some critics of the bill say there will be a loss in consumer protection because AHPs exempt small business from burdensome State mandates such as covering in vitro fertilization. Obviously, these mandates just cost the States more money. Large employers and unions have been exempt from State mandates since 1974, and they continue to offer fantastic coverage to working families. We ought to act now to help small businesses enjoy that same privilege or they will not be able to offer any health coverage to employees and their family members. In my home State of Texas, a shocking 27 percent of all employed or self-employed adults are uninsured, according to a recent study. The facts are clear and the facts demand action. An overwhelming majority of small businesses agree that AHPs are the right solution. This bill has the support of NFIB, the Associated Builders and Contractors, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and many others. I would like to be sure and thank my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), and other cosponsors of this legislation: the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns), the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley). They have shown their commitment to small business employees and their families by supporting this legislation, and I commend them for it. This bill gets to the heart of health care reform. Let us just do it.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am appalled at some of the rhetoric going on around here. The FDA is doing a good job. The FDA is controlling drugs. I have seen drugs out of Canada that are not good, so I think they are doing a good job. Mr. Speaker, I want to say I am here today to support the rule for H.R. 4280, the Small Business Health Fairness Act. The state of health care in America is reaching a crisis level. Costs continue to escalate annually at unprecedented rates. Our employers are being forced to drop health care coverage. This disproportionately affects small businesses burdened with shopping for health insurance in the costly small group markets. Large employers bring bargaining clout to the table when they work with insurance companies. Small businesses have fewer employees, and thus have little or no bargaining power. Not only that, but large employers and unions are exempt from burdensome State mandates already. These mandates dictate what health plans must cover and vary from State to State. Small employers do not have that luxury. We know that more than 60 percent of the uninsured Americans either work for a small business or are dependent upon someone who does. The clear course of action here is to help our small businesses afford health coverage by giving them those same opportunities that unions and large businesses have. Association health plans or AHPs do just that. Small businesses would be able to group together in bona fide trade associations. AHPs would then be able to use economies of scale to their advantage and provide more affordable health care for working families while avoiding administrative costs of State mandates. According to the CBO, AHPs would save small business owners and their employees as much as 25 percent on their health insurance. I was pleased to see that the Senate task force on the uninsured included association health plans in their report just this week. They are not the only solution to the uninsured in America, but they are certainly an important part of any solution. This is a bipartisan bill. The time to act is now. I urge a yes vote on the rule and on the bill.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to disagree with my fellow representative; but, Mr. Speaker, the President's program and the House program this week is going to find a solution for the uninsured for health care. Small businesses are dropping health plans because they cannot afford it. This week, the House is going to take up the Small Business Health Fairness Act, and it will allow small businesses that would otherwise be unable to afford health insurance to join together to form association health plans which, by the way, is one of those things that we have had out there for a long time and needs to be passed. It will insure more people with quality care at lower rates. Another important step today will be lowering the cost of health care by putting consumers in the driver's seat through health savings plans. Those plans give more people options when it comes to their health insurance, and they are a great part of lowering the cost of health care and helping to lower the number of uninsured. Mr. Speaker, we are moving forward in this Congress, and we are going to move forward on these issues today for a better America.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this morning the news indicates that some of our Democrats have politicized the war in Iraq. It is a war against terrorism. We have got to support our troops. Our Secretary of Defense is doing a super job. The question is, are we here in the United States of America as citizens going to support them to the hilt? When I was in Vietnam as a POW, we were scared to death that the United States was going to turn on us, politicize it and end it without getting us out. They did get us out of Vietnam, but they did not get all of our people out of Cambodia and Laos, and it was because of the peaceniks who did not believe we could win. We have to support our troops. Our freedom, our Nation, our liberty depend on it. God bless the United States.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2004.'' Today we introduce an important component of the Bush administration agenda--the ``Small Business Health Fairness Act''--to allow the establishment of certified, federal, association health plans (AHPs). AHPs will significantly expand access to health coverage for uninsured Americans by: (1) Increasing small businesses' bargaining power with health care providers, and (2) Giving employers freedom from costly state-mandated benefit packages. As such, AHPs will increase the number of insured Americans by up to 8 million people. According to figures released by the U.S. census bureau, one in seven Americans lacks health insurance. You might ask, just who are these uninsured? Well . . . they are working people who simply don't have access to insurance, can't afford it, or their employer can't afford to participate in a plan for them. Sixty percent--or 24 million--of uninsured Americans work in small businesses. Some of these people are offered insurance and turn it down because they can't pick up their part of the tab. According to the same census report, the increase in the number of uninsured comes solely from declining coverage in the small employer market. And there is no sign that the trend will reverse, or even slow. Health insurance costs are still rising and many small employers are forced to drop health coverage, while some cannot offer it in the first place. The cost-saving benefits of AHPs would help the small employers of Main Street access coverage at a more affordable price. Let's face the facts. Costs are rising, businesses are dropping coverage and more people are left uninsured. Congress must address the uninsured problem and move forward with increasing the insured through Association Health Plans. It's the least Congress can do to ensure that the American people will receive better health care at a more reasonable price. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the AMT is a sneaky tax. It is a parallel tax system where normal rules of income and deductions do not apply. You lose most of your deductions and your children become a liability. The bill we are debating today will keep this sneaky tax from taking away the benefit of many of the 2001 tax cuts. However, we are just holding back the tide of the AMT that in 2008 will swamp the tax system and actually collect more money than the rest of the income tax system combined. Yes, it is going to be cheaper to repeal the entire income tax system than to repeal the AMT. I think this sneaky, destructive tax will finally cause the income tax system to implode. This bill today will buy us some more time so we can get on with building a consensus on replacing the income tax system. We need to replace our income tax system that is, as my colleagues know, economically destructive, impossibly complex, and overly intrusive. It has impeded our ability to create jobs, encourage savings and investment, and realize the American dream. When I speak with constituents, the biggest applause line I get is about abolishing the IRS. I think that the system, any replacement, any new system, should reduce the role of the Federal Government, encourage savings and investment, be simple, and most of all, it must be fair. AMT does none of this, and we must repeal it; but until we can repeal it, we must hold harmless those Americans whose taxes are being raised in the next year. One additional interim step we need to take is to help those trapped in AMT through exercise of incentive stock options or ISOS. In this instance, the AMT requires people who exercise options on their employer's stock to pay tax on phantom profits. Many people stuck in AMT owe tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars in AMT on phantom profits never realized because the bottom fell out of the market. We cannot justify a tax system where taxes are owed when no gain was ever realized. I hope we will also be able to fix this inequity as this bill moves through the process; but for sure, we need to get rid of this sneaky tax now.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on this day in 1971, John Kerry showed his true colors; and they are not red, white, and blue. Before the Senate, before America, and before the world, he blasted our Nation, chastised our troops, and hurt our morale. He famously declared that soldiers tortured innocent Vietnamese and that America was the worse violator of the Geneva Conventions, not Vietnam. In 1971 when John Kerry had the freedom to stand up to defy duty, honor, and country, I just emerged from 4 years of solitary confinement, where the Vietnamese did not adhere to the Geneva Conventions. What he did was nothing short of aiding and abetting the enemy. A person like John Kerry does not belong in the White House. Is it any wonder my comrades from Vietnam and I have a nickname for him similar to ``Hanoi Jane''? He is called ``Hanoi John.''

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert the following testimony into the Record. On this date in 1971, John Kerry stated that America violated the Geneva Conventions in Vietnam. Mr. Speaker, when Mr. Kerry made these remarks, I just emerged from nearly four years of solitary confinement in Vietnam. Trust me when I say the Vietnamese regularly violated the Geneva Conventions, not the other way around. John Kerry also alleges American soldiers tortured innocent Vietnamese. These statements were later proved incorrect (during the question and answer session). Last, John Kerry said communism was not a threat in 1971. This could not have been further from the truth. These are just a few reasons I believe America needs to see this testimony. It says a lot about John Kerry.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, only in America is a penny saved a penny taxed. Perhaps that is why we have single-digit savings rates in this country. That is just wrong. To get America back on the road to savings, today Senator Craig Thomas of Wyoming and I will introduce legislation to create lifetime savings accounts. In a lifetime savings account, people could save up to $5,000 a year free from tax on interest earned. Money could be spent for any reason, with no minimum holding period. One could spend this money for a new transmission, school, kids' braces, home improvements, rainy day, or any of their needs, wants, and dreams. You name it. The point is, people will not be taxed for saving. I am honored to say that Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Bodman will join us at the press conference to share the administration's support of this new proposal. We will be working as a team to help get America saving again, tax-free.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, when a woman is attacked and her child is killed, there is presently no penalty for the death of the child. Until now. Just last week, the Senate passed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, also known as Laci and Conner's Law. It is on its way to the President's desk. Laci and Conner's Law declares that in an assault on a pregnant woman when a child is injured or killed, there are two victims. It makes the killing of an unborn child a prosecutable offense while specifically exempting abortions that are currently protected under Roe v. Wade. The overwhelming majority, 80 percent of Americans, support the idea this law represents. They believe there are two victims, and they are right. Criminals are getting away with killing children, in many cases just days before delivery. This new law will put America back on record as valuing the lives of its children. I want to again thank President Bush for his unwavering leadership on protecting and educating all of America's children.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to bring before this Congress the following outstanding young people who have voluntarily served orphans, public school children, college students, juvenile delinquents, and needy families under the official invitation and authority of government agencies in Russia, Romania, Mongolia, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, and Taiwan. The excellent character demonstrated by these young people, as well as their commitment to the principles upon which our Nation was founded, have not only attracted the attention of leaders, parents, the media, and students, but it has also brought honor to the United States of America and to the Lord Jesus Christ whom they serve. Adams, Grant (OK), Adams, Julianna (OK), Adams, Starla (OK), Adler, Robert (IN), Adler, Sally (IN), Aiken, Molly (TN), Allen, Rebekah (KS), Altman, Rachel (OH), Anders, Erin (MI), Anderson, Alice (CA), Anderson, Daniel (CA), Anderson, Donald (CA), Anderson, Julie (CA), Arevalo, David (CA). Baggott, Jessica (NY), Bair, Aileen (OH), Bair, Robert (OH), Baker, Jordan (OK), Baldridge, Jana (WI), Bartlow, Jeremy (TX), Bass, Chase (LA), Bean, Amy (CA), Bell, Lauren (TX), Bell, Mike (TX), Bell, Rachel (TX), Bender, Anthony (CA), Bender, Patty (CA), Bender, Steven (CA), Berge, Melanie (MN), Bernhardt, Jacob (IL), Bogner, Melanie (TX), Bolger, Ann (NY), Bolger, Jim (NY), Bolger, Lauren (NY), Bolger, Maeve (NY), Bolger, Meghan (NY), Bourne, Daniel (PA), Bourne, William T. (PA), Brock, Jarrod (WA), Books, Joy (WA), Browder, Haley (TX), Brown, James (NY), Brown, Sarah (NY), Brown, Summer (GA), Brubaker, David (PA), Brubaker, Emily (PA), Brubaker, Jeni (PA), Brubaker, Leon (PA), Brubaker, Luke (PA), Brubaker, Mary (PA), Brubaker, Nathan (PA), Buckingham, Elisabeth (OK), Busse, Nathan (OK), Busse, Jenece (MO), Butler, Isaiah (MD), Butler, Kathryn (MD), Butler, Linda (MD), Butler, Lisa (MD), Butler, Luke (MD), Butler, Rachael (MD), Butler, Tol (MD), Bye, Angela (CAN). Carlisle, Jeshua (MO), Carpenter, Daniel (LA), Cato, David (LA), Cato, Timothy (LA), Cavender, Ben (MI), Chen, Anna (NY), Chen, Faith (NY), Chen, Grace (NY), Chen, Karen (NY), Chen, Stephen (NY), Chen, Timothy (NY), Cheney, Bailey (GA), Cheney, Erin (GA), Cheney, Linda (GA), Cheney, Ted (GA), Christensen, Joshua (MO), Coffia, Jonathan (MI), Coggin, Joshua (VA), Comaris, Shawn (WI), Comstock, Carol (IN), Comstock, Gordon (IN), Conner, Elizabeth (TN), Cook, Kristi (SC), Cook, Timothy (SC), Copu, Beny Bill (IL), Copu, Carmen (IL), Copu, George (IL), Copu, Joy (IL), Copu, Paul (IL), Copu, Paula (IL), Copu, Peter (IL), Copu, Rebecca (IL), Copu, Robert (IL), Copu, Stefana (IL), Copu, Valen (IL), Cover, Michelle (CA). Dagarin, Ruth (MA), Davidson, Nathan (FL), David, Daniel (VA), Davis, Elizabeth (VA), Dawson, Melody (CA), DeBoer, Stephen, (IL), DeMaise, Laura (IN), Dettwyler, Brad (OR), Diel, Jonathan (WI), Dillon, Kirsten (CA), Dingwall, Robert (FL), Donnenworth, Kimberly (KS), Dowden, Corey (TX), Drinkall, Craig (IL), Dudley, Crystal (TX), Dudley, Wes (MI), Dunnam, Rebecca (GA), Dzimianski, Sara (GA). Elgard, Briana (MN), Elliott, Paul (OK), Emhof, Kalen (FL), Ewing, Crystal (MN). Fagala, Jessica (OK), Fear, Andrew (FL), Feig, Nathaniel (WI), Fellers, Susana (MN), Ferguson, Sarah (TX), Fite, Joshua (AR), Furlong, Michael (TX). Gaffney, Camille (MI), Garabedian, Krikor (CAN), Garner, Lisa (TX), Gentz, Benjamin (IA), Gergeni, Judy (IN), Gergeni, Rodger (IN), Gillson, Kirsten (MN), Gillson, Micale (MN), Gillson, Rowan (MN), Glasgow, Anneliese (OH), Glasgow, Kirsten (OH), Gothard, William, Goodwin, Joshua (CT), Gray, Charissa (OR), Gwin, Jennifer (SC). Hagemeier, Leah (CA), Hall, Parys (PA), Hargrove, Sarah (OH), Hausner, Zachary (MO), Havlik, Timothy (MN), Hawkins, Donald (OR), Hawkins, Jonathan (OR), Hawkins, Sally (OR), Hawkins, Susan (OR), Haynes, Esther (OK), Haynes, Harriet (OK), Haynes, Hurbert (OK), Haynes, Mary (OK), Heisey, Joel (PA), Henderson, Johanna (FL), Hill, John (IA), Holley, Melanie (MI), Hoppe, Jonathan (MN), Hordyk, Jaclyn (CAN), Horneman, Hosea (FL), Houser, Galen (CA), Huber, Monica (PA), Hutson, Kristin (MO), Hullinger, Jennifer (IL). Jefferies, Megan (MI), Jensen, Joy (IL), Jernigan, Ginger (FL), Johnson, Alanna (MI), Johnson, Benjamin (PA), Johnson, Katie (IN), Johnson, James (MI), Johnson, Juliana (PA), Josephsen, John (MT), Joyner, Sarah (NC). Kaessner, Jennifer (CO), Karram, Rebecca (FL), Kjos, Stephen (MN), Klassen, Jonathan (TX), Koby, Keith (MI), Koby, Penny (MI). Lafaurie, Majorie (NY), Leigh, Daniel (MS), Leigh, Sarah Catherine (MS), Levendusky, Tim (OK), Liljenberg, Zachary (WA), Lindemann, Ingrid (WA), Linhardt, David (KS), Lipp, Christopher (CAN), Ludden, Naomi (IN), Lundmark, Samuel (PA), Lyons, Naomi (IL), Lyons, Rachel (IL). Mancillas, Gonzalo (MEX), Mancillas, Yolando (MEX), Marsh, Jeremy (NC), Martens, Brooke (MI), Martens, Timothy (MI), Martin, Brooke (MT), Martin, Gabrielle (IL), Martin, Jonathan (PA), Martin, Samuel (IL), Martin, Stephen (IL), Matchak, Joel (CA), Mattix, George (IL), Mays, Isaiah, (CA), McCloy, Mike (TX), McCray, Elizabeth (AR), McCray, Ellianna (AR), McCray, Emily (AR), McCray, James (AR), McCray, Jason (AR), McCray, Jo (AR), McCray, Kevin (AR), McCray, Melissa (AR), McCray, Mitchell (AR), McCray, Virginia (AR), McCurdy, Terry (MI), McDonald, Brandon (WI), McDonald, Jessica (WI), McEndarfer, Andrew (OK), McGregor, Benjamin (Ml), McGregor, Megan (MI), McNab, Jill (CO), McOlin, Erin (TX), Means, Mary Ann (MI), Melvin, Bryce (FL), Melvin, David (FL), Messick, Rebekah (TX), Millard, Hannah (OR), Millard, Sarah (OR), Miller, Amber (TX), Miller, Debra (IL), Miller, Heidi (IL), Miller, Jeanne (PA), Miller, Katie (IL), Miller, Rachael (MT), Minner, Aaron (MO), Moody, Christina (IL), Moon, Bethany (MO), Morgan, Bert (IN), Morgan, Dorothy (IN), Morgera, John (CT), Murray, Kristin (PA)). Neu, Daniel (KS), Neu, Michelle (WI), Nisly, Vincent (CAN), Noland, Margaret (MA), Norvell, Joseph (AR), Norvell, Robert (AR), Novotny, Dewey (TX), Novotny, Gina (TX), Nunez, Jeremy (MI). Osbourne, Heather, Oathout, Floyd (IL), Ouatu, Andrew (CA), Ouatu, Cristian (CA), Ouatu, Gabriela (CA), Ouatu, Jonathan (CA), Ouatu, Joshua (CA), Ouatu, Katherine (CA), Owens, Charis (MO). Pallock, Christina (IL), Pallock, Dawn (IL), Pallock, Vanessa (IL), Paul, Kristin (IL), Payne, Nikolai (IA), Payne, Tara (IA), Payne, Tosha (IA), Pellascio, Megan (IL), Pellascio, Mike (IL), Pellascio, Susan (IL), Pellascio, Veronica (IL), Perez, Beverly (TX), Perez, Kimberly (TX), Perez, John (TX), Perkins, Glory Lauren (GA), Peterson, Amber (WA), Pintilie, David (CO), Plaiasu, Alina (CA), Plaiasu, Ana-Maria (CA), Plaiasu, Simona (CA), Pleus, Ruthann (FL), Policastro, Lauren (WI), Pollett, Kelly (CA), Powell, Kelsie (OK), Prentice, Valerie (OK). Randall, Erin (TX), Ralya, Lindsey (FL), Rawson, Ben (NM), Reed, Aimee (NJ), Reed, Charity (TX), Reed, Michelle (TX), Rees, Rebecca (IL), Reimer, Beth (CAN), Reimer, Brian (TX), Reirmer, Kate (CAN), Reimer, John (CAN), Reimer, Randall (CAN), Reimer, Timothy (TX), Reitz, Amber (NY), Richmond, Kezia (OR), Richmond, Pricilla (OR), Riness, Jeanna (MI), Risma, Jordan (CO), Risner, James (OH), Robertson, Aaron (AL), Robertson, Adam (AL), Robertson, Alan (AL), Robertson, Amy (AL), Robertson, Andrew (AL), Robertson, Anthony (AL), Robertson, Ashley (AL), Robertson, Autumn (AL), Robertson, Avery (AL), Robertson, Linda (AL), Robertson, Michael (AL), Ross, Charles (IN), Ross, Mary (IN), Ross, Rebecca (IN), Roth, Hannah (NE), Roth, Janell (CA), Roth, Lydia (OK), Roth, Rebecca (OK). Sanborn, Diane (FL), Schaus, David (BC), Schwartz, Kyle (FL), Sellers, Susanna (FL), Sellin, Dexter (KS), Shafer, Laura (AR), Sherwin, Todd (CO), Silverman, Nathaniel (FL), Skwarek, Gary (CO), Smillie, John (CO), Snyder, Thomas (CA), Sobie, Nathan (POH), Sondergaard, Ron (CA), Southards, Matt (IL), Spillers, Daniel (LA), Staddon III, Don (WV), Stallings, Brandon (CO), Stallings, Grayson (CO), Steed, Bethany (CO), Stein, Naomi (WI), Stewart, Samuel (OH), Stewart, Timothy (OH), Stutzman, Julie (OH), Sullivan, Andrei (NC), Sullivan, John (NC), Sullivan, Roslyn (NC), Sullivan, Sarah (NC), Sullivan, Tom (NC). Tanner, Justin (TX), Thompson, Ginny (GA), Thomson, Grace (NM), Thomson, Margaret (NM), Thornton, Lauren (GA), Thornton, Paul (GA), Thornton, William (GA), Tiemann, David (MN), Tiemann, Ryan (MN), Tillotson, Vanessa (NE), Tranberg, Catherine (OK), Treahy, Rachelle (AZ), Truhlar, Timothy (IL), Tsui, Nathan (TX). Vanderhorst, Amy (KS), Vanderhorst, Daniel (KS), Vincent, Ethan (MI), Vinson, Micaela (KS), Visser, Ronald (IN). Wagley, Amy (LA), Wagley, Elizabeth (LA), Waller, Adam (WI), Walklin, Elisa (TX), Walley, Jennifer (NC), Walley, Joanna (NC) Warfield, Charles (CA), Weis, David (OH), Weldon, Sandi (TX), Wenstrom, Angie (FL), Wenstrom, Brittany (FL), Wenstrom, Chris (FL), Wenstrom, Heather (FL), Wenstrom, Jim (FL), Wenstrom, Kimberly (FL), Wenstrom, Matthew (FL), Wenstrom, Michelle (FL), Weston, Jennifer (CA), Weston, Kevin (CA), Williams, Cheri (CA), Williams, Elizabeth (AUS), Williams, Jamie (IN), Williams, Nathaniel (TX), Williams, Randahl (PA), Williams, Richard (AUS), Wold, Amy (MD), Wolfley, Audra (OK), Wright, Charissa (AZ). Ziesemer, Ben (IL), Ziesemer, Daniel (IL), Ziesemer, Penny (IL), Zrinski-Myers, Brenda (TX).

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today's report on the Social Security trust fund says that in 2018, current taxes will no longer pay for benefits. That means digging into our Federal Treasury. This is just another wakeup call. We ought to use it to provide momentum to reform and improve Social Security. The best way to do that is to increase the rate of return by creating personal accounts for young people. Let us be clear. Social Security will be there for current and near retirees. It is the younger generations who need the most help when it comes to saving for retirement. Personal accounts definitely represent the best option. An election year is the perfect time to showcase the differences between parties and ideas. Democrats want to demagogue and tax and spend their way to a Social Security solution. Republicans want to increase the rate of return through personal responsibility and conservative values. The choice is clear. It is my hope we can move forward next year on real reform when politics will not stifle the debate.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of equality in Social Security law for all working Americans. Today we're having the final round of debate on a bill that will bring about fairness and equity to a system under scrutiny. While this bill covers many other topics, for Texans, this bill is about closing an unjust loophole. For 95 percent of America's working husbands and wives, there is a rule that says people may collect only the higher of spousal benefits or retirement benefits, but they cannot collect both. . . . That is-- unless you're in the Texas Teacher Retirement System. The Texas Teacher Retirement System is a substitute for Social Security, their version of the dual entitlement rule is called the Government Pension Offset. The dual entitlement rule applies whether a married couple works in jobs such as a nurse and a small business owner, a Social Security covered teacher and an accountant, or a lawyer and an electrical engineer, they both pay into Social Security and are both subject to this rule. The husband and wife are each able to collect either their retirement benefits earned through their own hard work or they are able to collect spousal benefits--whichever is higher. They cannot collect both. It is very possible that if one spouse earns significantly less than the other, for example, that nurse and small-business owner, then the nurse is going to have higher spousal benefits than her own retirement benefits. In that case, the nurse will collect the higher spousal benefit, but may end up asking herself why she had to pay Social Security taxes all those years instead of just staying home. If a retirement benefit is $600 per month for the nurse--but her spousal benefit is $800 . . . she would collect $800--but not $1,400. For Texas teachers making use of their ``last day of work'' loophole, they collect spousal benefits, just like that nurse--and then they collect their retirement. By working just one last day in a school district and paying as little as $3 into Social Security, a teacher can then qualify to receive full Social Security spousal benefits on top of her retirement benefits. Many teachers in Texas have questioned the system because they want both Social Security spousal benefits and their Texas teacher retirement. Again, the Texas Teacher Retirement System is a substitute for Social Security; you can do one or the other, but not both. And no one else can do both. I want teachers to understand that the Government Pension Offset (GPO) only reduces their spousal benefit by two-thirds of their state retirement benefits rather than dollar for dollar as is the case for all other working spouses. That's right! Anyone subject to GPO gets a better deal and more bang for their buck than 95 percent of the American public. They get one-third more of their spousal benefits than any other working Americans. The ``loophole'' that is being closed here today is one small part of the government pension offset meant to encourage entire school districts to join the Social Security system. The unique situation for Texas teachers is that only about 50 Texas school districts participate in Social Security and the other 1,000 school districts participate in the Texas Teacher Retirement System, which again, is a substitute for Social Security coverage. We're closing this loophole in the law to create integrity and maintain fairness in the system and to prevent further erosion of the Social Security trust fund. This new law will also require people to sign a notice acknowledging that employment in a job not covered by Social Security will have an affect upon possible future Social Security benefits. It's just sad when constituents who are teachers tell me that they had no idea that a teaching job not covered by Social Security would have an effect upon possible Social Security benefits in the future. It's important we correct that. Finally, one more area that has caused great confusion is regarding the annual benefit statements we all receive from the Social Security Administration telling us about our expected future benefits from Social Security. The IRS and SSA will begin collecting information necessary to more accurately reflect on these statements the offsets from jobs not covered by Social Security. I am pro-teacher and in Texas they have a great state retirement system. But we cannot give special treatment to this small slice of the American population. It's just not fair--especially when it comes to Social Security and retirement savings. Today we are just making the two systems apply fairly to all Americans. It's the right thing to do.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as one of the chairmen of the two labor committees here in the House and as a veteran, I am here to denounce an effort by Big Labor to scare our Nation's veterans and service men and women into thinking the Department of Labor is out to take away their overtime. The Department of Labor is working on revisions to the regulations governing overtime pay. These regulations would provide 1.3 million more Americans with overtime and help millions of hard-working people in this country. Let me be absolutely clear, the Department of Labor's proposed overtime regulations do not apply to the military, and nothing in existing law or the proposed regulations suggest that being a veteran would have any effect on overtime pay. It is a sad day indeed when the men and women of our forces are exploited for political gain. Opponents of these regulations ought to be ashamed. Secretary of Labor, Washington, January 27, 2004. Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: I write to provide you with the facts to correct the record following last week's Senate floor debate on the Consolidated Appropriations Act with regard to the Department of Labor's proposed revision of the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime exemption regulations. I also would like to thank you for your support and leadership on this important issue. The recent allegations that military personnel and veterans will lose overtime pay, because of proposed clarifications of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) ``white-collar'' exemption regulations, are incorrect and harmful to the morale of veterans and of American servicemen and women. I want to assure you that military personnel and veterans are not affected by these proposed rules by virtue of their military duties or training. First, the Part 541 ``white collar exemptions'' do not apply to the military. They cover only the civilian workforce. Second, nothing in the current or proposed regulation makes any mention of veteran status. Despite claims that military training would make veterans ineligible for overtime pay, members of Congress should be clear that the Department of Labor's proposed rules will not strip any veteran of overtime eligibility. This has been one of many criticisms intended to confuse and frighten workers about our proposal to revise the badly outdated regulations under the FLSA ``white collar'' exemption regulations. It is disheartening that the debate over modernizing these regulations to meet the needs of the 21st Century workforce has largely ignored the broad consensus that this rule needs substantial revision to strengthen overtime protections. The growing ambiguities caused by time and workplace advancements have made both employers' compliance with this rule and employees' understanding of their rights increasingly difficult. More and more, employees must resort to class action lawsuits to recover their overtime pay. These workers must wait several years to have their cases adjudicated in order to get the overtime they have already earned. In fact, litigation over these rules drains nearly $2 billion a year from the economy, costing jobs and better pay. I hope that this latest concern will be put to rest immediately. Once again, I assure you that military duties and training or veteran status have no bearing on overtime eligibility. We hope that future debate on this important provision is more constructive. If we can provide further assistance in setting the record straight, we would be pleased to do so. The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's program to the presentation of this report. Sincerely, Elaine L. Chao.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on and include extraneous material on S. 1929.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am pleased to be here to manage House passage of S. 1929, the Mental Health Parity Reauthorization Act of 2003. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations with jurisdiction over employer-provided health care, the issue of mental health parity falls within the purview of this subcommittee. In fact, almost 2 years ago, we held the first House hearing on the issue of mental health. In 1996, Congress enacted the Mental Health Parity Act to prevent employers and health insurers from establishing annual and lifetime limits on health insurance coverage for mental health benefits, unless similar limits were also established for medical and surgical health coverage. Today, the House will take an important step to extend mental health parity benefits for another year by passing this bipartisan reauthorization legislation, which will be ready for President Bush's signature once we pass it. Over the past 7 years, the parity law has made significant improvements in mental health coverage. It has done so by striking a good balance, providing important mental health benefits to patients without placing unworkable mandates on employers. The legislation we pass today will preserve current law mental health parity benefits for another year, through December 31, 2004. Mental health parity benefits offered through the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA, and Public Health Services Act, were set to expire this December 31. In the coming year, my subcommittee will continue to examine the issue of mental health parity, as expanding this law is one of the many substantive changes proposed for our Nation's health care system. Before endorsing any changes to current law, the House must carefully study the issue and consequences it may have on our Nation's employer- provided health care system. Any changes to the mental health parity law must be made in a balanced manner that does not jeopardize workers' existing health care benefits or discourage employers from voluntarily providing quality benefits to their employees. Because, as we all know, when employers' costs go up, workers often lose coverage. If the expanded mental health parity law is too burdensome and expensive, it is very likely employers will simply stop offering any type of mental health coverage. Health insurance costs rose by 15 percent, the highest increase in a decade. In this environment, it is incumbent upon the Congress to carefully study the impact of new mandates before moving forward. However, reauthorization of the 1996 act is an important step to ensure that patients continue to have access to mental health care if they need it. Because of this, I am pleased to offer my strong support to S. 1929. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 1929) to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Public Health Service Act to extend the mental health benefits parity provisions for an additional year, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Student Aid Streamlined Disclosure Act, to enhance the privacy of individuals who apply for a federal student loan or Pell Grant and to ensure the integrity of student aid programs administered by the Secretary of Education. This year, the Department of Education anticipates that more than 13 million people will apply for federal student aid. In order to verify income information, approximately 4 million of these applicants will be selected and required to hand over detailed tax information to school administrators with few controls in place to guard against redisclosure or misuse of this highly personal information. In addition, nearly 100,000 people will be required to waive their right to taxpayer privacy as a condition of applying for an income-contingent student loan. The current process used by the Department of Education to verify the income information supplied by students is not only unnecessarily invasive of student privacy, but it also is ineffective. Numerous studies by the Department of Education and the Education Inspector General have concluded that income information supplied by students does not match information on file with the Internal Revenue Service. In fact, a recent study of applications filed during fiscal years 2001 and 2002 found that the Department of Education had paid $602 million in Pell Grants to individuals who were either ineligible or eligible for smaller awards. The General Accounting Office has confirmed that this substantial misallocation of resources could be corrected if Congress would redesign the law that governs sharing of information between the Department of Education and the Internal Revenue Service. I am pleased to say that the bill I am introducing today would accomplish that task in a way that enhances taxpayer privacy. This legislation would provide for income verification for every student loan application, but it would require disclosure of information on file with the IRS only in cases where there is a discrepancy that is large enough to impact the student grant or loan. Sensitive tax information from the IRS could not be disclosed directly to schools or contractors, but could only be disclosed to Department of Education officials or to the taxpayer who filed the return. This tax legislation is a priority of the Bush Administration and the Education and Workforce Committee has endorsed data sharing as a means of reducing waste, fraud, and abuse in programs administered by the Secretary of Education. Congress has already authorized the Secretary of Education to match data with the IRS in the Higher Education Act of 1998, but, to date, the Internal Revenue Code has not been amended to allow this matching to take place. My staff has worked closely with the Treasury Department, the Office of Management and Budget, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and the Department of Education in developing this proposal. This proposal is the right policy and, with all of our consultations, we believe that it is the correct technical solution. I am introducing it as we hopefully close out the first session of the 108th Congress in order that it can be reviewed over the next few months by all participants in the student loan community. I ask any stakeholders-- students, parents, schools, lenders and loan processors--to review this legislation to be sure that there are no unintended consequences of the bill. I welcome constructive criticism of this bill and look forward to seeing it enacted next year.