Sam Johnson

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, to change the subject a little bit, today, along with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. John Murtha), I will introduce legislation to authorize a memorial to honor our wounded and disabled veterans. This memorial, the only one dedicated to disabled veterans, would give the American people an opportunity to honor and express gratitude to those who sacrificed so much for our freedom. We must never forget the terrifying human costs, physical, psychological, and spiritual, that so many paid that we might be free. They were citizen soldiers, everyday Americans who were willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, and who offered themselves for the good of all. They should never be forgotten. This memorial will stand forever as a tribute to our disabled veterans and their sacrifices for our great Nation.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring special attention to an outstanding individual who is making a real difference in the lives of children in my district. He is Principal Tom Leyden of the Plano Independent School District in Plano, Texas. Tom Leyden was recently named the Texas principal of the year by the Texas Association of Secondary School Principals. This honor qualifies Mr. Leyden for eligibility as the National Principal of the Year, which will be announced in October. Tom Leyden is a shining reminder of what a difference our local officials can make in the lives of our children. I am proud to represent Tom Leyden, and I plan to do everything I can to make sure we help all the Tom Leydens of America by keeping the Federal Government out of their way and putting education back in the hands of local principals, parents, and teachers.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, when the Democrats controlled Congress during 1982 to 1993, they voted to increase taxes on hard- working Americans by $666 billion. The new revenue was not used to put toward the debt or used to eliminate the deficit; it was used to increase the size and scope of government. History has shown us that every time Congress increases taxes they also increase spending. This year President Clinton has proposed to raise taxes by $174 billion over the next 10 years. This Tax Limitation Amendment will provide a safeguard for taxpayers and force the Congress and the President to reduce spending and return the surplus to its rightful owner, the American taxpayers. Americans are overtaxed and the government is too big. This Tax Limitation Amendment will solve both of these problems. Mr. Speaker, when the Democrats controlled Congress during 1982 to 1993, they voted to increase taxes on hard working Americans by $666 billion. This new revenue was not put toward the debt or used to eliminate the deficit. Instead, it was used to increase the size and scope of Government. And history has shown us that every time Congress increases taxes, they also increase spending. This year, President Clinton proposes to raise taxes by $174 billion over the next 10 years. What this tax limitation amendment will do is provide a safeguard for taxpayers and force Congress and the President to reduce spending and return the surplus to its rightful owner--the American taxpayer. Not only will they get a smaller, more efficient Government, but also protection from higher taxes. The President and everybody else who is against this amendment is simply admitting they can't control their spending habit, and they still want the option of heaping the burden onto the American people. But, at a time when taxes surpass the amount that families pay for food, clothing and shelter combined, something must be done. Americans are overtaxed and the Government is too big. The tax limitation amendment will solve both of these problems. It is time for Congress to quit taking money from the hard working families of America. They deserve to keep what they earn. The money is not ours, we did not earn it and we should not waste it. Help America's families--pass this amendment.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced the ``Tax Freedom Resolution'', H.J. Res. --, that will repeal the 16th amendment to the Constitution. This resolution will reverse one of the most destructive amendments to the U.S. Constitution and deny Congress the ability to lay and collect taxes on income. I believe that the 16th amendment has created a system that is economically destructive, impossibly complex, overly intrusive, unprincipled, dishonest, unfair, and inefficient. Now is the time for us to restore freedom to the American taxpayer. The tax Freedom Resolution is the first step to do just that. It will encourage an open, honest and constructive debate about why our current tax structure has failed and what we can expect in a new system. You may ask why we need to repeal the 16th amendment. The answer is quite simple. The current system cannot be fixed. It has already undergone 32 major revisions and 400 minor ones in the past 40 years. Each time the revisions has been made the system becomes more and more complicated and unfair. The IRS has hundreds and hundreds of different tax forms, plus countless more to explain how to fill out these forms. The original Tax Code had 11,400 words in it. Today it has well over 7 million words. Our current system also discourages savings and investment while hampering economic growth. Complying with the Federal Tax Code costs taxpayers more than $250 billion each year. In 1991, the Tax Foundation reported that small corporations spent a minimum of $382 in compliance costs for every $100 they paid in income taxes. In addition, several economists have said that replacing the current tax system will cause interest rates to go down and savings and capital investment to increase. Right now, we have a system that stiffles opportunity by picking winners and losers. It's a system in which Washington, DC, decides what is best for the American people instead of letting the people decide what is best for America. The Federal Government simply takes too much money out of people's pockets. As recently as 1982, Americans paid only 19.9 percent of their income in taxes. New data reveals that in 1998. Americans paid 35.4 percent of their income in taxes--the highest level in history and increasing each year. In fact, Tax Freedom Day 1998 was May 10th, which means that Americans are working, on average 129 days before paying off their total tax bill. We must stop this confiscatory trend. By embracing the principles of FREEDOM, we can create a system that is Fair and simple, that Reduces the federal bureaucracy, that Encourages savings and investment, that is Efficient, that Drives the economy, that creates Opportunity for all, and that puts More money in American pockets. Fundamental and comprehensive tax reform will be one of the most profound and liberating changes our nation experiences. It is time for all of us--whether you support a flat tax, a consumption tax, a value- added tax, or a national sales tax--to come together and focus on our common goal: Replacing the current system. The Tax Freedom Resolution gives us the chance to do just that and at the same time restore FREEDOM to the American taxpayer.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is that time of year again: Tax season. Let us be honest, our current tax system is economically destructive, impossibly complex, overly intrusive, unprincipled, dishonest, unfair and inefficient. This madness must stop. That is why I will reintroduce the tax freedom bill today that will repeal the 16th Amendment to the Constitution and deny the Congress the ability to lay and collect taxes on income, except when the Congress declares war. We must replace the current tax system based on a vision of America that places the individual, not the government, at the center of society. My bill to replace the 16th Amendment brings us one step closer to replacing the current system and restoring freedom to the American taxpayer. It is way past time to enact a tax system that embraces freedom for all Americans.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Sure. The gentleman is talking off subject.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it is easy to understand why most of my colleagues do not want to vote for this President's budget. As a veteran, I have looked at it. And the President flat-lines benefits for veterans. The Republican budget actually increases it by $1 billion. Let me just tell my colleagues a few things. The President's budget busts the spending caps by $30 billion. We hold them. The President's budget raids Social Security money for more and more spending. Our budget protects Social Security and Medicare. The President's budget cuts $11 billion in Medicare, cuts the Republican budget. The Republican budget protects Medicare. The President's budget raises taxes by $172 billion. To quote President Reagan, ``There they go again, spending more money.'' In fact, the President has said Congress should not even consider providing tax relief for 15 years. Let us not let that happen. Vote this budget down.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Point of Order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I believe the speaker is off the subject at this time, and I do not believe that is proper.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, we have got to support the Tiahrt amendment. It is important that we fully, fully put aside the Social Security funds. But the Tiahrt amendment is simple, fair, and fiscally responsible. Some of my colleagues are concerned that this amendment would affect our defense programs. With our forces committed and fighting in Kosovo, our military must be strengthened, and everybody knows that this administration has slashed military spending. We know troop levels are dangerously low, retention is short, recruiting is down, and morale is at the bottom of the barrel. I agree Congress must step forward and reverse these trends by putting more money in our defense budget. Our fighting men and women deserve the best. This amendment does nothing to harm this goal. The Tiahrt amendment takes $195 million of foreign aid money from a $12 billion bank account that has never been used. It takes no money away from defense. No Member should oppose taking $195 million from a $12 billion nondefense account that is not being used for anything. I would also like to make clear that this is not a military emergency. The defense portion of this bill is a reimbursement for disaster assistance by our National Guard which it provided to our neighbors in Central America. It is money that has already been spent. It is not an emergency and, therefore, should not be funded as one. I understand the concerns that some of my colleagues have, but in this case offsetting $195 million from nondefense accounts is practicable, is reasonable and is fiscally responsible, not dangerous. We are in Washington to be responsible. The Tiahrt amendment simply allows us to keep our promise to the American people that we will stop big government spending. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment today. It is good for America.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the President keeps vetoing missile defense systems as unwarranted. He says a missile defense system would waste billions of dollars. It is the duty of this Congress and the President to provide protection against rogue nations who have delivery systems and nuclear weapons, and it is not a waste of money. What most Americans do not know is that we have no defense. Right now we cannot even stop one incoming missile. North Korea, China, Iran, Iraq are true threats today. How many more missiles need to be pointed at our cities, our homes, and our families before the administration decides the threat is real? Mr. Speaker, every American must be protected from the threat of missile attacks. They have the right to feel safe. That is what freedom means. That is what America is all about. And it is the duty of this Congress to protect our country. That is why we must pass this legislation.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we do have to protect Social Security. The President has been saying over and over he wants to save Social Security, but he keeps spending it on foreign giveaways. I would just say, Mr. President, you cannot have it both ways. Unlike the President, however, this year's budget resolution will set aside fully 100 percent of the Social Security surplus to strengthen that vital program for our seniors. Seniors have paid a lifetime of earnings into Social Security, and we promise to protect it for them. We are committed to that promise, and we cannot allow Social Security money to be frittered away on foreign aid. The President just wants to use Social Security surplus funds as a slush fund for his failed Social Security policy, for his failed foreign policy as well. Mr. Speaker, that money belongs to our seniors. American seniors need it and deserve it, and we must make sure that they get it. Mr. President, do not spend away our Social Security money.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, we keep talking about a peace agreement. There is not one. If there were one and our forces were sent in, that is fine. But without a peace agreement, we are going to coerce those other nations into signing one, and I do not think that that is a very American way to deal with this problem, not by force . And I do not think that we ought to be bombing over there in an effort to try to coerce them to comply with our peace agreement that we put forward. NATO is not at risk. NATO is a defensive organization, not an offensive organization. We appear to be aggressors. I really worry after talking with our people over there that we are going to lose an airplane or two. It may not be from ground fire but ultimately we could lose one from engine failure, and we may. And if that guy gets down in that area, those people are not going to be very nice to him. They do not like us over there. Yesterday, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told the Congress to put off today's debate because it might harm the negotiations. I would tell the Secretary the reason this debate is necessary is because the real danger is recklessness with our foreign policy. The President is about to put our troops in the middle of an ethnic and religious war that has been going on for thousands of years. It is a lose-lose situation for America. We lose because our troops will be deployed to a country without a clear mission. Just as in Bosnia, the President has no entry or exit plan, he has failed to explain the cost of the mission, and he has failed to explain what effect it will have on the already sinking morale of our fighting men and women. The President's continued use of hollow threats of force only guarantees that our soldiers will be put in harm's way and that dictators will continue to control how our foreign policy is run. Despite this, the President continues to state he will send 4,000 U.S. troops to Kosovo if a peace agreement is signed. Mr. Chairman, I fought with our Air Force in both Korea and Vietnam, and I am opposed to the use of U.S. military force where we are not threatened in this country. I am disturbed that the President would use NATO to attack a sovereign nation. NATO was not designed to and should not be used for those purposes. The President knows this, and he has continually ignored the Congress when making decisions that impact our ability to keep peace throughout the world. Our fighting men and women are being used as pawns in a failed foreign policy by this administration. Our soldiers are leaving the services in droves. Recruiting is down, morale is low, and the main reason is failed policies that ship our soldiers, sailors and airmen around the world with no purpose or plan. Mr. Chairman, we should not send troops, we should not send bombs, we should not get involved. It is a conflict that is destined to follow the rest to failure. The President ought to think long and hard before he puts our troops in a bottomless pit. He has a responsibility to our fighting men and women and to this Nation to admit there is no defined mission in Kosovo and our troops do not belong there. I know that, however, if our fighting men and women are called to duty, they will go and they will serve with honor as they always do. But under our Constitution, I believe we in the Congress have as much responsibility as the President and we must not ask our soldiers, sailors and airmen to serve in Kosovo without a defined mission or national interest.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on March 1, Collin Peterson of Minnesota and I introduced H.R. 5, the ``Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 1999.'' This legislation will eliminate the so-called Social Security ``earnings limit.'' Under current law, our senior citizens aged 65-69 can earn $15,500 before they lose $1 in Social Security benefits for each additional $3 of earnings. This limit is unfair, discriminatory, and adversely effects our country's economy. The Social Security earnings limit must be eliminated. The Social Security earnings limit is unfair and inappropriate because it imposes a ``means'' test for a retirement benefit. As we all know, our seniors have earned Social Security benefits through a lifetime of contributions to the program and they should not be penalized because they choose to work. We have a fundamental right to work in America and earn money without government intrusion. Additionally, the Social Security earnings limit discriminates against senior citizens who must work in order to supplement their benefits and is unfair to our nation's senior citizens who have the greatest need for additional income. It is a Depression-era law whose time has long since come and gone. In the 1930's, the earnings limit was used to force seniors out of the workforce. Today, with unemployment at record lows, seniors are needed in the workforce. The disincentive effect is magnified when viewed on an after-tax basis. Senior citizens who work lose a large percentage of their Social Security benefits due to the Social Security earnings limit, but they must also continue to pay Social Security taxes, and probably federal and state income taxes as well. The Social Security earnings limit forces seniors to avoid work or seek lower-paying or part-time work. In addition to being complicated and difficult for the individual senior citizen to understand, the Social Security earnings limit is complex and costly for the federal government to administer. For example, the test is responsible for more than one-half of retirement and survivor program overpayments. Elimination of the earnings limit would help minimize administration expenses, and recipients would be less confused. Finally, repealing the Social Security earnings limit would aid our country's economy. Our senior citizens would be likely to work more and the American economy would benefit from their experience and skills. The combined increase in the amounts that they would pay in Social Security and other taxes, as well as the additional contribution to our Gross National Product, would largely offset the increase in benefit payments. For decades, our senior citizens worked and dutifully paid their Social Security taxes; it is only fair that they receive all of the Social Security benefits when they are at the retirement age. I fought for freedom in two wars and I believe that freedom entitles our seniors the ability to work without a penalty. America's seniors want, need and deserve the repeal of the Social Security earnings limit.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, educating our children is one of the most important issues facing this Nation today. It is vitally important for our children to receive the best education from the most qualified teachers in the safest schools. We can only provide this when our local governments, parents, and teachers are given the necessary tools and flexibility to design a learning environment that inspires and captures their attention. I know Congress can help our children succeed by continuing a program that has freed our schools from needless regulations and giving our teachers, not bureaucracies, the ability to design an education program that works, a program that allows our children to be number one in math, science, and reading. What we call it is Ed-Flex. It gives the States the flexibility to improve education through local control. Washington cannot and should not dictate how our children are taught. Our parents and teachers are the reason for our children's successes. Ed-Flex does work. As has been stated, my home State of Texas is the leader of new and innovative ways to give our children the tools they need to excel. Under the proven leadership of George W. Bush, our Governor, Texans have made a commitment to turn around our school system, believe it or not his wife pushed him into doing this, and demand the results from our children, from our teachers, and from our school administrators. Our Governor has used this program to rid our schools of needless bureaucracy and provide the greatest amount of flexibility to the State school systems. But in return, he has demanded increased accountability and improved academic performance. The results have been remarkable. It has already been stated, since 1996, Texas has granted over 4,000 Ed-Flex waivers to local schools. Since then, in just three short years, reading and math scores have gone up. Reading scores have risen nearly 7 percent. Math scores have risen nearly 10 percent. National accountability is in the results. We do not need a Federal mandate for accountability. In fact, all our schools are doing better. The performance gap between high-performing and low-performing schools has narrowed. The great success of this program has shown me the difference between a child who succeeds and one who fails is the people who are there every day, helping them, giving them support, and encouraging and picking them up if they fail. These are the people who make a difference, not a regulation written by a person 1,000 miles away. It is simple. Local control works. Accountability is in the result. True education reform can happen in every State if we just give every Governor the flexibility to help improve their own schools. We must make sure that no child is left behind. The time has come to share this opportunity with every school district, every teacher, and every child in our great Nation. Americans deserve no less. This bill helps our kids. I urge my colleagues to support this bill without amendment.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today, Congressman Sander Levin and I have introduced legislation, H.R.--that will establish a new ``Medical Innovation Tax Credit.'' Last year, we introduced similar legislation with strong, bipartisan support. This bill is designed to provide incentives for companies to utilize our Nation's medical schools and teaching hospitals to conduct important clinical testing research. These institutions have led the world on the development of medical advances, including cures for small pox, treatments for diabetes, cancer, and leukemia as well as the irradication of polio. It is important that we make every effort to insure that American teaching hospitals and medical schools remain leaders in the fight against disease. Medical schools and teaching hospitals are the training grounds for our nation's health care professionals. They are centers for development of innovative medical technologies and treatments, as well as the backbone for innovation in American medicine. They are able to develop life saving drugs, medical devices and surgical techniques due to their unique position to link research, medical training and patient care. Unfortunately, medical schools and teaching hospitals face serious financial challenges due to profound changes in the health care marketplace. As funding shrinks, so does the vital, life saving medical research they perform. The Medical Innovation Tax Credit is a response to this alarming decline in utilization of the Country's superior medical facilities for clinical trials. Under the credit, companies would be eligible for an incremental 20% tax credit for expenditures on human clinical trials performed by: (1) non-profit or public medical schools; (2) teaching hospitals owned by or affiliated with an institution of higher learning; (3) a medical research organization affiliated with a medical school or teaching hospital; or (4) non-profit research hospitals that are designated as cancer centers by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. The credit requires that research be performed in the United States, encouraging companies to retain and expand their clinical research projects, rather than relocating such activities abroad. I urge my colleagues to join with me in the establishment of the Medical Innovation Tax Credit. A tax credit that is truly a ``credit for life.''

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced legislation, H.R.--, that will eliminate a provision of the tax code, which severely discriminates against United States exporters of defense products. My bill, entitled ``The Defense Jobs and Trade Promotion Act of 1999'' will help our nation's defense contractors improve their international competitiveness, protect our defense industrial base, and insure that American defense workers--who have already had to adjust to sharply declining defense budgets--do not see their jobs lost to overseas competitors because of a harmful quirk in our own tax law. The Internal Revenue Code allows U.S. companies to establish Foreign Sales Corporations (FSCs), under which they can exempt from U.S. taxation a portion of their earnings from foreign sales. This provision is designed to help U.S. firms compete against companies in other countries that rely on value-added taxes (VATs) rather than on corporate income taxes. When products are exported from such countries, the VAT is rebated to these foreign companies, effectively lowering their prices. U.S. companies, in contrast, must charge relatively higher prices in order to obtain a reasonable net profit after taxes have been paid. By permitting a share of the profits derived from exports to be excluded from corporate incomes taxes, the FSC allows U.S. companies to compete with our international competitors who pay no taxes. In 1976, Congress added section 923(a)(5) to the tax code. This provision reduced the FSC tax benefits for defense products to 50 percent, while retaining the full benefits for all other products. The questionable rationale for this discriminatory treatment, that U.S. defense exports faced little competition, clearly no longer exists. Whatever the veracity of that premise 25 years ago, today military exports are subject to fierce international competition in every area. Twenty-five years ago, roughly one-half of all the nations purchasing defense products benefited from U.S. military assistance. Today, U.S. military assistance has been sharply curtailed and is essentially limited to two countries. Moreover, with the sharp decline in the defense budget over the past decade, exports of defense products have become ever more critical to maintaining a viable U.S defense industrial base. For example, of the three fighter aircraft under production in this country, two are dependent on foreign customers; the same is true for 1MA1 tank, which must compete with several foreign tank manufacturers. The Department of Defense supports repeal of this provision. In an August 26, 1998 letter, Deputy Secretary of Defense, John Hamre wrote Treasury Secretary Rubin about the FSC. Hamre wrote ``The Department of Defense (DoD) supports extending the full benefits of the FSC exemption to defense exporters. . . . I believe, however, that putting defense and non-defense companies on the same footing would encourage defense exports that would promote standardization and interoperability of equipment among our allies. It also could result in a decrease in the cost of defense products to the Department of Defense.'' My legislation supports the DoD recommendation and calls for the repeal of this counterproductive tax provision. The recent decision to transfer jurisdiction of commercial satellites from the Commerce Department to the State Department highlights the capriciousness of section 923(a)(5). When the Commerce Department regulated the export of commercial satellites, the satellite manufacturers received the full FSC benefit. When the Congress transferred export control jurisdiction to the State Department, the same satellites, built in the same factory, by the same hard working men and women, no longer received the same tax benefit. Because these satellites are now classified as munitions, they receive 50 percent less of a FSC benefit than before. This absurd result demonstrates that the tax code is not that correct place to implement our foreign policy. The administration has agreed that Congress should take action to correct this inequity as it applies to satellites. My legislation would not only correct the satellite problem, but it would also ensure that all U.S. exports are treated in the same manner under the FSC. The Department of Defense is not the only entity that has commented publicly about this provision. A December 1998 joint project of the Lexington Institute and The Institute for Policy Innovation entitled ``Out of Control: Ten Case Studies in Regulatory Abuse'' included an article by Loren B. Thompson about the FSC. The article is aptly titled ``26 U.S.C. 923(a)(5): Bad for Trade, Bad for Security, and Fundamentally Unfair'' highlights the many problems of this unfair tax provision. I call your attention to one issue the article addresses that I have not yet raised--the real reason the Congress enacted this provision in 1976. The author, Loren B. Thompson, argues that Congress' decision to limit the FSC benefit for military exports was not based on sound analysis of tax law, but on the general antimilitary climate that pervaded this country in the mid 1970's. As Mr. Thompson writes, Congress enacted section 923(a)(5), ``to punish weapons makers . . . . Section 923(a)(5) was simply one of many manifestations of Congressional antimilitarism during that period.'' Times have changed since this provision was enacted. This provision makes little sense from a tax policy perspective. No valid economic or policy reason exists for continuing a tax policy that discriminates against a particular class of manufactured products. The legislation I am introducing today is a small step this Congress can take to improve our military and strengthen our defense industrial base. I urge my colleagues to join me in repealing this part of the tax code in order to provide fair and equal treatment to our defense industry and its workers, and to enable our defense companies to compete more successfully in the increasingly challenging international market.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I have introduced legislation, H.R. -- to provide much needed certainty with respect to the proper depreciation classification of natural gas gathering lines. Natural gas gathering lines play an integral role in the production and processing of natural gas as they are used to carry gas from the wellhead to a gas processing unit or interconnection with a transmission pipeline. In many instances, the gathering network for a single gas field can consist of hundreds of miles and represents a substantial investment for natural gas processors. The proper depreciation classification for specific assets is determined by reference to the asset guideline class that describes the property. Asset class 13.2 subject to a 7-year cost recovery period, clearly includes ``assets used by petroleum and natural gas producers for drilling wells and production of petroleum and natural gas, including gathering pipelines and related production facilities.'' Not only are gathering lines specifically referenced in asset class 13.2, but gathering lines are integral to the extraction and production process. Nonetheless, it has come to my attention that some Internal Revenue Service auditors now seek to categorize natural gas gathering lines as assets subject to a 15-year cost recovery period under asset class 46.0, titled ``Pipeline Transportation.'' Over the past several years, I have corresponded and met with officials of the Department of Treasury seeking clarification on Internal Revenue Service policy and the issuance of guidance to taxpayers as to the proper treatment of these assets for depreciation purposes. These efforts have been to no avail. In the meantime, the continued controversy over this issue has imposed significant costs on the gas processing industry on audit and in litigation, and has resulted in a division of authority among the lower courts as to the proper depreciation of these assets. While it is not my intent to interfere with ongoing litigation, I do believe that legislation is needed to clarify the treatment of these assets under the Internal Revenue Code in order to provide certainty to the industry for tax planning purposes, and to avoid costly and protracted audits or litigation. Accordingly, I have introduced legislation that would amend the Internal Revenue Code to specifically provide that natural gas gathering lines are subject to a 7-year cost recovery period. While I believe that this result should be obvious under existing law, this bill would eliminate any uncertainty surrounding the proper treatment of these assets. The bill also includes a proper definition of ``natural gas gathering lines'' to distinguish these assets from pipeline transportation for purposes of depreciation. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the President's plan calls for spending more money and raising taxes. Do Members remember when President Clinton sent U.S. troops to Bosnia? He promised, he promised they would have a well-defined mission with a clear exit strategy. Three years later and more than $20 billion later, about 6,000 U.S. troops are still in Bosnia. Our own Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, has called it a mess. Now the President intends to further scatter U.S. troops into Kosovo as part of another peacekeeping mission. It is absolutely imperative that the President give Congress and the Nation a clear mission and a clear exit strategy before committing our troops. Mr. Speaker, our military forces are ready and willing to defend the interests of this great Nation. We cannot undermine their oaths. We must define the mission, the goal, and an exit strategy before sending our troops into yet another mess.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as Congressional members appointed to the Smithsonian Board of Regents, Chairman Ralph Regula and I are pleased to submit Dr. Hanna H. Gray, Mr. Wesley S. Williams, and the Honorable Barber B. Conable to successive terms as citizen regents on the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. Their personal commitment and dedication to the Smithsonian Institution has been an invaluable asset in our drive to keep the Smithsonian a national treasure for all to enjoy. We thank them for all their hard work and look forward to working with them during the 106th Congress. Hanna Holborn Gray The Harry Pratt Judson Distinguished Service Professor of History, The University of Chicago Hanna H. Gray was President of the University of Chicago from July 1, 1978 through June 30, 1993, and is now President Emeritus. Mrs. Gray is a historian with special interests in the history of humanism, political and historical thought, and politics in the Renaissance and the Reformation. She taught history at the University of Chicago from 1961 to 1972 and is now the Harry Pratt Judson Distinguished Service Professor of History in the University of Chicago's Department of History. She was born on October 25, 1930, in Heidelberg, Germany. She received her B.A. degree from Bryn Mawr in 1950 and her Ph.D. in history from Harvard University in 1957. From 1950 to 1951, she was a Fulbright Scholar at Oxford University. She was an instructor at Bryn Mawr College in 1953-54 and taught at Harvard from 1955 to 1960, returning as a Visiting Lecturer in 1963-64. In 1961, she became a member of the University of Chicago's faculty as Assistant Professor of History, becoming Associate Professor in 1964. Mrs. Gray was appointed Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and Professor of History at Northwestern University in 1972. In 1974, she was elected Provost of Yale University with an appointment as Professor of History. From 1977 to 1978, she also served as Acting President of Yale. She has been a Fellow of the Newberry Library, a Fellow of the Center of Behavioral Sciences, a Visiting Scholar at that center, a Visiting Professor at the University of California at Berkeley, and a Visiting Scholar for Phi Beta Kappa. She is also an Honorary Fellow of St. Anne's College, Oxford. Mrs. Gray is a member of the Renaissance Society of America. She is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a member of the American Philosophical Society, the National Academy of Education, and the Council on Foreign Relations of New York. She holds honorary degrees from a number of colleges and universities, including Oxford, Yale, Brown, Columbia, Princeton, Duke, Harvard, and the Universities of Michigan and Toronto, and The University of Chicago. She is chairman of the boards of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, serves on the boards of Harvard University and the Marlboro School of Music, and is a Regent of the Smithsonian Institution. In addition, Mrs. Gray is a member of the boards of directors of J.P. Morgan & Company, the Cummins Engine Company, and Ameritech. Mrs. Gray was one of twelve distinguished foreign-born Americans to receive a Medal of Liberty award from President Reagan at ceremonies marking the rekindling of the Statue of Liberty's lamp in 1986. In 1991, she received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian award, from President Bush. She received the Charles Frankel Prize from the National Endowment of the Humanities and the Jefferson Medal from the American Philosophical Society in 1993. In 1996, Mrs. Gray received the University of Chicago's Quantrell Award for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching. In 1997, she received the M. Carey Thomas Award from Bryn Mawr College. Her husband, Charles M. Gray, is Professor Emeritus in the Department of History at the University of Chicago. Biography Born: October 25, 1930, Heidelberg, Germany. Married: Charles M. Gray, 1954, A.B. Harvard University 1949, Ph.D. Harvard University 1956. Education B.A. Bryn Mawr College 1950 Fulbright Scholar, Oxford University 1950-51 Ph.D. (History) Harvard University 1957 1953-54--Instructor, Bryn Mawr College 1955-57--Teaching Fellow, Harvard University 1957-59--Instructor, Harvard University 1959-60--Assistant Professor, Harvard University; Head Tutor, Committee on Degrees in History and Literature 1961-64--Assistant Professor, University of Chicago 1963-64--Visiting Lecturer, Harvard University 1964-72--Associate Professor, University of Chicago 1970-71--Visiting Professor, University of California at Berkeley 1972-74--Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and Professor, Northwestern University 1974-78--Provost, Yale University; Professor of History 1977-78--Acting President, Yale University 1978-93--President of the University of Chicago; Professor of History 1993- --Harry Pratt Judson Distinguished Service Professor of History, Department of History, University of Chicago Fellowships, etc. 1960-61--Fellow, Newberry Library 1966-67--Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences 1970-71--Visiting Scholar, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences 1971-72--Visiting Scholar, Phi Beta Kappa 1978- --Honorary Fellow, St. Anne's College, Oxford University Corporate Board Directorships Ameritech Cummins Engine Company J.P. Morgan and Company/Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. Current Trusteeships/Not-for-Profit Boards Harvard University Corporation Chair, Howard Hughes Medical Institute Chair, Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Marlboro School of Music Board of Regents, The Smithsonian Institution Government Secretary's Energy Advisory Board, U.S. Department of Energy Former Boards (Selected) Atlantic Richfield Corporation Bryan Mawr College Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences The University of Chicago Council on Foreign Relations Harvard University Board of Overseers Mayo Foundation National Council on the Humanities Pulitzer Prize Board Yale University Corporation Selected Honors, Awards, etc. Fellow, American Academy of Arts and Sciences Member, American Philosophical Society Member, National Academy of Education Phi Beta Kappa Radcliffe Graduate Medal (1976) Yale Medal (1978) Medal of Liberty (1986) Laureate, Lincoln Academy of Illinois (1989) Grosse Verdienstkreuz, Republic of Germany (1990) Sara Lee Frontrunner Award (1991) Presidential Medal of Freedom (1991) Jefferson Medal, American Philosophical Society (1993) Charles Frankel Prize, National Endowment for the Humanities (1993) Centennial Medal, Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (1994) Distinguished Service Award in Education, Inst. of International Education (1994) Quantrell Award for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching, The University of Chicago (1996) M.Carey Thomas Award, Bryn Mawr College (1997) Selected Honorary Degrees L.L.D., Darmouth College, 1978 L.L.D., Yale University, 1978 L.L.D., Brown University, 1979 D.Litt. Hum., Oxford University, 1979 L.H.D., Rikkyo University, 1979 L.L.D., University of Notre Dame, 1980 L.L.D., University of Southern California, 1980 L.L.D., University of Michigan, 1981 L.H.D., Duke University, 1982 L.L.D., Princeton University, 1982 L.H.D., Brandeis University, 1983 L.L.D., Georgetown University, 1983 D.Litt., Washington University, 1985 L.H.D., City University of New York, 1985 L.H.D., American College of Greece, 1986 L.L.D., Columbia University, 1987 L.H.D., New York University, 1988 L.L.D., University of Toronto, 1991 L.H.D., McGill University, 1993 L.H.D., Indiana University, 1994 L.L.D., Harvard University, 1995 L.H.D., The University of Chicago, 1996 Selected Publications ``Renaissance Humanism: The Pursuit of Rhetoric,'' Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. XXIV (1963), pp. 497-514. ``Valla's Encomium of St. Thomas Aquinas and the Humanist Conception of Christian Antiquity,'' in Essays in History and Literature, ed. H. Bluhm, Chicago, 1965, pp. 37-52. ``Machiavelli: The Art of Politics and the Paradox of Power,'' in The Responsibility of Power, ed., L. Krieger and F. Stern, New York, 1967, pp. 34-53. ``Some Reflections on the Commonwealth of Learning,'' in AAAS Science and Technology Yearbook 1992, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington,

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Yes, sir; 3 years of that.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Nearly 7 years, sir.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Yes, sir.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Well, I want to tell my colleagues that our military fighting men want the Congress to carry on their constitutional responsibility every day. That is why we are here. As my colleagues know, maybe we ought to be debating right after this issue how we support our military and give them more arms and more people to make sure they can win that battle. We cannot sacrifice what is right to do, what is easy. As my colleagues know, when I was a POW, we did some things that were tough to do. This is a tough thing to do, but it is the right thing to do, and I suggest we continue with this impeachment process. Mr. Speaker, the duty of the President of the United States is to preserve, protect and defend our Constitution. For over two hundred years we have sent our fathers, brothers, sons, mothers and daughters to war to do just that. Many of them never returned. They gave their lives for a better America. They believed that America is greater than one person, one life. They gave their lives to ensure that America and our Constitution remain safe and that our way of life would not perish. They knew--with death--came honor, trust, loyalty and respect. They knew their death meant freedom to the millions of Americans who would come after them. Many of those who died were my friends. I spent 29 years in the Air Force, fought in two wars and was a prisoner of war for nearly 7 years in Vietnam. I love this great nation. And I would defend it again because America and our ideals are worth dying for. When I left Vietnam there was an inscription scrawled on one of the prison walls which read: ``freedom has a taste to those who fought and almost died that the protected will never know.'' The President is the one person who must hold these words and actions in the highest regard. The President is our moral leader. His picture hangs in classrooms throughout America. The President is our symbol of freedom. The President is the Commander in Chief, the chief law enforcement officer, and the leader of the free world. When the President stands before God, puts his hand on the Bible and takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and lawfully carry out the duties of his office--he is promising to put the people and the Nation before his own interests. I believe this President violated the laws and the beliefs he swore to uphold. Instead of following the law, respecting the American people's values and honoring his office, he chose to lie, cover up and evade the truth. His actions have made a mockery of the people who fought for this country, the Constitution and the laws we live under. It is clear from the evidence that this President committed perjury. It is clear from the evidence that this President obstructed justice. It is clear from the evidence that this President abused the power of his office. He systematically used his office and staff to protect his own personal interests. Instead of truth and forgiveness he hid behind legalistic jargon. And now, because of the President's actions, Congress must act as dictated by the Constitution. We cannot sacrifice what is right to do what is easy. During those awful years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, there were many times that I and my fellow prisoners could have taken the ``easy'' way out. We could have told the enemy our military secrets, or we could have betrayed one another. That would have been the ``easiest'' thing to do to stop the daily torture we endured. If we had just given up a few military secrets or betrayed a fellow soldier, we could have avoided starvation, been released much earlier, and not missed all those years of our lives with our families and children. But we never did. Even through all the daily torture, beatings and starvation, we never once considered taking the ``easy'' way out. and now we must endure these hardships, uphold our Constitution and protect America. When we, in Congress, raised our right hands and took our oaths of office, we promised to make the difficult decisions. We have come to the end of a very long and winding road. Long and winding--not because of anything Congress has done, but rather because President Clinton has walked us down it by his own actions. The President has diminished his office in the eyes of the Nation, and more dangerously, in the eyes of the world. The President is the chief law enforcement official of this country. If you lose respect for him, you lose respect for the law. I would just say, again, to the American people, that this is not a choice about doing what is easy. This is a choice between what is right and what is wrong under our Constitution and the rule of law. Let's be clear: the President lied to us. He pointed his finger at us, looked us in the eye and lied to us, over and over again. We must make a stand and say--we are a nation of laws and no one is above the law. So, I will vote to impeach the President. The Constitution demands it and the country deserves no less. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.