Sam Johnson

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. I appreciate those comments. Do you want to tell people what the percentage is right now, because you are not raising it very much.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. I appreciate the support of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra). I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. It is a rare day in Washington.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Our seniors are paying a penalty, a severe penalty today, where they are paying a 33 percent tax really on their earnings. Some of them because of the situation are as high as 80 percent tax bracket, marginal tax bracket. So they are really getting penalized. I think it is a credit to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) that we sent the President a clean bill, and I have to tell you that we got a clean bill out of the House. You will admit that. There is nothing else on it. It is an elimination of the Social Security earnings penalty. He has promised to sign that bill if it reaches his desk without other provisions. However, I am a little worried about the Senate. Some of the Senate Democrats are claiming that they would like to offer amendments to end the penalty on seniors. Although we have bipartisan support, some Democratic obstructionists want to alter the core objectives. I think we should all plead with our friends across America to write their Senators and tell them we do not need an amendment to this Freedom to Work Act because we want the President to sign it, and he said he would if it comes out clean. I am hopeful, I think it is Senator Ashcroft that has submitted the bill over there and Senator Lott says that they are going to push for expeditious passage. I look forward to a big signing with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) of the total bill when it is done. Your mention that it will take effect retroactively is exactly correct, January 1, this year.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Most people do not realize that that tax was 2 percent to start with. It is up to 13 percent now. It has been raised eight times since 1939. That is atrocious. You are absolutely right that we should never ever increase that. In fact, we ought to start decreasing it. Most of the options show the way to do that.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. I have never seen a faster subcommittee than this guy ran. It was bang, bang and it was out, with a unanimous vote.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. That was a good statement. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, did my colleagues know that by 2030, one-fifth of the entire population will be age 65 or older? According to a Manpower Inc. study released this week, nearly one in three U.S. companies will hire more workers in the upcoming second quarter, of this year. Tight labor conditions are going to continue to persist and demand for workers is at the highest level in 20 years. Those seniors that we have taken the earnings limit off of now have an incentive to go back to work, and I think that these companies will hire them.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is the Democrats controlled the Congress for such a long time over 40 years, and they did not brother to introduce this bill or make it go. And now they realize that this is an important issue, and they are with us on it for a change. That is good. I think it is time for a little bit of partisanship.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, 1991.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and guess what? They pay taxes on that money, too. This is a letter from AARP, which has given their support to this project, which says, ``Older workers have the skills, expertise, and enthusiasm that employers value.'' They support reducing or eliminating this penalty totally, and that is what we have done. As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) said, it is a good first step toward getting Social Security reform totally. At least we are looking at it. As chairman of the committee, my colleague is going to have hearings to talk to this issue and others that have come up during the debate. I see we are joined by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thought it was amazing that one of the ladies that testified before our committee, and I do not think the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) heard it, or maybe he did, it was the full committee, because she said, they are stealing that from me. That is my Social Security earnings that I am supposed to be receiving, and you are taking it away from me. You are stealing it from me. And guess what, you get it back later, but not with interest. So the Government is kind of putting it to you when you have a penalty like that. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleague, what does he think?

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and that is great. Absolutely no cost, according to the actuaries, to the Social Security Trust Fund. So we are not invading the Social Security Trust fund at all.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman, what is this going to cost?

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is close to 1.1 million they are saying now according to the 1999 Census Bureau.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me add if I might what Roosevelt did in that first bill. He created a Social Security program; and if they worked, they could not have any Social Security. And then it kind of reformed throughout the years, and we finally got the penalty up. I see the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) here, too, who is also on the Committee on Ways and Means, that maybe can help us. But, in 1935, seniors could not receive any benefits if they worked. And then, believe it or not, it was modified 4 years later, in 1939, so that if they earned up to $14.99 a month, they did not have to pay a penalty. Can you believe that?

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand here with my fellow Republican, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), who was instrumental in helping us get the Social Security earnings limit off today. I introduced this bill 1 year ago, after hearing from many folks around the Dallas area and surrounding cities who are over 65 who want to continue to work. One of them is named Tony Santos. That is his picture right there. Tony is a part-time operator of a television camera now at Channel 4 in Dallas. He started there in 1951, when he was just 18 years old, and he retired in 1992. I first met him when I got back from being a POW in Vietnam; and he helped cover that return back to Dallas, which was really emotional for me. Not just anyone can operate a television camera. It is a technical job and it requires specialized skills. So when folks take a vacation or get sick, Channel 4 finds itself in a bind and they call on Tony. Tony is over 65 and, after all, has a lot of experience, and he is happy to fill in. But the station needs him more than he is able to work due to the Social Security earnings penalty, which says that if he works more and earns more than $17,000 in this year he starts losing his Social Security benefits. He worked for and paid for those benefits, and it is not Washington's money. It is his money. Tony's beautiful grandchildren, over here, are also shown: Daniel, Emily, Jacob, Jason, and Stephanie. She is just 8. Tony wants to be able to help them buy school books and get the best education possible, but he is penalized by the government just for working to support his grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, that is un-American. It is not right that Tony should not be able to work all he wants to, he is in great health, and still receive his Social Security benefits which he worked so hard for. I wonder sometimes why we try to punish other Americans with the laws we pass. I want America to know that Tony Santos, here in this picture, heeds the words of Thomas Edison: ``There is no substitute for hard work.'' And I think the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and I both have heard workers in America say that to us; that when they get to be 65, they are not necessarily ready to retire. But they have worked and put into the Social Security fund and they would like that little extra benefit that it provides. This morning, believe it or not, the Democrats, some of them, said this bill only helps the rich. Well, I am sure it will come as news to Tony Santos that he is rich, because he is not. And why we always hear this class warfare created is beyond me. This bill provides relief for all hard-working seniors. And today we took the first step in making sure that Tony Santos and the other close to a million seniors just like him can work and be rewarded and not be penalized. I was pleasantly surprised President Clinton has decided to endorse the bill, the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act, to eliminate the Social Security earnings penalty. One day earlier the President's chief spokesman spoke out against it. The gentleman from Florida may remember that. But today at least I am thankful the President has changed his mind and decided to support the repeal of the Social Security earnings limit without any strings attached. And that is exactly what happened today on the floor of this House. We passed a clean bill with no strings attached. Just a bill to eliminate the Social Security earnings limit. Our Republican leadership has always understood the importance of this issue, and they made it a top-10 item for this Congress. For the past three sessions I have introduced repealing the Social Security earnings penalty, but by no means was I the first sponsor of this legislation. My colleagues will remember Barry Goldwater and his efforts in 1964. Repealing the penalty on seniors was his initiative way back then, and I am elated to finally be standing here so close to the repeal of the penalty that we can finally give every American the freedom to work. I must confess, though, that I have a feeling that the close to 65,000 seniors affected by this penalty in Texas, and the close to a million seniors affected nationwide will be more thrilled than I am to see it passed. Would the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) care to comment on that? I know the gentleman has been the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security in the Committee on Ways and Means, and he has been an interested person in this issue. And not only this issue but, as my colleagues know, he has been a supporter of the Shaw-Archer Social Security reform bill, which I consider this step one toward addressing that problem.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding time to me. I appreciate what he has been doing on this bill. I know he has been working on it for many, many years. We truly appreciate it coming up today. Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago I introduced H.R. 5, the Freedom to Work Act. Yesterday, every member of the Committee on Ways and Means voted to send the bill to the floor to repeal the social security earnings penalty. Under current law, our seniors age 65 to 69 can earn only $17,000 before they lose $1 in social security benefits for every $3 they earn. This limit is unfair, outdated, and bad for the economy. This obsolete social security earnings penalty must be eliminated. As we all know, our seniors have earned social security benefits through a lifetime of contributions. They have worked for them, and they are entitled to their full benefits. It is their money, it is not Washington's money. It should not be taken away from them just because they choose to work after they reach normal retirement age. The earnings penalty adversely affects 800,000 seniors who reach the normal retirement age. It discriminates against our senior citizens who must work in order to supplement their benefits. That is just not right. The earnings penalty is a Depression-era law whose time has long since come and gone. Today, with unemployment at record lows, seniors are needed in the work force, so the last thing we ought to do is discourage them from working. Senior citizens who work not only lose a large percentage of their social security benefits today due to the earnings penalty, but they pay social security taxes, Medicare taxes, Federal taxes, and probably State income taxes, as well. Combined with the earnings penalty and these other taxes, our seniors may face a marginal tax rate as high as 80 percent. The earnings penalty is complicated and difficult to understand. In addition, the earnings penalty is complex and costly to the Federal government to administer. For example, the earnings penalty is responsible for more than half of the social security overpayments. The Social Security Administration estimates that administering the earnings penalty takes 1,200 people and costs $150 million a year. Repeal of the earnings penalty would allow our senior citizens to work more, the American economy would benefit from their experience and skills, and it does not cost anything. According to the Social Security Administration actuaries, a repeal of the earnings penalty will not affect the social security trust fund. Two weeks ago, the President finally agreed to sign the bill. I am pleased that he has decided to help us fix this unfair penalty. Mr. Speaker, I fought for freedom in two wars, Korea and Vietnam. I believe that freedom entitles our seniors the ability to work without penalty. America's seniors want, need, and deserve a repeal of this penalty.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we are talking over here on this side about delaying any relief for married families for up to 10 years. Marriage is a cherished institution in America, and we should promote it, not discourage it. Today we are going to do just that. Right now married couples pay more in taxes than two single people living together, and that is just not right. Washington has got to stop it, penalizing the cornerstone of our society, the American family. We should encourage marriage, not penalize it. Do my colleagues know what we are doing? We are really restoring family, children, and the American dream. Democrat allies labeled marriage penalty relief as risky last year, and the President vetoed it. Last week, all the Democrats voted against it in the Committee on Ways and Means. Today, they are trying to fool us and the American people into thinking that they are for marriage penalty relief. Do not believe them. They do not have a plan that provides for even $1 of guaranteed marriage penalty relief, and this is a shame. In my district alone, this bill will end the marriage penalty for over 150,000 Americans. The President and his Democrat friends should stop playing election-year politics. A vote for this bill is a vote for America. It is a vote for American families.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced legislation, H.R. 3612 that will repeal certain hidden taxes imposed on our American families and values. In his latest report to Congress, our country's National Taxpayer Advocate, W. Val Oveson, urges 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 second year in a row, Mr. Oveson has reported that 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 states 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 describes 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.'' 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 received 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. My bill will repeal both of these hidden taxes on American families and values. Additionally, my bill will go one step further and repeal another hidden tax--the phaseout of the Child Tax Credit. In 1997, Republicans in 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, my bill will repeal this arbitrary hidden tax on American families. Finally, these three hidden taxes also worsen the marriage penalty. The American Institute of Certified Public Accounts (AICPA) has listed these three hidden taxes in its list of ``ways the tax code may drive up a tax bill when a married couple files together.'' It is just not right that our tax code forces married couple to pay more in taxes than two people living together. 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. Madam Speaker, tomorrow the House is going to vote to end the marriage penalty. Right now married couples pay more in taxes than two single taxpayers living together. That is not right. It is just not right. Washington must stop penalizing the cornerstone of our society, the American family. We should encourage marriage, not penalize it. We are restoring family, children, and the American dream. Last year President Clinton and his Democrat allies labeled marriage penalty relief as risky, and the President vetoed it. This year the Democrats are encouraging him to veto it again. In my district alone, this bill will help end the marriage penalty for over 150,000 Americans. The President and his Democrat friends should stop playing election-year politics. Mr. President, it is time for you to help us help American families.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to give recognition to a group of 21 young folks who traveled to the cities of Jackson and Clarksville, Tennessee at the request of city officials to provide assistance in clean-up efforts, following a tornado in January 1999. These outstanding young men were noted for their teamwork, enthusiasm and diligence in all they did to serve the people of Jackson and Clarksville. They are to be commended for their selfless service. Jeff Bramhill, Ontario; Jason Brown, AL; Donald Burzynski, FL; Brian Cahill, TX; Brian Drozdov, WA; Christopher Ekstrom, OR; Paul Ellis, MS; Cory Finch, MO; Joshua Fox, CA; Christopher Hanson, WI; John Hill, IA; Seth Johnson, NE; Jonathan Lancaster, MI; Joshua Meals, TN; Samuel Mills, TX; Daniel Petersen, GA; Lance Stoney, British Columbia; John Tanner, MI; John Thornton IV, TN; Mark Wahl, OR; Andrew Whitaker, NY.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the following young people who gave of themselves to help the people of New Braunfels, Comal, and Seguin, Texas, and Strong City, Kansas, in the wake of severe flooding in the fall of 1998. These men traveled many miles, at their own expense, to assist the citizens of these cities by removing countless loads of mud and debris from their houses and yards and by providing much-needed encouragement to those affected by the devastating floodwaters. Anthony Anderson II, TX; David Bair, OH; Matthew Barber, British Columbia; Ryan Bedford, CA; Jacob Braddy, AZ; Jacory Brady, CO; Daniel Buhler, CA; Warren Burres, IN; James Connelly, CA; Andrew Conway, WA; Seth Cooke, TX; Steven Dankers, WI; Joshua Dean, WI; Ryan DePoppe, WI; John Dixon, GA; David Edmonson, GA; Stephen Gaither, TX; Travis Gibson, FL; Zechariah Hamilton, FL; David Haynes, MO; Prescott Hendrix, MI; Joshua Horvath, TX; Joshua Johnson, WA; Michael Jones, TX; Lindsay Kimbrough, IL; Anthony Koca, CA; Mitchell Lane, AR; Joshua Long, CA; Gregory Mangione, MI; Daylan McCants, AZ; Matthew Moran, NY; Russell Moulton, OK; Jeremy Nordberg, TN; Joshua Norwood, WA; Jonah Offtermatt, TX; Daniel Rahe, CO; Isaac Reichardt, MI; Jerome Richards, MI; David Servideo, VA; Jonathan Scott, CA; Brock Shinkle, KS; Donald Showalter, OH; Charles Snow, TN; Joseph Snow, TX; John Tanner, MI; Ryan Thomas, AL; Timothy Wann, FL; Stephen Watson, TX; Jared Yates, FL; Jonathan Wharton, TX.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the Congress' attention the work of the following 39 young men who spent two weeks assisting the people of Little Rock, Arkansas in clean-up efforts in the aftermath of a tornado that struck the city in January 1999. These men served under the direction of Mayor Jim Dailey to clear fallen trees and debris for property-owners. They should be commended for their hard work and dedication to helping others in a time of great need. Robert Adamis, CA; Nathan Allen, OH; Ryan Anders, MI; Timothy Anderson, WY; Luke Borchers, MO; Jeff Bramhill, Ontario; Nathan Bryant, GA; Donald Burzynski, FL; Benjamin Caffee, AL; Brian Cahill, TX; Curtis Eaton, TN; Timothy Ferry, NJ; Joshua Fox, CA; Jonathan Gunter, IN; Christopher Hanson, WI; Luke Hodges, OK; Thomas Hogarty, VA; Stephen Hough, IN; Riley Irwin, Alberta; Jeremy Jansen, KS; Jeffery Jestes, OK; Seth Johnson, NE; Nathan Lord, GA; Jonathan McKeithen, FL; Nathan Nazario, PR; Timothy Noland, MA; Elisha Odegaard, MN; Andrew Papillon, MN; Stephen Parrish, TN; Daniel Petersen, GA; Misha Randolph, TX; John Saucier, AL; Frank Shao, NJ; John Tanner, MI; Justin Tanner, MI; John Thornton IV, TN; Matthew Whitaker, NY; Vincent Williams, OK; David Winsinger, FL.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend 58 young men who selflessly spent two weeks in Bridge Creek and Midwest City, Oklahoma last spring to help search for missing persons and clear debris in the aftermath of multiple tornadoes. From May 5-21, 1999, these young men served others at their own expense, and through their hard work and willing attitudes they brought encouragement and hope to citizens who had sustained great loss. Paul Aber, OH; Peter Ackerman, IL; Derek Aloisi, NY; John Baker, OK; Paul Bell, TN; Erik Benson, WI; Shawn Bradley, TN; David Breneman, NM; Jared Busse, MO; Joshua Craymer, MI; Daniel Davies, IN; John Dew, MI; Matthew Field, Australia; Jeremy Flanagan, TX; David French, CA; Philip George, IN; Edward Harris, TX; Jeremy Hebert, LA; John Hill, IA; Isaac Houser, OH; Jeremy Jansen, KS; Jeffery Jestes, OK; Joshua Koyejo, NJ; Jonathan Kranick, WA; Caleb Lachmann, IN; Joshua Lachmann, IN; Daniel Lamb, CA; Barak Lundberg, WA; Joseph Lyle, IL; Gregory Mangione, MI; David McKenzie, SC; John Miller, CA; Samuel Mills, TX; Daniel Moulton, OK; Alex Nicolato, OH; Joseph Nix, MI; John Nix, MI; Marc Payant, Quebec; Sean Pelletier, WA; Jadon Rauch, IN; Micah Richmond, OR; Bruce Rozeboom, MI; Robert Shumer, OH; Ben Sibley, WI; Eric Singer, PA; Mark Stanley, MN; Shane Stieglitz, IN; Jacob Strain, KS; John Tanner, MI; Jeffrey TenBrink, MI; Daryn Thompson, GA; Brian Tuplin, Alberta; Benjamin Vincent, MI; Aaron Waldier, OR; Ryan Ward, OR; Christopher Wilks, CA; Vincent Williams, OK; Joshua Young,