Sam Johnson

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 59, the National Right To Work Act. This bill would repeal those sections of Federal law which allow big labor to force hard-working Americans to pay union dues under the threat of losing their jobs. This is un-American. Yet, it happens to thousands of men and women every single month of the year. Union bosses take the hard-earned money of workers who have no legal say in the matter. Mr. Speaker, it was Congress who created this problem. We gave big labor the privilege and authority to take this money away, by taking away the worker's freedom to choose whether or not to pay union dues. Congress must now give that freedom back to American workers. H.R. 59 empowers Americans and gives them the choice that never should have been taken from them in the first place. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 59, the National Right To Work Act.

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 of 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 axiomatic 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 distinguished 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, I rise today to introduce legislation that will eliminate the so-called ``Social Security Earnings Test.'' Under current law, our senior citizens aged 65-69 can earn only $14,500 before they lose $1 in Social Security benefits for each additional $3 of earnings. This test is unfair, discriminatory, and adversely affects our country's economy. The Social Security Earnings Test must be eliminated. The Social Security Earnings Test is unfair and inappropriate because it imposes a form of a ``means'' test for a retirement benefit. As we all know, Social Security benefits have been earned by a lifetime of contributions to the program. American workers have been led to regard Social Security as a government-run savings plan. Indeed, their acceptance of the 12.4 percent Social Security payroll tax has been predicated on the belief that they will get their money back at retirement age. Thus, most Americans do not accept the rationale that the return of their money should be decreased just because they continue to work. Additionally, the Social Security Earnings Test discriminates against senior citizens who must work in order to supplement their benefits. Currently, income from investments does not affect the amount of Social Security benefits that a senior citizen receives. It simply does not make any sense to treat less favorably income from work than income from investments. Clearly, the Social Security Earnings Test is inequitable to our nation's senior citizens who are in the greatest need of additional income. The Social Security Earnings Test also negatively affects work incentives. 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 Test, but they must also continue to pay Social Security taxes, and probably federal and state income taxes as well. The Social Security Earnings Test forces senior citizens to avoid work, to seek lower paying or part-time work or to seek payment ``under the table.'' In addition to being complicated and difficult for the individual senior citizen to understand, the Social Security Earnings Test is complex and costly for the Government to administer. For example, the test is responsible for more than one-half of retirement and survivor program overpayments. Elimination of the Earnings Test would help minimize administration expenses, and recipients would be less confused and less tempted to cheat on reporting their earnings. Finally, repealing the Social Security Earnings Test would greatly 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 fully receive their Social Security benefits when they are at the retirement age.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, drugs are no stranger to my hometown of Plano, Texas. Since the beginning of last year, heroin has claimed the lives of thirteen young people in my district. Local police are working closely with community leaders and parents to stop this terrible epidemic. The heart of their mission is not just to stop the flow of drugs to these kids, but to get the word out that drugs kill. Because, you see, somewhere along the line, the message got lost. Somewhere along the line, kids got the idea that drugs weren't that bad. I guess that happens when even the President of the United States jokes about it on M.T.V. I've met with several law enforcement officials in Plano, and they all tell me the same thing--help us get the word out. And that's what we're doing here today. This resolution sends a clear message to the President and to the drug users of America that the good times end now. No more. We are committed to ending the scourge of drugs in this country. And the President had better get on board, or he's going to get left behind. We will not stand by and watch the future of our country waste away in a heroin haze. I owe it to the kids of Plano, Texas, just as the rest of this House owes it to the kids in their district. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to establish the Medical Innovation Tax Credit with my colleague, Sander M. Levin. This new credit will provide an important incentive for companies to expand their pioneering clinical research activities at our nation's leading medical institutions such as M.D. Anderson, the University of Texas, and the University of Michigan. By promoting more medical research, the credit will help enhance the development of new products and therapies to prevent, treat and cure serious medical conditions and diseases. The Medical Innovation Tax Credit establishes a narrowly targeted, incremental 20% credit in the Internal Revenue Code. The credit is available to companies for qualified expenditures on human clinical trials conducted at medical schools, teaching hospitals that are under common ownership or affiliated with an institution of higher learning, or by non-profit research hospitals that are designated as cancer centers by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The additional private sector investment generated by the Medical Innovation Tax Credit is also essential so that medical schools and teaching hospitals can continue to fulfill their unique and vital roles that benefit both the health of the American public and the economy. These institutions are the backbone of innovation in American medicine. By linking together research, medical training and patient care, they develop and employ the knowledge that can result in major medical breakthroughs. Today, however, they are under increased financial pressures as markets for health care services undergo rapid, fundamental change. These financial pressures may have an adverse impact on funds traditionally dedicated for research. Recent reports indicate that there has been a decline in clinical trials at medical schools and teaching hospitals. This decline is troubling, since it signals that research dollars are shrinking at our nation's leading medical research institutions. A new infusion of funds for expanded clinical research activities, stimulated by the Medical Innovation Tax Credit, can help stem and reverse this trend. Moreover, continued and expanded investment in our leading medical research institutions will ensure that the United States maintains its position as the leader in innovative, biomedical research. The credit also provides an important incentive for research activities to remain in the United States since only domestic clinical research activities are eligible for the credit. This requirement will encourage biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies to keep their clinical trial research projects at home by decreasing the economic incentive to move such activities to ``lower-cost'' facilities off- shore. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation. The Medical Innovation Tax Credit will strengthen the partnership between the private sector and our nation's leading medical institutions to ensure America's continued world leadership in research and medical innovation.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, Democrats are saying the American people are tired of talking about White House scandals. Well, congressional investigators are even more tired of the stonewalling, lack of cooperation and extraordinary memory loss that seems to afflict Harvard and Yale Law School graduates whenever they are called to testify. I believe the American people are stunned by the evasions, the retractions, the utter devotion to spin over truth coming out of this White House. Mr. Speaker, it is Democrats on the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight who are doing the stonewalling. Letters from the Justice Department say, and it has been said already, that Justice does not oppose granting immunity to four key witnesses in the campaign finance investigations, and I will just repeat that. The Justice Department does not oppose immunity, and yet the Democrats on the committee refuse to grant immunity. I ask the American people to be the judge. Why would the Democrats be stonewalling their own Justice Department?

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about another ridiculous Washington budget rule called pay-go. This rule promotes big government spending while Americans pay taxes, higher taxes, as a matter of fact. Under pay-go, if we eliminated every welfare big government program, we could not give any of those savings back to the American people in the form of tax relief because of our own rules. It means we have to raise taxes to lower taxes. We have to change our rules. Yesterday the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. J.D. Hayworth) and I introduced a bill just to do that. We must be able to cut big government spending, get Washington out of Americans' lives, and give the money back to the American people. After all, it is your dollars. It is wrong that we cannot, for example, cut a $3 million TV documentary on infrastructure awareness and use that same money to eliminate the marriage penalty tax. Do Members not think families are more important than welfare government programs? Pay-go is a stumbling block to good government. It must go.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I happen to disagree with our previous speaker. The DeLay amendment really corrects a problem that I have spent most of my political career trying to fix. When I was in the Texas statehouse, I spent a lot of time speaking out against the antics of a judge named William Wayne Justice, a Federal judge who in 1980, single-handedly took control of and weakened the Texas prison system, which I think is a little bit out of line as far as our States rights policies are concerned. Judge Justice felt our State prisoners were cramped and ``unhappy with their living conditions,'' so he forced Texas to turn jails into country clubs so that dangerous criminals could be more comfortable. He even ordered Texas to provide these criminals with color television. He ordered that 11 percent of Texas prison beds be empty at all times, and mandated that cells built for two prisoners only hold one, and that cells built for four prisoners only hold two. Consequently, we have got over 5,000 empty beds in the Texas prison system because of a Federal judge's ruling, and that caused overcrowding and it caused extra expense. These mandates have done nothing but set criminals free, increase overcrowding, and waste billions of taxpayer dollars. I want everyone to understand it is our Texas lawmakers that were forced to release hardened criminals on the order of a Federal judge. This means that criminals have been released back on to the Texas streets, all because a Federal judge was more concerned about the comfort of criminals than about the safety of law-abiding citizens. This amendment will do what the Texas legislature tried to do and could not; stop Federal judges like William Wayne Justice from pushing their agenda at the expense of public safety. This language states in no uncertain terms that Federal judges cannot mandate early release of violent criminals. It also nullifies current consent decrees like the one inflicted on Texas by Judge Justice. This is common sense legislation. It is long overdue. The people of Texas have waited 20 years for relief from this Federal judge. Let us not make them wait any longer. I think it is long overdue. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, because it is going to make America a lot safer by keeping your violent criminals behind bars.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, 22 million small businesses thrive in America, thanks to the free enterprise system. Today, the bill before us, the Fairness for Small Business and Employees Act, will further guarantee a fair and level playing field for all employees. Many of America's small businesses are crippled by a tactic known as ``salting.'' Salting has nothing to do with how our food tastes, believe me. But it will raise their blood pressure if they are a small business owner. Salting occurs when a union agent, which is known as a ``salt,'' applies for a job in a nonunion workplace. The agent intentionally conceals his true objective, which is to sabotage the company and drive them out of business because it is nonunion. Now, that is not American. I think my colleagues would agree. But some salts are straightforward and just come right out during the hiring process and interview and they identify themselves as union agents and they demand, if they are not fired, they will then file a grievance against the company. Either way, Mr. Speaker, this is criminal. It is not the American way. Let me give an example of how salting destroyed a company in my home State of Texas. A nonunion electrical company in Dallas, about 30 employees, was hired to work on a school construction project. They advertised the jobs in the newspaper. The local electricians union saw the ad and paid union agents to go and apply for a job. The electrical contractor hired these agents, unaware that they had an ulterior motive. The agents then proceeded to destroy the company. They staged small strikes by leaving the job for 3 or 4 hours, but returning just before they could be replaced. They also sabotaged the electrical work and went on to file close to 50 grievances against the company, eventually driving it out of business. This bill will put a stop to malicious activity like this and protect small businesses in their efforts to hire loyal, hard-working employees. The small businesses will no longer fear the threat of destructive lawsuits filed by union agents. This protection is long, long overdue. We are just asking, please, unions, obey the law, stop terrorizing working men and women. Small businesses are the backbone of this Nation and they deserve honest, hard-working, and dedicated employees. They deserve protection against unscrupulous union practices.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, heroin has claimed another young life in my hometown of Plano, Texas. A total of 13 young people have died from heroin there within the past year. The local police are doing their very best to stop drugs in our schools, but they are being stretched beyond their limits. They need our help now. I have been working with members of the North Texas delegation to have the Dallas-Fort Worth area designated as a HIDTA, a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, but this administration has been dragging its feet. This is a real war, and we need the resources and armor of our Federal law enforcement agencies to stop drug flow now. I urge General McCaffrey to approve the HIDTA designation as soon as possible. Speaker Gingrich said just yesterday our first goal ought to be to win the war against drugs. We must win this war. The survival of our children depends on it.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. I was going to ask the gentleman if he could translate what the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) said. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen. Between the two of them they have hit every segment of the American educational level. We appreciate that. However, I have to admit I understand him better than I do you. He speaks English. The cellular telephone industry is growing rapidly. As we know, there is currently about 56 million Americans that use cellular phones today. One of the things that Thomas Jefferson said early on was there are three things we ought to do in America. One is take care of our foreign affairs, two is deliver the mail, and three is protect this Nation and the general welfare. That is precisely what this bill does, protects our people, this great America, against intrusion by anyone. I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) for coming to the telecommunications corridor in Richardson, Texas, which is just north of Dallas. As my colleagues know, every company, just about, is represented there. I would invite the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) to accompany the gentleman next time. I tell my colleagues, the advance of technology is such that something has to be done to protect the American people. If Members recall, last week, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has already discussed it, Congress outlawed equipment that allows criminals to steal telephone numbers and run up bills to unsuspecting users. Today we are protecting the right to private conversation over cellular phones. If I am talking to my accountant, my banker, my wife or my children, I want to have the security that no one is recording my call or putting it out on CNN. This bill does that, and it protects private conversation between two people. That is what America is all about. The gentleman mentioned it, the freedoms that we enjoy, that our servicemen have fought so long and so many years over to protect. Now we are adding one more protection. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for their bill. I hope it will pass overwhelmingly.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) for yielding me this time and for his valuable assistance in helping make this bill possible. The Wireless Telephone Protection Act is really another effort of ours to stop crime in this country. It is going to outlaw equipment which is used to steal cellular telephone numbers. For those who are not familiar with cellular cloning, the process is simple. Criminals sit in parked cars outside airports or along roadways and use special software and equipment to steal the electronic serial numbers from any person who uses a cellular phone within range. The stolen numbers are then programmed into other cell phones, called clones, and finally charges are made to the unsuspecting person's account, like me, for instance. My phone was cloned last year while I was standing on the curb at D-FW Airport, that is Dallas-Fort Worth, waiting for my wife. I ended up with over a $6,000 phone bill for calls that I did not make. There were calls made to places all over the world, including Spain, Colombia and Mexico. Later while I was on my phone with the telephone company trying to get this problem resolved, my personal phone number was still being used to make calls while I was talking to the phone company. The tactic of using stolen phone numbers is commonly employed by drug dealers and gang members who are trying to evade law enforcement wiretaps or other surveillance. It is estimated that the cellular industry loses about $650 million per year due to this illegal activity. It increases the cost to every cellular phone user in the country. I hope that as a result of this bill, we can stop this fraud and help keep costs down for both the industry and the consumer. Cellular phone use is expanding by about 40 percent per year. With this increase, the Secret Service has doubled the number of arrests due to fraud every year since 1991. I am certain our law enforcement personnel could prosecute more criminals, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) says, if the current law permitted it, and it does not. Current law requires prosecutors to prove that a criminal acted with the intent to defraud. This means that an officer must catch the crook in the act of cloning to be arrested, which is next to impossible. The bill removes this burden. Now criminals will be arrested for possessing or manufacturing the cloning equipment, which has no other purpose than to steal a phone number. I have got an advertisement here that shows how easy it is to buy this cloning equipment. If we look at the fine print, it states that the equipment is used for educational or experimental purposes. That is kind of false. In fact, it is against the law. According to the Secret Service, there is no lawful purpose to possess, produce or sell hardware or software used to clone a wireless telephone. This is good, common sense legislation that is supported on both sides of the aisle. As my colleagues can see here, it is also supported by the Department of Justice, the U.S. Secret Service, and the cellular wireless industry, as my colleague has already stated. Every Member of this House has constituents who have been the victim of cell phone cloning. It causes them great stress, and I can tell my colleagues when you get a bill for 6,000 bucks on your phone, it is a shock. Let me just tell Members how James Kallstrom, the former head of the FBI, New York office, describes phone cloners. He says, quote, they are hard core criminals, murderers, kidnappers, terrorists, major drug dealers, child pornographers and pedophiles, violent criminals who use technology to avoid the law. We must stop this criminal activity now. This bill will do it. I urge Members' support.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, in closing I just want to say that this bill will make cellular telephones across America more secure. It is high time in our society that the victim rather than the criminal is protected. No longer will the hard-core criminal be able to steal cellular phone numbers and rack up huge phone bills which cost all of us. Mr. Chairman, this bill is about freedom and security, the right of each American to freely and safely use their phones without the fear of their number being stolen. This bill is going to help our law enforcement agencies and ensure a safer America for all.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. J.C., you are terrible. You are great. You are perfect. I thank you for bringing this to the floor. And Ike, you, and all the other Democrats I know, respect and admire our veterans and those who are in the service today. This Nation would not be the great Nation it is were it not for the veterans from the Revolutionary days right on up until today. I hope we will remember those who are in the service in places of harm's way today and who might be put in harm's way and hope that we will not have to put them there. Those are the guys that down through the years have made this country great, have made it free. I can assure you, until you have had freedom taken away from you, you never can understand exactly what the beauty of it is. This Nation represents that. America is and will be the greatest nation in the world. All you have to do is step across the border in any direction and you know you want to come back. I salute the veterans of this Nation who have made it great. I think, with you, we should honor those who are in the service of our Nation today, respct and honor them. Let me just tell you, there was a quote left on the wall in Vietnam, in one of those prisons when we left, which I think says it all: Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die that the protected will never know. God bless you all. It is pleasure to be in this body with each and every one of you.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) that I like his comment: Ira Magaziner is a bum. I will just call him that. But there was a difference in this case because there was a judge involved, and I think we have to protect the American taxpayer from paying that $286,000 for a crime they did not commit. In 1993, the President did form a secret task force to try and socialize the best health care system in the world, to put the lives of all Americans in the control of our government. A U.S. district judge recently ruled the President's task force engaged in ``dishonest and reprehensible conduct'' and levied that fine of $286,000, and the President believes the American people ought to pay that fine. That is unbelievable. Here we have a secret task force that did not consult with the American people, trying to destroy the best health care system in the world, and that same administration has the audacity to turn around and tell the American people, they break the law and pay a fine. I am outraged. Pay this fine? No, no, I do not think so. The American people ought not to have to give up their hard-earned dollars to a government that already takes over 38 percent of the taxpayers' income anyway. Mr. Chairman, where is the accountability? It is time for people who break the law to stand up and take responsibility. I think Mr. Hayworth is right. The President made these same remarks in his State of the Union speech. The task force should take responsibility for their conduct. The task force should pay the fine themselves.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton], I appreciate his position, I really do. I just cannot believe that we as a country have sunk to this level, where we have a high-level Clinton administration official referring to a branch of our military, in this case the Marine Corps, as being ``extremist'' and ``dangerous to society.'' The testimony you just heard is she does not say that. According to Mr. Solomon, this is all on tape. It is her words. It is not taken out of context. These types of comments are not just unacceptable, but they are false, and a telling sign of disdain for the military by this administration. And no response, you might notice no response has been given by the Secretary of the Army, and this lady, even though it has been said she has resigned or is intending to resign, is being considered for the post of Secretary of the Army. It is unbelievable. How many times have we seen in a country like ours bravery and ultimate sacrifice by one of our Armed Services? I was in the Air Force, but the United States Marines showed their colors in the Pacific during World War II; in Korea, where I fought at the Chosin Reservoir; in Vietnam, where I was a POW in Khe Sahn; or the numerous evacuations of our citizens who have been endangered for no other reason than just being an American. Our Marines have been there. The Secretary, it has been said, went on to mock the Marine uniform. ``They have all got on these checkerboard fancy uniforms, but the Army is sort of muddy boots on the ground.'' Do you know that the Marines are our ceremonial troops? Do you think that our Embassies around the world would love to have muddy boots guarding our Embassies in a ceremonial fashion? I do not think so. I suggest the Secretary ask Captain Scott O'Grady what his opinion is of the Marine uniforms of those men who pulled him out of Bosnia, and what they were wearing. I think she would be enlightened, to say the least. I am not here to enlighten the Secretary, or our Congress. I just think that that conduct is inexcusable and should result in immediate dismissal. The sacrifices that Marines, and, for that matter, all our Armed Forces, have made should not be subject to administration comments that are childish and dishonorable. I believe Secretary Lister must go, and I hope, Mr. President, that you are listening.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and thank the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] as well. Madam Speaker, now that Chinese President Jiang's visit to the United States is over, I am glad we can focus on the real issue at hand, and that is the future of United States policy toward China. I hope the President, after rolling up the red carpet and putting away the champagne glasses, remembers that China has sold deadly military hardware to a terrorist nation. This includes a direct transfer of both chemical technology and cruise missiles to Iran. And what was this administration's response? Silence. Even though this was in direct violation of U.S. law, which was written by none other than Vice President Al Gore. Correct me if I am wrong, Madam Speaker, but wasn't it this President who in 1993 said, ``The United States would not cater to nations that violated peace and weapons agreements and restricted the freedoms of their people?'' The last time I checked, China was still a Communist nation with a leadership that restricted the most basic of human rights, and Iran was still a dangerous rogue nation, which even today has proven ill will toward the United States. But most hypocritical of all, the original author of the Senate bill to stop arms sales to terrorist nations and impose sanctions if violations occur was none other than Al Gore, our own Vice President. Yet last week, during the discussions with Jiang, our President was touting a new agreement he had reached with President Jiang. Well, that is nice, but what about upholding current law? If I was the Vice President, I would be outraged. I guess the law just does not matter to some. I hope the President remembers, as Mr. Gilman has noted, that 15,000 United States troops are stationed right there in direct line of the cruise missiles which China transferred to Iran. The transfer of these weapons and technology from China is in direct violation of United States law, and our refusal to call China to the mat for their actions is an embarrassment to this country. This bill will rectify this situation and force the administration to take the very action which the Vice President called for in 1993. This Congress must live up to our responsibility to protect the safety and security of America. I urge my colleagues' vote.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is high time to stop products produced by slave labor in China from entering the United States of America. For more than 50 years, we have banned products produced by slave labor in China, but they continue to flood our markets every day. I think it is appalling. We should not support products that are produced by a nation that endorses or uses slave labor. My question is, where is the administration? The President promised he would no longer tolerate these practices from China, but these products still enter this country, and the administration refuses to enforce current law. President Clinton is unable or unwilling to stand up to the Chinese and say this will no longer be tolerated. This bill goes a long way toward making up for the administration failings. It gives the Customs office the tools to hire more inspectors to track and stop these tainted goods from entering the United States. It also gives the American Embassy the equipment they need to monitor goods produced in these inhumane slave camps throughout China. I have to wonder, if the President spent as much time and effort improving human rights in China as he has on State parties and fancy dinners for President Jiang, maybe China would change its ways. Mr. President, the prisoners stuck in these slave camps depend on our actions speaking louder than our words. Let us vote for this bill.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as we know, the Chinese Government leaders are coming to America and President Clinton is welcoming them with open arms. I want to ask the President why these Chinese Communists can do no wrong? Is this not the same Chinese Government who illegally donated funds to the Clinton campaign? The same one that uses slave labor, that imprisons political dissidents, and now has leased up our former naval base in Long Beach; a Communist encroachment right here in the United States? Mr. Speaker, instead of taking money and wrapping his arms around the Chinese leader, the President should be rapping them on the knuckles for their horrific record of religious persecution and human rights violations. Mr. Speaker, I say to the President, ``Mr. President, stop pandering to a corrupt government that tortures its people and thumbs its nose to a free world.''

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, has anyone noticed that the President will endorse any education initiative as long as it supports big government, like Goals 2000? Like national testing? This is the same President that threatens to veto any program that increases parental control over a child's education. Mr. Speaker, look at this administration's track record. They opposed education block grants to States, they oppose vouchers for the poorest, poorest 2,000 children, and now they oppose this bill, which gives parents the ability to invest up to $2,500 a year in their child's education so that they can attend the safest and most academically challenging school available. Why is the President against parents sending their children to the school of their choice? Surely he cannot believe that Washington bureaucrats are smarter than parents. And I hope it is not because he is so politically indebted to the special interests in Washington, like the National Education Association for instance, that he can no longer see what is best for America's kids. Well, whatever the reason, Mr. Speaker, this President is wrong to oppose this bill. This bill will not only strengthen our children's future by giving the parents a tool to make sure their children can attend a school that meets their needs, needs only a parent can determine. No one can seriously argue that there is anything wrong with giving parents, grandparents, and friends the power to invest in a child's education. America's future depends on our children, and we ought to provide those parents with whatever they need to make sure that their children are the most educated, productive, and successful in the world. Mr. Speaker, I would to urge the President to join us as we try to help parents help their children. I urge all of my colleagues here in the House to do the same. Vote for this bill. Give our children a chance to grow up to be great Americans.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, the Secretary of Education believes giving low income parents the ability to send their children to a better and safer school is, ``a simplistic world view and dead wrong.'' But recent polls show that school choice is gaining support in America, especially among minorities. A recent study shows that 57 percent of African-Americans and 65 percent of Hispanics support school choice. I am surprised the administration is coming out against such a commonsense idea. Secretary Riley made it clear that low income families will not be helped by this administration. Now let me make it clear that we in Congress will continue to push for school choice. See, we do not believe the President should be the only person in public housing with the opportunity to send his child to a better school.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is impossible for me to believe the hypocrisy coming from the White House on campaign finance reform and the way we have been treated on this floor. We just wasted 45 minutes. Just days after Attorney General Janet Reno started a 30-day investigation into Clinton and Gore's fund-raising practices, he has the audacity to threaten to call Congress back into session if we adjourn without at least debating campaign finance reform. I feel compelled to point out that we do not need campaign finance reform, we need elected officials who will follow the current law. If we enforce the laws, such as no foreign contributions, we would not need an independent counsel to tell us that President Clinton and Vice President Gore broke the law, plain and simple. Mr. Speaker, the President should be using that phone in the White House to do his job, not line his pockets.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce the Cellular Protection Act of 1997. This bill takes a serious step forward in helping our law enforcement combat a growing type of crime, cellular cloning. For those who are not familiar with cellular cloning, the process is simple. It usually involves criminals seated in parked cars outside of airports or along busy roadways to harvest electronic serial numbers [ESN's] from legitimate cell phone users. Special software and equipment are used to insert the stolen numbers into other cell phones, the clones. The cloned phones charge their calls to the account of the lawful, unsuspecting user. Like me. For instance, my phone was cloned while coming out of Dallas/Fort Worth Airport. I was faced with over $6,000 in illegal charges on my bill. As you may know, it is estimated that the cellular industry lost $650 million due to fraud in 1995, much of it as a result of cloning fraud. I have talked with many people in the telecommunications industry about this problem. My district is home to the largest concentration of telecommunications companies in the Nation. The Secret Service has doubled the number of arrests in the area of wireless telecommunications fraud every year since 1991, with 800 individuals charged for their part in the cloning of cellular phones last year. The sad thing is they probably could have caught a lot more of them. However, current law requires prosecutors to prove that a cloner acted with the intent to defraud. The Cellular Telephone Protection Act of 1997, removes this burden. This legislation clarifies, that--except for law enforcement and telecommunications carriers--there is no lawful purpose for which to possess, produce, or sell hardware or software configured for cloning a wireless telephone or its ESN. This is good commonsense legislation that is supported on both sides of the aisle, the Department of Justice, U.S. Secret Service, and the wireless industry.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Americans do not support needle exchange programs. In fact, 62 percent of all Americans oppose needle exchange programs for drug addicts, and 88 percent are concerned that the programs cause a public health hazard as a result of poorly discarded needles. Advocates of needle exchange programs say it will decrease the number of injection drug users who contract HIV and this has been proven to be untrue. According to a study from McGill and Montreal Universities, injection drug users who participated in a needle exchange program in Canada were two times more likely to become infected with HIV than those who did not. Without passage of this amendment, the Secretary can authorize needle exchanges to be funded from taxpayer dollars. Under no circumstances should we allow Federal dollars to be spent on needle exchange programs, period. Illegal drugs kill people, and I want to tell my colleagues, in my own home town of Plano, seven youths have died since the first of January this year, one of them in school, from drugs provided by clean needles. We have got to stop the deadly use of illegal drugs, not encourage it. And Americans do not want, need, or deserve needle exchange programs funded by taxpayer dollars. Support this amendment.