Sam Johnson

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I remember energy going up that Texas provided for California because the Environmental Protection Agency charges them fines to run their plants. Ridiculous. But today, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of hardworking American taxpayers who will receive a $600 check in the mail this summer courtesy of George W. Bush. That is right. Americans do not want, do not need, and do not deserve higher taxes. That is why President Bush fought hard to make sure to give them back some of their money. If an individual paid taxes last year, they will receive a $300 check, if they are single; $500 if they are a single parent; or a $600 check if they are a married couple filing together. All this because President Bush knows that Americans can spend their own money better than we can here. What can a person buy with $600? Well, this is the buy-a-new-washer, a-new-dryer, or buy-a-new-fridge bill. What about that? The beauty of this summer refund is that George W. Bush knows that Americans can spend their money better than the Federal Government. So let us give it back to them.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am sick and tired of being sick and tired; sick and tired of hearing Democrats complain about the energy crisis. The last time I checked, the Democrat Governor Gray Davis was and is in charge of California. The last time I checked, Democrats also controlled the White House for 8 long years and did nothing. Bill Clinton and Al Gore had plenty of time to examine and solve the energy crisis in California while they were out there visiting Buddhist temples, but they did not. Instead, Democrats like Daschle and Gephardt just play the blame game. Democrats are blaming George Bush and Dick Cheney for the California energy problem. They must have forgotten this administration just took office. If the Democrats had been wise, they would have been drilling for oil, building new energy plants and building new transmission lines. That is what it takes to solve the problem is finding resources. In short, it is the Democrats who put California into this mess. Americans do not want, need or deserve the California energy problems.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is time to end this excessive fee on savings and investment. It is a fee that is a tax. It was wrong for Congress to impose a fee, otherwise known as a tax, on tens of millions of Americans. The current tax was levied to fund the Securities and Exchange Commission, but guess what, it soon became a cash cow and Congress now uses it to fund other government programs, and that is just not right. One of my constituents, Al Anderson, of Coastal Securities is an example of someone who is adversely affected by this so-called fee. When I visited his company, he told me he had to pay an additional $4 million in taxes over the last 3 years just because of this fee. Now, that is not a small sum of money, and when he factored it into his business plan, it meant one thing, slower growth. There was a job impact. The government should not be in the business of slowing business down. The business that government ought to be in is to encourage businesses to grow. While this bill helps companies like Coastal Securities, it will also make it easier for people to save for retirement through either individual stock investments, mutual funds, 401(k)s, or pension plans. So this bill, which relieves the tax that has gotten far too big and it is used far too wide. With all the talk about the need to prepare for retirement, the least this Congress can do is remove this barrier to savings. We need to cut taxes again for the people. Support America. Support this bill.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am glad he talked about tax relief, because that is what I want to emphasize, too. Thanks to President George W. Bush, for those who paid taxes for the year 2000, the check is in the mail. Taxpayers are likely to receive a $300 check in the mail if they are single, a $500 check if they are a single parent, and a $600 check if they are married. No one has to even fill out forms, or file anything. They just have to check their mailbox this summer. Depending on the last two digits of an individual's Social Security number, they could have that money in their pocket as early as July 23. Anyone wishing to find out should check www.samjohnson.house.gov, to learn when they will receive their rebate. Mr. Speaker, Americans are overtaxed. They are overtaxed, and they deserve a rebate.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I am joined by Representative Matsui in the introduction of an important piece of legislation to help our military installations become more efficient by opening up their water and wastewater installations to competition. This legislation will allow the Department of Defense to use these savings to accomplish their main mission, protecting our nation. In 1998, Congress realized that an innovative and more efficient system was needed to rid the Department of huge backlogs in their capital infrastructure and to free up funding for meeting readiness and procurement needs. Specifically, the Strom Thurmond Defense Authorization Act directed the military to outsource the operation of its water and wastewater utilities. The intention of the program is to have a private contractor take control of the facility and be solely responsible for its operations. The Government would then repay these costs over the term of the contract in the form of utility rates. Unfortunately our tax code has kept these important savings from happening. Existing law requires the Internal Revenue Service to subject this transfer to the so-called ``Contribution In Aid of Construction''--or CIAC--tax on the full replacement value of the system. This federal transfer tax is paid by the DoD and it amounts to a circular transfer of money with no net benefit to the U.S. Government. Not only does the CIAC penalize competition and efficiency, it also discriminates against new entrants into the water and wastewater market. Through guidelines crafted for an out-of-date system, the tax code currently only exempts traditional water and wastewater providers from this CIAC tax. This uneven application creates a huge distortion and will likely discourage many potential private sector bidders to operate the DoD's systems. Without robust competition to offer these services, DoD will never realize the needed savings intended by the 1998 defense authorization bill. My legislation corrects this tax-code discrepancy among all potential providers. DoD will be able to maximize competition and evaluate all potential bidders under its utility privatization programs based upon the true cost of their services. It will ensure the successful implementation of this cost-saving effort and provide desperately needed financial flexibility to meet other pressing national defense priorities. I urge my colleagues to join me on this proposal.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the base bill provides a tax cut to people who pay income taxes. The problem is the Federal Government is collecting too much in income taxes. I think the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) knows that. The solution is to let the taxpayers keep more of their income rather than sending it to Washington. Providing money to really low-income individuals who do not earn enough money to pay income taxes is not a tax cut. It is simply an excuse for those who do not want tax cuts to spend more money. When President Clinton and every Democrat voted to pass the largest tax increase in history, they voted to punish hard work, penalize success and tax the American dream. They believed then and still believe now if you work hard and become successful, the government is entitled to over 40 percent of your income. That is just wrong. Today with this vote, Republicans are saying if you work hard, you get to keep more of your money. I honestly believe if you ask any American, they would agree that the government does not deserve to keep more than one-third of a taxpayer's hard-earned money. The budget surplus we currently enjoy was created because Americans pay too much in taxes. It is a tax surplus. This substitute does not want to give it back to you. The government did not create the surplus, and I do not think the government deserves to keep it. Every Member should remember this money belongs to the people. If they vote for any substitute, they will deny every American who pays taxes from getting their own money back. Americans want, need, and deserve a tax break. They deserve tax relief because that is what America is all about.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to what I consider a great American lady, a woman who has witnessed firsthand World War I, the Great Depression, World War II, the invention of television, the microwave, and the World Wide Web. On May 29, Gladys Harrington, who is a real friend of mine, a true pillar of the Plano, Texas community, is celebrating her 100th birthday. She has lived an abundant life. She moved to Plano in the early 1900s when 1,500 people lived there. Today, Plano is home to 230,000 plus and growing. She married Fred Harrington in 1919 in Plano, Texas and gave birth to two sons, Joe Harrington and Conner Harrington. Conner Harrington actually ran for Congress against a Democrat icon, Sam Rayburn, who was a friend of mine as well. She is the proud grandma of four children, Connie, Cynthia, Mary Lou, and Freddy, as well as two great grandchildren, Sage and Emily. It is obvious that she has touched the lives of those around her and blessed everyone with her passion for life and zest for service. As a member of the First Christian Church, she taught Sunday school, led the Christian Women Fellowship and served as a deaconess. In addition, they helped found what is now the Gladys Harrington Library in Plano. What started as a one-room temporary facility has now blossomed into one of the leading libraries in the area. Mr. Speaker, I may not even be standing here today were it not for the hard work and selfless dedication of my dear friend Gladys. I say that because Gladys helped me run my first campaign for Congress in 1991 and every time thereafter. Every Republican knows that one cannot do anything Republican in Texas without Gladys Harrington. She has volunteered countless hours of her time and dollars to help the party rise to the best that it is today. Think about it. Every Statewide office in Texas is now Republican. The Texan in the White House is even a Republican, too; and Gladys helped him as well. Gladys helped lay the essential groundwork for the grassroots efforts for this amazing fete. She has mobilized ground troops, attended conventions, paid her dues and then some. In addition to giving her time to the Republican Party, she gives so much to those around her. In fact, she continues to go to a book club and to the Plano Chamber Orchestra. She keeps scrapbooking, detailing the many years behind her and saving room for more to come. I think America needs more good people like Gladys Harrington. She is a great American in my view, and I am proud to know her. I just want to wish Gladys a happy birthday. Plano would not be the same without Gladys.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I thank our Democratic colleagues for supporting us on this. It is with great pleasure that I rise today, because I think this is the most significant overhaul of retirement law in 25 years. Twenty-five years ago, it was common for someone to work an entire lifetime in one job and retire with a pension. A generation later, America has a mobile workforce, and it is not uncommon for employees to spend just a few years at one job and then move to another. As a result, it is harder and harder for people to add to their nest egg with employer support. It is not that employers do not want to help out. It is just that rules and regulations make it difficult. To these Americans, both employers and employees who want to sock away something for retirement, help is on the way. This Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform Act of 2001 is going to do just that. As chair of the Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations as well as a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, one of my objectives has been to find ways to expand retirement coverage, and I have had a lot of help from my Democrat colleagues and by small businesses, as well as to search for ways to make retirement plans more friendly. It is no secret that the cooling economy has bothered people, and people have watched their retirement accounts, their balances, fall. Of course, this makes them uneasy. They are saving for their golden years, retirement; and their nest egg is getting smaller and smaller. It is time to act now. This Congress is going to do that. To better prepare for the day when they no longer show up for work every morning, the best way to give these people peace of mind is to enact H.R. 10. If we want to secure America's future, people have to feel confident about their retirement; and by passing this bill, we have taken a long step toward making them feel that way. I think this step down the road to strengthening our private employer-based pension system for all Americans, especially for all of the 70 million baby boomers who are nearing retirement age, is very important. We have to continue down this bipartisan path to ensure that our American workers can enjoy their golden years comfortably and securely. Let us pass this bill to protect our seniors.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), a subcommittee chairman.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to comment that this bill has helped small businesses, those with less than 50 employees, right on down to one. So in order to help those guys who have not in the past been able to fund retirement plans, they now can, if this bill passes. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema). (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, we are hearing a lot of rhetoric in here today, but the key is our bill is to repeal, and the Democrat substitute is not. There are 65 Democrats and 213 Republicans who supported the death tax repeal last June. I wonder if those people will stand up today. Last year 65 Democrats crossed party lines, ending one of the most unfair taxes today, the death tax, and those 65 Democrats, I wonder if they will vote to end this onerous tax now that they know the President will sign the bill? For those who do not know, the death tax confiscates up to 55 percent of a family farm or business when a loved one passes away. It is just plain wrong for Uncle Sam to start taking up a collection while families are still grieving at the funeral home. Furthermore, according to the National Federation of Independent Business, one-third of small business owners today will have to sell outright or liquidate part of their business just to pay death taxes, and half of those that liquidate to pay the IRS will have to eliminate 30 or more jobs. In today's chilling economy, that statistic is horrifying. Couple that with the fact that 60 percent of small business owners report that they would create new jobs in this year if the death taxes were eliminated. J.C. Penney, which is headquartered in my district, has laid off more than 5,000 employees. If this death tax repeal goes through, those folks without jobs could go to work for small businesses who want to hire more people. Mr. Speaker, this Congress has got to stop the IRS from taxing families to death, and we need to do it now. The death tax is just plain wrong. Let us vote for death tax repeal.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I know that there are a lot of married people in Georgia. As my colleagues know, I am from Texas, and I want to divorce the 1.7 million married Texans from the government- imposed, IRS-enforced marriage penalty tax. It is just plain wrong for the Federal Government to penalize people who choose to get married. When two people stand before God and exchange their vows, it should be a celebration for them, not the IRS. Mr. Speaker, it has been said that America is the land of the free and the home of the brave, and this is true fact. Young couples have to be brave to get married because the Federal Government is going to free them from their hard-earned money when they say ``I do.'' I do not think any Member would disagree that we should encourage, not discourage, the greatest institution on earth, marriage. Let us vote today to give married couples a well-deserved honeymoon, the elimination of the marriage tax penalty.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I just say God bless our President, George W. Bush. Finally, we have a President who wants to limit government bureaucracy so the people can have more. Compared with the Blue Dog budget, the Republican budget sets in place common sense priorities that are good for America and simple to understand. First, the Republican plan gives the people some of their money back because the tax surplus is really theirs; not ours. Second, the Republican proposal pays down the public debt by $2 trillion, and it protects defense. Third, our plan protects Social Security and Medicare by locking away every penny of the trust fund surplus. Fourth, it stops Federal spending at 4 percent. That means to us in America that the era of tax increases and runaway government spending has ended. It means that Washington bureaucrats better run for cover, because this President, for the first time in 8 years, is going to put people first, not a bloated Federal Government. Furthermore, the people of America should know this: President Bush is going to be granting every American a pardon from high taxes because he will sign, not veto, elimination of the marriage penalty and the death tax. The Republican budget is responsible, fair, and above all, good for our economy. It is not a Blue Dog budget; it is an American budget that we need to vote for, the Republican budget. Vote for a strong America. Vote for freedom. Vote for the Republican budget.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is $363 billion over 5 years. So when one is talking in bigger numbers like that, one is absolutely wrong. Do my colleagues know what? This is a great day for every American who pays taxes, because today we are going to give each and every American some of their own money back. Unlike the Democrats, Republicans know that the surplus is the people's money, not the government's money. It is a tax surplus. With a slowing economy and public confidence slipping, we have got to act now because our failure to act could just make matters worse. That is irresponsible. We do represent the people of the United States. That is why every Member of Congress should vote to approve this fair and responsible tax relief bill. It returns money to those who need it the most, low- and middle-income families. Do not deny them their own money. They worked hard to earn it, and we ought to work just as hard to give it back.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am joined by Representative Bob Matsui in the Introduction of legislation to clarify a provision of our tax code that is needlessly hindering U.S. businesses' ability to efficiently operate in overseas markets. In some countries, U.S. investors face significant business, legal and political obstacles that prevent them from acquiring a controlling interest in a foreign company. This occurs in particular when the local government has a share in the foreign venture, the industry is heavily regulated (financial services, utilities, and oil and gas exploration, for example), or other business factors necessitate that the U.S. investor hold a minority interest. Consequently, U.S. companies must operate in these foreign countries through corporate joint ventures, many times in partnership with local businesses. U.S. international tax rules, however, tend to discourage corporate joint venture activity, even when these foreign laws require that U.S. companies take minority ownership interest in cooperative arrangements with local companies in order to do business. In particular, the so-called ``10/50 foreign tax credit rules'' impose a separate foreign tax credit limitation for each corporate joint venture in which a U.S. company owns at least 10 percent but not more than 50 percent of the stock of the foreign entity. The 10/50 regime is bad tax policy because it increases the cost of doing business for U.S. companies operating abroad by singling out income earned through a specific type of corporate business for separate foreign tax credit ``basket'' treatment. This provision inevitably prevents U.S. companies from fully using these tax credits, and thus subjects them to double taxation. Moreover, the current rules impose an unreasonable level of complexity, especially for companies with many foreign corporate joint ventures. The 1997 Tax Relief Act partially corrected this inequity by eliminating separate baskets for 10/50 companies. Unfortunately, the 1997 act did not make the change effective for such dividends unless they were received after the year 2003. It further complicated the Tax Code by requiring two sets of rules--one from earnings and profits (E&P) generated before the year 2003 and one for dividends from E&P accumulated after the year 2002. My legislation will greatly simplify the U.S. tax treatment for U.S. companies subjected to these 10/50 foreign tax credit rules. This bill will accelerate from 2003 to this year the repeal of the separate foreign tax credit basket for these companies. In doing so, so-called ``look-thru treatment'' will allow them to aggregate income from all such ventures according to the type of earnings from which the dividends are paid, thus conforming the treatment of this joint venture income to other income earned overseas by the U.S. companies. The proposal also ensures that pre-effective date foreign tax credits that are being carried forward also receive this look-thru treatment. Without such a rule, these tax credits will expire, a result that never was intended. In 1999, the House of Representatives and the Senate passed the ``Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999.'' Although former President Clinton vetoed that particular bill, his administration recommended this legislative proposal in its next budget proposal. Consequently, I am confident that this bill will have strong bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that will provide substantial tax relief to all American taxpayers and entirely eliminate the marriage penalty. The federal government taxes Americans too much. In fact, Washington is taxing our citizens at the highest rate ever during peacetime. This high level of over-taxation is helping to generate ever-larger surpluses. Not surprisingly, many Washington politicians want to use these tax overcharges to increase the size and scope of the federal government. Like President Bush, I believe that a government with unlimited funds becomes a government with unlimited reach. Thus, he is correct when he states that the solution is stop taking this excess money from the people who earn it in the first place. At the same time the federal government is taking more than its fair share from our hard working Americans, our federal tax laws have become more and more confusing as special interests line up to get tax breaks. What we need to do is provide substantial tax relief in a simple and fair manner. The first part of my bill is based on President Bush's across-the- board tax cut proposal. It will simplify and reduce the existing 15%, 28%, 31%, 36%, and 39.6% tax rates with four lower rates of 10%, 15%, 25%, and 33% over a period of 5 years. My tax plan will mean lower taxes for all working Americans. Time and again, history has demonstrated that across-the-board tax relief has significant, positive economic benefits. Each time in the last century that tax rates were lowered, an economic boom followed. This was most recently demonstrated in the last 20 years. Under strong leadership, the malaise and stagflation of the 1970s melted into the prosperity of the 1980s. And the economic growth of the 1980s provided the venture capital to seed the technology revolution of the 1990s. The turning point of this remarkable economic transformation came on August 13, 1981, when President Reagan signed into law the largest tax relief bill in American history. The 25% across-the-board cut in income taxes, combined with prudent deregulation and anti-inflation monetary policies, helped unleash the longest economic boom in the 20th century. It is clear that providing tax relief in this manner will generate millions of jobs, raise living standards for tens of millions of Americans and increase our collective national wealth by several trillions of dollars. Tax relief should encourage personal opportunity and economic growth instead of attempting to manipulate individual behavior based on Washington values. We must move away from Washington picking winners and losers by its manipulation of our country's tax laws. Recently, Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve System, reiterated his long-standing professional opinion that across-the-board tax relief is economically the best way to provide tax relief. Importantly, he stressed the unarguable point that Washington politicians will spend the current national surplus if it is not returned to its rightful owners, the American taxpayers. Consequently, Mr. Greenspan now agrees that we must make across-the-board tax relief a top policy goal. The second part of my bill will immediately eliminate the marriage penalty in our tax code. This legislation rewrites the existing discriminatory tax laws in order to ensure that married couples will never be penalized on the account of their marital status. Married couples will be able to get standard deduction that is twice the amount of single tax filers. Currently, the standard deduction for a single American is $4,550 but the married couple only gets $7,550. Under my bill the married couple will get a standard deduction in the amount of $9,100, which is twice the amount of the single standard deduction. Importantly, my bill will also ensure that all income brackets are adjusted so that the married brackets are twice the amount of the single brackets. Currently, American families pay a marginal tax rate of 28% on income above $46,000, while an unmarried couple pays a marginal tax rate of 15% on total income up to $54,000. That's just plain wrong. My bill will ensure that American families never pay a higher marginal tax rate than an unmarried couple. It is simply wrong that Washington is punishing our American families by taxing our traditional values. Increasingly, our sons and daughters can not afford to marry. Consequently, they are less likely to dedicate themselves to their relationship and their children. We must eliminate this perverse disincentive for all American families. I urge my colleagues to join me in providing meaningful tax relief for all taxpayers and immediately eliminating the marriage penalty in our tax laws.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I am joined by Representatives McCrery and Watkins in the introduction of legislation that will clarify the proper tax treatment of natural gas gathering lines for purposes of depreciation. For several years, a level of uncertainty has hampered the natural gas processing industry as well as imposed significant costs on the energy industry as a whole. Of course, these costs are ultimately passed on to American consumers in the form of higher heating prices. Consequently, I have been working to bring certainty to the tax treatment of natural gas gathering lines. During this time, I have corresponded and meet with a variety of people from the Department of Treasury in an effort to secure the issuance of much needed guidance for the members of the natural gas processing industry regarding the treatment of these assets. Unfortunately, I have not received satisfactory responses. Protracted Internal Revenue Service audits and litigation on this issue continue without any end in sight. As a result, I chose to introduce legislation in the 105th and the 106th Congress in order to clarify that, under current law, natural gas gathering lines are properly treated as seven- year assets for purposes of depreciation. This bill specifically provides that natural gas gathering lines are subject to a seven-year cost recovery period. In addition, the legislation includes a proper definition of a ``natural gas gathering line'' in order to distinguish these assets from pipeline transportation lines for depreciation purposes. While I believe this result is clearly the correct result under current law, my bill will eliminate any remaining uncertainty regarding the treatment of natural gas gathering lines. The need for certainty regarding the tax treatment of such a substantial investment is obvious in the face of the IRS's and Treasury's refusal to property classify these assets. The Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS), the current depreciation system, includes ``gathering pipelines and related production facilities'' in the Asset Class for assets used in the exploration for and production of natural gas subject to a seven-year cost recovery period. Despite the plain language of the Asset Class description, the IRS and Treasury have repeatedly asserted that only gathering systems owned by producers are eligible for seven-year cost recovery and all other gathering systems should be treated as transmission pipeline assets subject to a fifteen-year cost recovery period. The IRS's and the Treasury's position creates the absurd result of the same asset receiving disparate tax treatment based solely on who owns it. The distinction between gathering and transmission is well- established and recognized by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and other regulatory agencies. Their attempt to treat natural gas gathering lines as transmission pipelines ignores the integral role of gathering systems in production and the different functional and physical attributes of gathering lines as compared to transmission pipelines. Not surprisingly, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has held that natural gas gathering systems are subject to a seven-year cost recovery period under current law regardless of ownership. The potential for costly audits and litigation, however, still remains in other areas of the country. Given that even a midsize gathering system can consist of 1,200 miles of natural gas gathering lines, and that some companies own as much as 18,000 miles of natural gas gathering lines, these assets represent a substantial investment and expense. The IRS should not force business to incur any more additional expenses as well. My bill will ensure that these assets are properly treated under our country's tax laws. I urge my colleagues to join me as cosponsors of this important legislation.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I am joined by Representatives Phil Crane, Porter Goss, Lee Terry, and Majority Leader Dick Armey in the introduction of legislation that will repeal certain hidden taxes imposed on our American families and values. In the past two reports to Congress, our country's National Taxpayer Advocate has urged us to eliminate hidden taxes in the Internal Revenue Code. The National Taxpayer Advocate, unlike any top official at the IRS or Treasury, reports his findings and recommendations directly to Congress without review or revision within the agency or department. In one of our greatest legislative achievements, the ``IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998,'' Congress strengthened the National Taxpayer Advocate's independence from the IRS in order to help address taxpayers' concerns. The National Taxpayer Advocate can now recommend legislative changes to the tax code in cases where current law creates inequitable treatment or where change will alleviate barriers to compliance. For the third year in a row, tax code complexity tops the list of taxpayer concerns. Accordingly, the National Taxpayer Advocate has singled out two hidden taxes in the Internal Revenue Code that should be repealed. The first of these hidden taxes is the phaseout of itemized deductions and personal exemptions. With regard to this hidden tax on our American families and values, our country's National Taxpayer Advocate has stated in the past that ``[n]o other tax issues are taken so personally. As a result, the phaseouts of itemized deductions and the personal exemptions are often seen by taxpayers as being especially unfair, creating a certain amount of resentment and cynicism. ``[A]llowing all taxpayers to retain these deductions and exemptions would go a long way toward reducing burden, increasing fairness, and restoring faith in the tax system.'' The second of these hidden taxes is the ``Alternative Minimum Tax'' or AMT. With regard to this hidden tax on our American families and values, our country's National Taxpayer Advocate has described the AMT as ``unnecessarily complex and burdensome,'' effectively operating ``as a separate or `parallel' tax system with many rules that differ from the regular tax system.'' In this year's report to Congress, the National Taxpayer Advocate describes the AMT as our nation's ticking tax time bomb--``Just three years ago, only 600,000 taxpayers were affected by the Alternative Minimum Tax. Over 17 million taxpayers will be subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax by the year 2010. Taxpayers with an adjusted gross income of less than $100,000 will owe 60% of the nation's Alternative Minimum tax by the year 2010.'' Many taxpayers are required to make several computations just to see if they must figure out their tax under the AMT. Additionally, AMT presents significant compliance and administrative problems for the IRS. Finally, many taxpayers are subject to the AMT ``without being aware of its existence. Often, the way that many individuals first hear of the Alternative Minimum Tax is when they receive a notice from the IRS. Outright elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax would do a great deal for simplification and burden reduction of the tax system (emphasis added).'' I strongly support the work and conclusions of the National Taxpayer Advocate. This legislation will repeal both of these hidden taxes on American families and values. Additionally, this legislation will go one step further and repeal another hidden tax--the phaseout of the Child Tax Credit. In 1997, this Congress enacted legislation to return $500 in tax credits for every child under the age of 17. Unfortunately, budget constraints and opponents of this pro-family idea forced us to phaseout the Child Tax Credit in a complicated and unfair manner. We should not penalize any family who chooses to have children. All children should be treated equally as they are in the eyes of their Maker. Consequently, this legislation will also repeal this arbitrary hidden tax on American families. I urge my colleagues to join me in repealing these hidden taxes and restore freedom to American families.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a small business tax relief measure that will assist thousands of insurance agents throughout this country as they prepare for retirement. Many exclusive insurance agents who leave or retire from their jobs receive what is known as a ``termination payment'' under a contractual agreement with their respective insurance companies. These payments are paid for intangible assets, including the agent's ``book of business'' and goodwill, and are usually spread out over a series of years. Currently, there is confusion about the tax treatment of these termination payments, which has caused some IRS field agents to question the capital gains treatment of these payments. My bill, the ``Fair Tax Treatment for Insurance Agents' Termination Payments Act of 2000,'' will make it clear that these termination payments are for the sale or other disposition of intangible capital assets and therefore should be subject to capital gains treatment. A clarification of current law is needed to ensure the correct result and prevent unknowing IRS agents from subjecting innocent insurance agents around the country to attack and audit on an issue that has no basis for controversy. I urge my colleagues to support my bill and work with me to clarify the law to ensure that insurance agent ``termination payments'' are subject to capital gains treatment for Federal income tax purposes.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. President, I am pleased that, with my support, the Senate took another step today toward fulfilling our country's commitment to provide health care for our veterans. The fiscal year 2001 VA-HUD Appropriations Conference Report that passed the Senate this afternoon contains a $1.4 billion increase in veterans health care funding from the last year's appropriations level. While I am pleased that we have finally come around to talking about additional funding for veterans health care, as opposed to three years of flat-line budget levels, I am disappointed that the funding level in the FY2001 VA-HUD Appropriations Conference Report falls short of the level proposed by veterans organizations. The authoritative Independent Budget is produced by major veterans organizations including AMVETS, the Disabled American Veterans, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the VFW. The Independent Budget and The American Legion agree that the Veterans Administration will need at least $500 million more in funding than provided by this conference report. I am pleased to have led the effort last year in the Senate to increase veterans health care funding. Through my efforts on the Senate Budget Committee and on the Senate floor, we were able to start reversing the negative effects of three years of flat-lined veterans health care budgets with an increase of $1.7 billion. I am pleased that my efforts appear to have convinced the Administration and Members of Congress to start talking about increases in veterans health care funding instead of keeping this budget stagnant. This year, I was successful in getting a bipartisan amendment passed to the Senate Budget Resolution that added an additional $1.9 billion to last year's funding for veterans health care. The conference report that passed the Senate today fell $500 million short of this goal and will prevent the VA from adequately funding a number of important programs including medical care, research, long term care, and necessary facility construction and renovation. While the $1.4 billion increase in this year's VA budget and the $1.7 billion increase from last year are important improvements, I'm afraid the funds are simply providing budgetary backfill for the years when the veterans health care needs were ignored. We need a VA veterans' health care budget that can adequately offset years of underfunding, the higher costs of medical care caused by consumer inflation, wage increases, and legislation passed by Congress. For the first time in a number of years, we're working with overall budget surpluses instead of budget deficits. Clearly, the funds are there to provide for veterans health care. It is simply a question of whether the political will is there to make veterans health care a priority instead of an afterthought. As a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I will continue to do all I can to encourage my colleagues to approve adequate funding levels for veterans health care. I look forward to continue working on a bipartisan basis with my Senate colleagues as well as with representatives of the veterans community in South Dakota.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is Nobel Peace Prize time again, and I rise today to congratulate another Dallas resident, Jack St. Clair Kilby. Mr. Kilby was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics. While you might not know him personally, his invention revolutionized the world. Shortly after joining Texas Instruments way back in 1958, Mr. Kilby conceived and built the first electronic circuit, microcircuit. Without question, his development revolutionized the electronics industry, gave us such things as the cell phone and satellite communications. His invention allowed us to explore space, fly to the Moon, and develop sophisticated medical tools. Mr. Speaker, I extend my heartfelt thanks and appreciation and congratulations to Mr. Kilby for his Nobel Prize award. He helped make America great.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it has been 22 days ago since Republicans asked the President and Vice President to join us in dedicating 90 percent of next year's surplus to eliminating the national debt. Even last night, the Vice President said he wanted to reduce the debt. But as of this morning, we have not heard a word from either one of them. I am curious, what are they waiting for? Could it be because the Vice President has proposed over $1 trillion in new government spending? I think it is. It seems the Vice President cares more about spending the surplus than saving it. Why else has he been silent on joining our efforts to eliminate the debt? This Democrat administration spending spree will jeopardize the health of Social Security and Medicare, and that is just wrong. I tell the Vice President, come on, together let us eliminate the national debt. Social Security and Medicare depend on it.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let us look at the facts. Republicans have locked away 100 percent of the Social Security and Medicare surplus. Republicans have eliminated over $350 billion of our Nation's debt and will totally eliminate it by 2012. We asked the Vice President to join us in dedicating another 90 percent or $240 billion of next year's surplus toward eliminating the debt. Unfortunately, the Vice President does not agree. You see he wants to spend over $1 trillion on increasing the size of our government. Most Americans would agree the Vice President's plan to spend 1 trillion more dollars is shortsighted. We do not need a bigger government. Americans do not want, do not need and do not deserve a big government spending spree. They deserve a secure retirement and a debt- free America.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, prescription drug coverage for America's seniors is important. Our two parties differ, however. Republicans believe in choice, not government control. Americans themselves can always make decisions that best meet their individuals needs. On the other hand, Democrats believe government, not individuals, make the best decisions for all people in every circumstance. The Clinton-Gore administration's prescription drug proposals are total government control. Vice President Gore claims to have a recipe of hopes and promises. But when we get in the kitchen, we discover it is the same old concoction of government ingredients and bureaucratic spices. One can present it any way one wants to, but one knows it still tastes the same, it still smells the same. It is not good. We need a prescription drug benefit under Medicare that offers seniors real choices without government control. Americans do not want, need, or deserve any more Hillary care.