Sam Johnson

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], one of our colleagues from the other side of the aisle who has a comment.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Let me quote from the Federalist Papers again, from Hamilton, in No. 78. He also says, which follows what the gentleman said, ``It may truly be said that no judge shall have either force nor will but merely judgment.'' If the gentleman recalls back in the 1800's, they even talked about impeaching judges, Federal judges because they cussed in court.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Well, Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would ask the gentleman, does he think that the Congress, I mean our country's founders, when they wrote our Constitution, they were pretty smart fellas, and they said, OK, we will appoint these judges for life, but we will give the Congress a method to rein them in if they get out of hand. And that rein-in, I think, is what the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] was alluding to earlier, that the Congress has the sole discretion to impeach when they get out of line.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs], and I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough].

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the position of the other gentleman from Texas, Mr. Delay. I come before the House today to talk about a problem that the gentleman has already laid out there, but it is quietly and steadily eating away at our constitutional system of government. Judicial activism is not only compromising our long-held tradition of separation of powers, but throughout our academic and legal community they are pushing the judiciary to be activists in their decisions, so much so that any attempt by Congress to address this issue is immediately met with accusations of political sabotage and constitutional breach. Mr. Speaker, I want to assure my colleagues that we in the Congress are not trying to undermine the Constitution. Far from it. We are trying to enforce it, to open the issue to public scrutiny and return the role of the Federal judiciary back to our Nation's intended belief, what our Nation's founders had always intended: That the third branch of the Government, the judiciary, is to be the weakest branch of government. In The Federalist papers, number 78, Alexander Hamilton, for example, wrote that the judicial branch, quote, Will be always the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution, and that it may truly be said to have neither the force nor will but merely judgment. The judiciary was intended to interpret the law, not to create it. But that is exactly what we are seeing in some of our courts today. They are not ruling on the law, they are creating the law. Unelected Federal judges are furthering their own personal and political views by legislating from the bench and ignoring the will of the people of the United States. In fact, it has gotten so bad that judges are even overturning elections of our elected people. David Barton, in his book, ``Impeachment: Restraining an Overactive Judiciary,'' said it best when he wrote that It has gotten to the point that any special interest group that loses at the ballot box only has to file a suit in Federal court to declare itself the winner. And most of the time our judges are ruling with them. If we just look at the recent instances of judicial activism, we will see some of the expansion of power that Federal judges are trying to achieve. I say some Federal judges, not all of them. We have seen judges overturn cases based on the weakest of circumstances simply to further their own political views. Judge Nixon, in Tennessee, a known opponent of capital punishment, has repeatedly issued rulings overturning cases where the criminal was sentenced to death. More recently, I am sure everyone has heard of Judge Baer in New York, who overturned a drug conviction on a technicality even though the defendant admitted his guilt to the police. In addition to these reversals, other Federal judges have taken it upon themselves to legislate from the bench, issuing far-reaching orders to impose their own set of political views on the American people. One of those famous cases involves Judge Russell Clark, who ruled in 1987 in Kansas City, MO, that the school system was segregated, and he issued a court order that called for a tax increase and forced the people of that State to pay for his desegregation scheme. Well, $2 billion in taxpayer dollars later, the Kansas City school system is no better off, and he is probably backing up on that. Judge Clark's agenda included such things as animation labs, greenhouses, temperature-controlled art galleries, and a model United Nations wired for language translation. I am not sure I know what that has to do with segregation. Closer to home for me, I spent quite a bit of time when I was in the Texas statehouse following the antics of Judge William Wayne Justice, whose rulings on our prison system in Texas forced us to allow prisoners to get out before their time was up, giving them a lot of good time, one; and, two, putting them in bigger rooms. In other words, where we had four beds, we could only put two; where we had two beds, we could only put one. And every man had to have his own color television set in prison. What a waste of taxpayer dollars addressing frivolous inmate lawsuits. Also back home we are seeing another judicial activist arise in the form of Judge Fred Biery, who on January 24 of this year issued an injunction which prevented two duly elected officials in Val Verde County from taking office. Why? Because he would not allow 800 absentee military votes to be counted. I consider this to be an affront to the rights of the military. As a matter of fact, after serving in the military for 29 years and being all over this Nation, I would say that it is important that we make sure that our military is allowed to vote, especially while they are defending the Nation. It is a dangerous precedent where one judge can decide he just does not like the results of the election and simply overrules the results. One final example, and perhaps the most newsworthy, is the decision by Judge Henderson in California, who issued an injunction stopping the implementation of proposition 209 in California, which would ban racial quotas in California and which passed with 54 percent of the vote of the State. Not many people know that that particular judge, Judge Henderson, had once served on the board of the American Civil Liberties Union of California, an organization which took an active interest against proposition 209, and here he is ruling with his own special interest group against the people of California who with more than 4,700,000 State residents voted to enact as law proposition 209. I think that tests the integrity of our constitutional democracy, and I think that the three-judge panel which had the courage to remind their colleagues of the judiciary's rightful place in our constitutional democracy and overrule that ought to be commended. We cannot always count on Federal judges to keep their colleagues in check, and that is why I feel like Congress must exercise our duty to ensure that the third branch of the Government does not exceed its authority.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, believe it or not, today is tax day. It is on this day that every hard-working American sends more money than is necessary to the Federal Government, a day that most people probably would like to forget. Most Americans are tired of big government, high taxes, the complexity of the current Tax Code and, guess what, the IRS. Well, I am too, and I plan on doing something about it. Last week I introduced a bill that everyone can support and rally behind. It will unite Members and the public behind a common goal, eliminating the IRS and developing a new tax system. I think that is something every one understands and is energized about. My bill is called the tax freedom bill and would repeal the 16th amendment to the Constitution. That is the amendment that authorizes the income tax. The tax freedom bill is designed to reverse one of the most destructive amendments, in my view, to the U.S. Constitution. As most of my colleagues know, the 16th amendment was passed by Congress in 1909, ratified in 1913, and upheld by the Supreme Court in 1916. It has been 81 years since the Supreme Court's approval and Congress, in all its wisdom, has developed a tax system that has become the most economically destructive and possibly complex, overly intrusive, unprincipled, dishonest, unfair, and inefficient system in this Nation's history. I do not think anybody can disagree with that. The current Tax Code has become an uncontrollable and rampant institution with no regard for what has made this country great, individual freedom. Mr. Speaker, there is a bill on the floor that we will consider today that illustrates the problems we face. The bill makes browsing or snooping through taxpayer files a crime, subjecting offenders to criminal penalties of up to $100,000 and/or 1 year in jail. To me this is a serious violation of privacy, and I am greatly disturbed that has been allowed to occur within the IRS. Mr. Speaker, this is just one more reason why the IRS should be abolished. It is time for us to stop tinkering around the edges, time for us to get serious and abolish the IRS and replace the current system. The tax freedom bill is the first step to do that. I believe it will encourage an open, honest, and constructive debate about why our current tax structure has failed and what we should expect. By embracing the principles of freedom, we can create a system that is fair and simple, that reduces the bureaucracy, that encourages savings, that is efficient, that drives the economy, that creates opportunity for all and finally puts more money in our pockets. The current system fails to meet these commonsense criteria. It is not fair or simple. The current system has 480 different forms plus 280 more to say how to fill out the 480. Explain to me how the first 480 can do anything. The original Tax Code, by the way, only had 11,000-plus words in it. Today it has 7 million plus. It does not reduce bureaucracy. The IRS staff is over 100,000, about 110,000, one of the most out-of-control big government staffs that we have, more people in the IRS getting into our pockets than there are immigration and customs agents on our borders. The current system discourages savings and investment by taxing income when we earn it, taxes it when we save it, taxes us when we invest it, and taxes us again when we die. It is not efficient. Complying with, I think, the Federal Tax Code costs taxpayers more than $600 billion a year. Replacing this system will cause interest rates to go down, by every testimony that we have had, and savings and capital investment to increase. Finally, we have stifled opportunity by designing a system that picks winners and losers, one in which Washington decides what is best for the people instead of letting the people decide what is best for America. As recently as 1982, Americans paid only 19.9 percent of their income in taxes. New data reveals that in 1995 Americans paid 31.3 percent of their income in taxes, the highest level in history, and that does not count local and State. If we add those in, we are paying nearly 50 percent, 51, I guess. Mr. Speaker, those that say the system can be fixed are crazy, in my view. It has undergone 31 major revisions and 400 minor ones in the past 40 years. I believe any new system must be based on a vision of America that places the individual, not the Government, in charge.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, from 1982 to 1993, the Democrats in Congress voted to increase the taxes of hardworking 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. History has shown us that every time Congress increases taxes, they also increase spending. I believe that it is one more reason why the American people should demand that Congress abolish the IRS. I think the agency is out of control. What the tax limitation amendment will do is provide a safeguard for taxpayers and no longer be simple and easy for Congress to increase taxes. It is a win-win for the American taxpayer. Not only will they get a smaller, more efficient government, but protection from higher taxes. I think the Speaker agrees with me that something must be done. I think that of the browsing that has been going on, the Speaker probably does not know that 1,500 IRS agents were caught browsing from fiscal year 1994 to 1995, and only 23 of them were tried. The rest were either given a slap on the wrist or counseled. What does counseling mean? I do not know. We ought to demand accountability not only from the IRS, but from the judges in Boston who ruled it was OK as long as they did not use it maliciously. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote with us today. Give Americans the assurance of trust they deserve from their Government.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding me the time. Today we are dealing with one of the most serious matters that could come before this Congress. It is unbelievable to me that anybody would want to spend any kind of tax money on this, but it is literally an issue of life and death. The question is whether or not Federal tax dollars should be used to pay for assisted suicide and euthanasia and whether Federal facilities like veterans hospitals, for example, are to be in the business of providing euthanasia as though it were just another type of medical treatment. On March 18, the Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health favorably reported this bill to the full committee by voice vote. Under normal circumstances, the full committee would meet to consider the bill. However, in order to expedite consideration of this extremely important legislation, the Committee on Ways and Means agreed to send the bill straight to the floor. This bill bars Medicare, Medicaid, military and Federal employee plans from paying doctors to help terminal ill patients to end their lives. The legislation does not affect the withholding of medical treatment or services and does not address the ethical or legal issues surrounding assisted suicide. It only bars American taxpayer dollars from funding such action. Can Members imagine someone providing an individual with the means to commit suicide and billing Medicare for the services? This sounds far- fetched but without this legislation, it sure could happen. This bill was introduced in response to a recent court ruling in favor of assisted suicide. In 1994, a ballot initiative in Oregon made assisted suicide legal. This law could mean that Oregon's Medicaid Program as well as other Federal programs could be used to fund assisted suicide. No one can have anything but compassion and sympathy for those who are faced with health situations so difficult that they seriously consider suicide. The question is, how can we help and how should we respond to that cry for help? I firmly believe we should give help and comfort, not the financial means to end their lives. According to a Wirthlin poll taken last election day, 87 percent of the American people say tax dollars should not be spent to pay for assisted suicide and euthanasia. Let us listen to our constituents across the country. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today, I will introduce the Tax Freedom Resolution to 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 bill is the first step to do that. It will encourage an open, honest an constructive debate about why our current tax structure has failed and what we expect in a new system. Why do we need to repeal the 16th amendment? Let me tell you. The current system cannot be fixed. It has already undergone 31 major revisions and 400 minor ones in the past 40 years. And each time the system has become more and more complicated, not less. The IRS has 480 different tax forms, plus 280 more to explain how to fill out the first 480. The original Tax Code had 11,400 words; today it has 7 million. Our current system also discourages savings and investment and hampers economic growth. Complying with the Federal Tax Code costs taxpayers more than $200 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 investments to increase. Right now, we have a system that stifles opportunity by picking winners and losers; a system in which Washington decides what is best for the 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 19.90 percent of their income in taxes. New data reveals that in 1995 Americans paid 31.3 percent of their income in taxes: The highest level in history. 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 your pocket. Fundamental and comprehensive tax reform will be one of the most profound changes this Nation experiences this century. 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 one common goal: Replacing the current system. The tax freedom bill gives us the chance to do that and at the same time restore freedom to the American taxpayer.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk lately about Federal judges abusing their power. Federal judges have been ignoring the will of the people by overturning elections and legislating from the bench. Judge Thelton Henderson did just that last year when he disregarded the will of 5 million California voters. He issued an injunction prohibiting the enactment of California's Proposition 209, which passed with 54 percent of the vote in November of 1994. Yesterday a 3-judge appeals panel voted 3-0 to overturn Henderson's ruling and allow the enactment of Proposition 209. The panel said, and I quote, ``A system which permits one judge to block with the stroke of a pen what over four million State residents voted to enact as law tests the integrity of our constitutional democracy.'' I agree and applaud an all-America panel, 3-judge panel, for having the integrity to remind colleagues that they are there to interpret the law and not create it.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the audience. I am outraged though. Today, every day, it is a new story about this President using taxpayer dollars, using the White House and now using classified national security information to raise money for his own reelection campaign. Today's Washington Post reveals that the White House actually gave top secret information to the Democrat National Committee. When I was in the military, if someone failed to safeguard classified information, they were relieved from duty and court-martialed. Maybe it is time to relieve this President from his duties and court-martial him. The White House has put the lives of CIA officers in jeopardy and endangered every American by compromising our national security for Clinton's own political gain. America wants, needs, and deserves to have a leader who protects this Nation instead of exploiting it.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I like those last remarks. Mr. Speaker, I am outraged, also, at the President's lack of leadership in protecting our borders from the invasion of Mexican drug lords. An article in the Dallas Morning News yesterday illustrated the national disaster we now have on the Texas border. Our ranchers, their families, live in constant fear. Their cattle and dogs are being killed by the drug guys. Their houses are being robbed. Recently a Border Patrol guard was gunned down by drug smugglers. These Americans live in a virtual war zone with no relief in sight. Eight months ago our drug czar stood in Texas and announced swift action must be taken. Congress responded by authorizing 1,000 new drug agents in each of the next 5 years. Guess what? Our President only actually implemented 500. It is time for this President to stop paying lip service to a problem that demands attention now. No one in America should be held hostage in their own house. We protect the borders around the world. It is time we started protecting our own.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the voting rights of America's servicemen and servicewomen are being challenged. You know, in 1952, President Harry Truman said, Many of those in uniform are serving overseas or in parts of the country distant from their homes. If they are unable to return to their States, they are unable either to register or to vote. Yet these men and women who are serving their country and, in many cases risking their lives, deserve, above all others, the right to vote in an election year. At a time when these young people are defending our country and its free institutions, the least we can do at home is make sure they are able to enjoy the rights that they are being asked to fight to preserve. Having been in the military, I can personally vouch for the importance of continuing the right of military personnel to vote in Federal, State, and local elections wherever they may be assigned in the world. During my 29 years in the Air Force, I often found myself thousands of miles away from my hometown of Plano, TX, but regardless of whether I was in Asia, Europe, or another far-off place, I was still a citizen of the United States and the State of Texas, and I shared the same interests and concerns as my fellow Texans. Through my years in the military I saw countless acts of sacrifice by members of our Armed Forces to protect and ensure the rights of others less fortunate than us. I cannot imagine coming to a time in our history when someone would take action to deny the right of our servicemen and servicewomen to vote. Unfortunately, that point was reached last November in Val Verde County in southern Texas when the votes of 800 military personnel were questioned in a general election. The margin in the sheriff's election was 257 votes, and for county commissioner it was 113. The Texas Rural Legal Aid has alleged that 800 military absentee ballots were improperly counted, and subsequently U.S. District Judge Fred Biery violated, in my view, the opinion and the will of the people and issued a preliminary injunction to prevent the sheriff and county commissioner from taking office. Texas Rural Legal Aid is a taxpayer funded group that is supposed to provide legal services for the poor. They receive about 80 percent of their funding from the Legal Services Corporation, an organization that is fully funded by U.S. taxpayers. While the Legal Services Corporation's purpose is supposed to provide legal services to the poor, it is frequently embroiled in controversial cases which it works to advance liberal social policies. In fact, in this particular case the Legal Service Corporation efforts have been to the detriment of the poor, who are in need of legal help, but because they are so consumed with the Val Verde case, there is no one to offer legal services for those truly in need. This raises a question: Does the taxpayer funded legal services agency have a political agenda? The lengths to which they are willing to go to make the case was illustrated in a 23-page questionnaire that was sent to all 800 military personnel whose ballots were rejected. They were instructed to return their notarized answers within 3 days. The questionnaire is intrusive and totally out of line. It asked for personal information such as ``What is the address where your spouse sleeps at night?'' and to top it all off, taxpayer money was used again to produce and mail this intrusive questionnaire. The response on Capitol Hill has been overwhelming. On January 6, Senators Gramm and Hutchinson and Representative Bonilla wrote to Attorney General Janet Reno and asked her to intervene on behalf of the military voters. The Department of Justice answered that they cannot act on this until a judgment is rendered. The Senators also received the Legal Service's chairman to investigate the lawsuit and cut off all Federal funds. On February 5, Senators Gramm and Hutchinson introduced the Military Voting Rights Act of 1997. This bill will guarantee the right of all active military personnel, Merchant Marine, and dependents to vote in Federal, State, and local elections. This same bill has been introduced in the House by Henry Bonilla and myself. We are fighting the battle here in Washington, and others are on the frontlines in Texas. A united front will stop this kind of reckless activism from encroaching on the rights of all Americans. I think this ridiculous lawsuit is a blatant challenge to the military's right to vote and sets a dangerous precedent for the denial of basic rights, the power of judges to interfere with valid election results. It used to be standard practice to impeach judges who nullify elections. Maybe it ought to be again.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on February 4, I introduced legislation, along with my colleague Mr. Cardin, that would once again allow businesses to deduct the expenses they incur while responding to legislative proposals that can affect their businesses, their communities, and their livelihood. The bill would simply allow businesses to deduct legitimate business expenses incurred in contacting or working with their State representatives. In 1993, Congress approved the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 which contained a provision that disallowed the deduction of certain business expenses against Federal corporate income taxes. The denial of deductibility of lobbying expenses was proposed as a means of curtailing the activities of special interests here in Washington. Those who advocated this provision made no claim that it was necessary to address any problem at the State level. Instead of solving a problem, the enactment of this provision has created a major problem at the State level. Most businesses, and especially small business owners, can't afford the time to visit personally with their State legislators to discuss the impact of legislation on their businesses. To make sure their voice is heard in the legislative process, they count on trade associations, to which they pay dues. Of course, the dues are generally deductible as an ordinary and customary expense of doing business. The problem under the 1993 change is that the portion of trade association dues attributable to lobbying activities by the trade association is no longer deductible. This creates a major record- keeping headache for the association and the small business owner. The original proposal before the Congress 2 years ago would have applied to local governments as well as State and Federal Government. Fortunately, before it was adopted, it was amended to exclude local government from its coverage. That was a significant improvement. The bill Congressman Cardin and I introduce today will further mitigate the adverse impact of the proposal by exempting State legislatures as well. As a former State legislator, I know well the value of the input of businesses in the deliberations of State legislatures. With small staffs and limited resources, State legislatures make important use of information provided by local economic interests in considering policy proposals. Additionally, State Governors frequently appoint blue ribbon commissions and other advisory groups to recommend legislative solutions to problems. These advisory bodies depend on input from members of the business, professional, and agricultural communities who are knowledgeable about circumstances within the State. The record- keeping requirements and tax penalties associated with the lobbying tax discourages this important participation. Mr. Speaker, we ought not to be making it harder for Americans to participate in the decision-making process in their State capitols. The denial of a deduction of a legitimate business expense incurred to lobby at the State level is an unwarranted intrusion of the Federal Government on the activity of State governments. At a time when we are attempting to return many responsibilities to the State level, it makes no sense for us to impose obstacles on the ability of State legislatures to gather the information they will need to do their jobs. I would ask our colleagues to join us in restoring this deduction at the State level.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am strongly opposed to the President's resolution to make millions of taxpayer dollars available for international organizations to promote abortion, in spite of what they are saying. Frankly, I am disappointed that we are taking the vote on the resolution because of a last-minute compromise in the omnibus appropriations bill. Do you know what, it was a last minute sellout at the expense of the values of the American people. But I am further outraged that the Clinton administration has been doing everything in its power to make sure that the American taxpayer dollars are made available on the international arena for abortions. There are no monetary differences in these two measures. Both bills release funds earlier than previous. The difference is that one prohibits funding to organizations that perform or promote abortions. The other does not. The funds are supposed to be spent on international family planning. I cannot believe that anyone in the administration or any Member of this House, for that matter, would list abortion as a method of family planning. We should know that in 1996 the White House administration rejected a compromise which would have provided even more money for international family planning. Why did they reject it? Because it included pro-life language. I urge this body to stand firm against the funding of abortions overseas and to vote no on this resolution.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. I appreciated Frank. I tell my colleagues, Frank Tejeda and I had a chance to serve in the Texas House together. He was in the House when I was first elected down there, and later elected to the Senate, and I was there with him for the whole 7 years I was in the House. I got to know him, because down there we are not partisan like we are up here. We were bipartisan. We ate and drank together and we made laws together and we got to know each other. And I got to know Frank. I even served on committees with him. When he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, he did not have any opposition. Since that time he has been having to fly through Dallas to get up here, which is where I am from, and I have flown back and forth with him many times. And I want to tell my colleagues that he read the Bible on the airplane, memorized verses, and said that he was going to do what was right for America and what was right in the eyes of the Lord. Frank Tejeda was a marine, and because of that he gave great faith in the strength of our armed services, which I believe in as well, and he and I were on common ground there. The strength of this Nation lies in our strength, in our military strength to form our foreign policy around the world. Frank did that with a vehemence no one else could do. He was a great marine. To Frank, I say, and I think the marines would say, semper fi. Adios amigo.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, due to delayed airline flights, I missed a vote held earlier today to elect the Speaker of the House. Had I been present, I certainly would have voted for the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich].

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we have been uncovering all kinds of information in the committee of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan], as well as on the United States-Russia Commission on POWs/MIAs, of which I am a member, about prisoners being taken to Russia during World War II, the cold war, Korea, and Vietnam. We have yet to resolve that. I think our families are owed that. Members will recall last year we included in the defense authorization bill language which clarified and strengthened the policies and procedures regarding missing service personnel. It was praised by both military and veterans groups. As a matter of fact, it was also praised by the families, who were still alive, of missing members. They are vitally concerned and support this, as we know. Those who support the repeal of these provisions, some of them on the other side, claim it puts undue pressure on our field commanders. Do Members want to know, is it undue pressure to ask a commander to report a missing person in 48 hours? I do not think so. They also claim it is too burdensome to require division or theater commander staffs to handle search and rescue calls. Come on, is it too much to answer our families when they are asking about their missing guys? As a 29-year Air Force veteran who has fought in 2 wars, I want to say this thinking, besides being totally illogical, is potentially devastating to all American military families. One of the most basic standards we live by in this U.S. military is the promise that if while performing your duty you are found missing or taken prisoner, that everything possible will be done to try to find you or free you. This bond of trust was made stronger by the missing person language that was signed into law last year. If we continue to revoke that language now, are we not revoking our promise to our military to take care of our troops who fight to keep this country free? Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to please understand what I am saying. Before going into combat, the service member does not know if they are going to be fully backed up by our Government if they get into trouble. It is a matter of morale. We should not even be debating this issue, in my view. I think we should support our valiant military and support this bill. I thank the gentleman for bringing this to the front.

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

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, why since 1993 have we experienced such a dramatic increase in the use of drugs among our Nation's children, when just a decade ago we were winning that fight? The answer is simple. We now have an administration that has replaced ``Just say no'' with ``Just say nothing.'' The facts speak for themselves. Since 1993, marijuana use among 12- to 13-year-olds has increased 137 percent. This should not be surprising when we look at this administration's priorities. Do Members know that they have over 110,000 IRS agents collecting taxes? That is enough to audit almost every person in the State of Texas. Compare that to 12,000 total drug enforcement and border patrol agents that protect our borders. That is taxes over drugs, 10 to 1. This administration must take responsibility for its failed drug policies and stop this epidemic before it destroys our children's future.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra] is in error. We are trying to get language as the official language of our Government. This English Empowerment Act states English is the official language of the U.S. Government and requires English be used in Government actions, documents, and policies. Despite some of the rhetoric we are hearing today, it is not a radical idea. In fact, more than 80 percent of all Americans support English as the official language. It is about time we acknowledged that one of the most important things we can do to help individuals succeed in America is to encourage them to learn our common language. A recent study of Asian refugees by the State of Texas shows that those individuals who attained proficiency in English earn over 20 times the annual income of those who do not speak English. Learning English will enable immigrants to do what they came here to do: achieve the American dream. We must reverse the failed policies of the 1960's and 1970's. America is a diverse Nation; however, we must bind the strength that comes from America's diversity with our common language. Let us stop dividing Americans and do something to bring them together. Vote for the English Empowerment Act to do this now.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I have to disagree with the gentleman that just spoke. It is a shame, but I tell my colleagues that. The Government has been spending billions of dollars, and I would just like to know, has the Government solved our problems of poverty and dependency? I think not. How many more families are going to be trapped in the current system while we spin our wheels here in Washington, DC. talking about it? Do my colleagues not think that State and local governments, churches and communities can do a better job of caring and providing for our Nation's welfare recipients? Of course they can. As my colleagues know, how many more of our Nation's cities are we going to surrender to poverty and violence before we here in Washington decide to act? Why does Washington continue to promote a welfare system that encourages illegitimacy and discourages parents? Should not Washington encourage work? I think so. I tell my colleagues what this bill is about: compassion, hope and opportunity. It is about people coming together and taking charge of a system that has failed them and every mother and child on welfare. Do we trust Washington, or do we trust the local charities, the churches, community centers, and local government officials? I trust and believe the American people at home will have the answer. Can we not do better than the welfare system that we have in place right now? This strong welfare reform bill ends welfare as we know it. It gives power back to the States, power back to the communities, power back to the people at local communities to solve their own problem. It is a must that we act today to pass this legislation.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, while continuing to fund his pet projects around the world, President Clinton has turned his back on the Nation's fight against drugs. For 3 years this President has made severe staff cuts to drug enforcement agencies, and, of course, drug use among children has skyrocketed. Among 12- and 13-year-olds alone marijuana use has increased 137 percent. One reason is because Mexican drug smugglers have invaded and taken over the Texas border, allowing them to bring marijuana, cocaine, and heroin into our country and to our children at will. Even the President's drug czar admits we have lost control of the border. President Clinton gave $20 billion to bail out Mexico, but now when we need to protect our own citizens against Mexican drug lords he says wait. Mr. Speaker, America's children deserve better.

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas

Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am glad the gentleman approves of the budget amendment, because that is what is good. When the GAO discovered this breach of faith, I was outraged. It was my understanding all trust fund monies were dedicated for seniors and future recipients who worked their entire lives paying for the system. It was President Clinton who, as a payoff to the unions for political support, made union employees equal partners with association managers, and stated that Social Security Administration managers could not correct or question the actions of union employees. What is worse is that while unions take money from the trust fund, they also continue to collect $4.3 million for themselves in union dues, and we have no idea where that money is spent. One more time. The unions collect millions in dues, and still continue to take money away from the trust fund to do work that has nothing to do with providing benefits to our seniors.