Matt Salmon

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to see the introduction of the Burton/Archer/Thomas/Mica/Salmon legislation on medical savings accounts for federal employees. It is certainly time our federal workers have the opportunity to select a medical savings account for their health care. Over the past two years we have enacted landmark legislation that has made the choice of an MSA possible for some American workers and Medicare recipients. Now it is time to extend that option to our federal workers. I have long been a proponent of medical savings accounts. While a state senator in Arizona I sponsored the MSA legislation that was signed into law in 1994. As a member of Congress, I have consistently introduced legislation promoting and expanding MSAs. One of my bills would allow MSAs for federal workers, and two others would ``lift the caps'' on MSAs for all workers and those on Medicare, virtually allowing everyone the freedom to choose a medical savings account. MSAs would empower federal employees to take control of their own health care decisions. With an MSA, workers can choose which physician or specialist they want to see and when to see them. They decide how they want to spend their health care dollars, and what they don't spend they can roll over to the next year. Medical savings accounts would reduce health care inflation for the federal government. Results from the private sector show that companies using MSAs report lower utilization of health care services and reduced high-deductible premiums. This contributes to lower overall health care costs for the United States. MSAs encourage preventive care and ``incentivize'' people to live healthier, so that they do not need expensive medical services in the future. Unlike some insurance plans that have deductibles or copays to meet, the employee's MSA account has money in it to use immediately if they desire routine or preventive care. Because they can roll funds leftover at year-end, an MSA account would offer federal employees the ability to build a fund for future health care needs such as long-term care insurance or nursing home services. The savings accrued in these accounts will also help the federal government by reducing dependence on federal health care programs for assistance. Again, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in on the introduction of this legislation and I urge all members to support the expansion of health care choices for federal employees by cosponsoring Burton/ Archer/Thomas/Mica/Salmon.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, this is a wonderful opportunity for us to reaffirm what we stand for here in this country, whether or not we stand for the ability of Americans, wherever they live, whether it be in this country, whether it be Germany, Italy, wherever, to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience. I have heard my colleagues say that this was not given an adequate hearing. Let me tell them that I serve on the committee dealing with security and cooperation in Eastern Europe. We had a full day of testimony and hearings regarding incident after incident of persecution in Germany of minority religions. I have heard it also referred to as the Scientology bill. Let me tell my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, it is much broader than that. I had folks from the Jehovah's Witness religion, folks from other Christian religions, Muslims, come into my office and tell me some of the horrors that they have had to endure regarding religious persecution in Germany. It is much more than just a taxation issue. When we talk about American citizens being blacklisted or blackballed and boycotted simply because of their religion, not allowed to go abroad and perform simply because of their religious persuasion, that is something that ought to give us great concern. Furthermore, I have heard some of my colleagues on this floor in a whisper, I do not think anybody wants to go forth publicly and say anything this ludicrous, but I have heard some Members say behind the scenes, ``Wait a minute, this is Scientology, they aren't Christian, or they aren't one of the mainstream religions.'' I doubt anybody would say something that foolish in the light of day because frankly, Mr. Speaker, that is what this country began about, it was about religious freedom, religious tolerance. That is why a band of people came to this country initially, so that they could flee religious persecution. If we do not stand for the protection of that, regardless of whether or not it is a minority religion, then we stand for nothing. Let me also point out that virtually every religion, yes, even Christianity, which I am proud to be a believer in, started as a minority religion. From that time on, people were persecuted for their beliefs. Whether they are killed, whether they are blackballed, whether they are thrown out of the country, whatever persecution exists, we have a responsibility in our Government to stand up and be counted. If we cannot do that, if we cannot speak harshly to our allies who are our friends, if we cannot be plain spoken and honest with them, how can we be plain spoken and honest with our enemies? Last week we debated 8 bills decrying China for its violations on human rights. I have heard some say that, ``Gosh, we didn't have any officials from Germany come and testify before our committee. Therefore, how can we give this serious credence?'' I have served on the Committee on International Relations for 3 years and I do not recall a public official from any of the governments that we have done resolutions on ever coming in and testifying before that committee. Frankly, this is all a smoke screen. Let us stand up and be counted. Let us stand for what we profess to believe in, that is, religious tolerance.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I really respect the folks that have gotten up to speak in opposition. I believe that they believe very strongly in their position, and we cannot criticize somebody for speaking their beliefs. That is what this is all about. But I am flabbergasted at those who might suggest that since there is other persecution, religious persecution, going on in the world that we should not start with this. Mr. Speaker, frankly I am pretty appalled to hear that kind of language because there is religious persecution going on in the world, and we have to start somewhere. Here we have an opportunity to stand up and reaffirm what this country is all about, and I am very, very dismayed that some have picked up on this taxation comment. This is simply a sense of Congress. It was one of the examples used of many. We are not asking Germany to change their taxation policies. We would be as offended if they did that to us. We are simply using many, many examples whereby minority religions, again this is much broader than Scientology, are persecuted in Germany. We are asking for them to reaffirm a position, simply to reaffirm their position which their Constitution states, and that is that they endorse religious tolerance in the country of Germany. Yes, they are an ally, and yes we treasure that relationship, but we ought to be able to go to them and tell them the things which trouble us. I was talking with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ney], and he pointed out in the paper this morning that there was a German citizen who was just granted asylum in this country because of religious persecution in Germany. Yes, that is right, granted asylum in this country because of religious persecution in Germany. We have got to do all that we can to stop that. And again, I want to reaffirm it is much more than taxation. That was simply one of the ideas that we enumerated in the many ideas or the many examples of religious intolerance in Germany. Let us get beyond that. Let us read the bill, because it is much broader than that, and let us practice what we preach and stand for religious tolerance across the globe.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for introducing this badly needed piece of legislation. In fact, I do not think I am alone in believing that this alone will probably go further than almost anything else that we have done this week or probably this year. Mr. Rohrabacher made a comment, in fact quoted my favorite scripture from the New Testament, when he said, you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. Unfortunately, in China the truth does not find a way of filtering itself down to the common people on a daily basis. I saw some footage last week when President Jiang Zemin visited these United States about the coverage in China, and it is interesting, because as we know, in watching our media, when Mr. Jiang went from place to place, there were numerous protests regarding various policies, regarding policies regarding Tibet, regarding policies dealing with religious worship, regarding policies dealing with forced abortion. In fact, it was a very mixed bag of reviews. Most of the stops that he made had very, very angry people. But none of that was filtered down to the common citizens in China. They never heard that information. They think everything is hunky-dory and we all love the guy. That kind of information has to get down to the people so they do not give way to despondency, so they can keep some hope, some courage, that freedom is very much alive here in this country and we are still plugging for them. When we continue with MFN, which a majority of Members in this body supported, sometimes I wonder if they get a mixed message, a wrong message. Many of us who support MFN also care deeply about human rights. We don't believe it is OK to turn a deaf ear to the human misery and suffering going on in China. We believe it is time for tough talk. As the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] said, the President made some very tough statements last week, as he should have. That needs to be filtered town to the rank and file. They need to know that we care; they need to know we are with them, that we believe in freedom and that we believe it will happen if we persevere. That is what constructive engagement is all about. Congratulations, Mr. Royce. This bill is going to go a long way to providing truth for the Chinese people.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I think the American people have been treated to a really special opportunity today because we have been able to see Members from virtually across the political spectrum in this place come together on such a crucial issue, to express care and concern about one of the most fundamental rights that we hold, and that is the ability to worship according to the dictates of your conscience and to speak out according to your beliefs. I am really pleased to be here today to support this piece of legislation. The 21-gun salute is over. The state dinner is over. The press events at Independence Hall in Colonial Williamsburg are over. China wanted to achieve a new image in the West as a result of this summit, but Americans had a different plan in mind. Through their protests, they sent a different message to the Chinese leadership. It reminds me of the message that President Reagan delivered to Mikhael Gorbachev in Geneva in 1958. Natan Sharansky tells the story in his wonderful book ``Fear No Evil.'' He says Reagan told Gorbachev that the Soviet Union would not change its image in the world until he let Sharansky go. So it is with China. The photos at the White House or at Harvard will not give China the respect and the superpower status that they seek. Rather, freeing Chinese political prisoners, freeing Wei Jingsheng and Wang Dan, freeing other Chinese who are in prison merely for voicing their opinions or worshiping their God, in sum, only by ending the laogai can the Chinese leadership achieve world respect, status, and, one day, admiration. Until then, we stand not with the Government of China but we stand with the people of China. I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I cannot think of a more worthy project to pursue than a national study on the effects of the Potomac water on the brain, because apparently amnesia is running rampantly through this place. Let me just make a couple of comments. First of all, the gentleman talked about this last week and the idea that there was a lot of race-baiting going on; that whenever the other side, the Democrats, seem to be losing an argument, they always throw out this trump card that purportedly gives them the upper hand, and that is to call us racist when they are losing on the merits of the argument. I found that same thing to happen just the other night when we were about to adjourn and we were trying to get through the work, and that we had scheduled to do yesterday, and they got up and raised the issue several times that we were not concerned about the Jewish Members of this body. It was a very, very special Jewish holiday and it was fast approaching, and they wanted to know why we terrible racists over on the other side, or anti-Semites, would not be more sensitive to the needs of these Members of Congress, when they themselves were moving every time they got a chance to adjourn, knowing full well that it would take up extra time, knowing full well that it would cause those Jewish members of this body to miss or to be late for this holiday. Mr. Speaker, I think it is despicable. We were doing everything that we could to try to get through, and they were pursuing these dilatory tactics time and time and time again, and yet the American public lets them get away with this.

Mr. SALMON. With his own people.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I think it was interesting to note that yesterday, and one does not have to be a math teacher to figure this out. I think my son who is in remedial math in the third grade could figure this one out. If we would have not had all of the dilatory tactics pursued by the Democrats yesterday, the motions to adjourn every time they got a chance to stand up, we would have been done by 12 o'clock. As it stood, because of all of the dilatory tactics that they employed yesterday, we did not finish until, what was it, 3:00 or 3:30?

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, it reminded me painfully of a time in my young life when I had a very, very traumatic experience. I remember when I was a little boy and my brother and his friends were playing in the living room and they broke a very, very special vase that was very, very important to my mother. And, frankly, they framed me for it.

Mr. SALMON. I was the one who got blamed for breaking this vase, and my father came home, and I said, ``Daddy, I didn't do it. I didn't do it.'' Well, he did not believe me because all the evidence seemed to suggest that I was the one that did it, and so I got a spanking. Finally my brother came clean on it. Mr. Speaker, I am just hoping that they come clean some day. Frankly, for them to be doing all of these dilatory tactics and being the reason that all of these Jewish Members were threatened at not being able to participate in their very, very special holiday, which all of us wanted them to do it, and then trying to blame us for it when they are the ones extending the time and playing gamesmanship on the floor, it brought back those painful memories all over again.

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot of people on the other side, and even some who have written letters to the editor, say we are wasting time and we should get on with the business of the people, we should stop this investigation of the White House. My response to them is, do those same people believe that all of the investigation of Watergate was not time well spent? In fact, as despicable and as sad of a time as Watergate was in the history of America, and I believe justice was served there, I do, there were never any allegations at that time of espionage, of treason, of bringing people in and possibly selling secrets to the enemy. If Watergate was bad, then what potentially could these investigations yield? We are talking about very, very important matters and the White House has established a very, very disturbing pattern. Here is how it goes: It is a three-part, three-step pattern. No. 1: ``I unequivocally was not there, did not do it. I did not do it.'' I did not do it. That is in regard to raising money from Buddhist temples or making fundraising phone calls from the White House, which is in strict violation of U.S. law. OK. Then when the facts come out and the Washington Post and other media outlets find out through their investigative techniques that that is not accurate, that you in fact were there, that you in fact did do what you said you did not do, then the next response is, well, I cannot recall. I cannot recall whether I did that or whether I did not do that. Then when the proof is in the pudding and you know exactly that they did what they said they did not do or they cannot recall whether they were there or not, the third response is, well, if I did it, it must have been legal. And there might even have been a fourth response now that Janet Reno is helping them. Well, the law is really kind of a stupid law in the first place. It really should not be on the books. Is that really the kind of people that we want leading our country? People that go through that kind of self-denial?

Mr. SALMON. Buy influence.

Mr. SALMON. No, you do not hear that. In fact, we all have copies of the memo that he sent to the President wherein he told the President that fundraising from Federal property, it was illegal. It is the same for you and I. As freshman Congressmen when we came in 3 years ago, one of the very first things that we were told was do not make fundraising phone calls from your office. It is illegal. How long did the Vice President serve in the Senate before he went into the White House? It gets down to this. I believe that pretty much what I am about to say has been editorialized over and over again, and I will paraphrase, you are down to either one, if indeed as all the evidence shows there were fundraising phone calls from the White House, and that is illegal, you are left with two very painful answers or a choice between two very painful answers. No. 1, there is some crooked behavior going on; No. 2, they are not very intelligent. And it might be a combination of both. I am not sure. But either one is very disturbing. Let me comment, or ask you a question. As to saying I cannot recall, I cannot recall, I cannot recall, have you ever had a speeding ticket or a parking ticket?

Mr. SALMON. I remember I had a speeding ticket. I was going about 10 miles over the speed limit. I remember this was over 12 years ago. It was the last speeding ticket that I got. I remember exactly what day it was. I remember, I am not saying I remember exactly the date but I remember the time of year. I remember my nephews were in the car with me. And I remember being very chagrined because I was trying to set a better example for my nephews and being pulled over. It was a very embarrassing thing. This was 12 years ago that I got this speeding ticket, yet I remember all of the circumstances surrounding that speeding ticket. We are talking about a violation of Federal law, far more important than a speeding ticket or a parking ticket. I think most Americans out there can remember if they have gotten a speeding ticket or parking ticket. They can remember the circumstances, the emotions that they felt. They can remember what they were doing at the time that they received that speeding ticket. Do you think that we should really believe that with the commission of this serious a violation of Federal law that these people cannot recall?

Mr. SALMON. I think you make a really good point. I have been really proud that at least there is one Senator over on the other side, on the Democrat side that seems to be interested. I have been very impressed with Senator Bob Kerrey and his willingness to try to pursue at least truth and justice. I do not believe anybody could accuse us of being partisan hacks or flunkies for the Republican leadership. There probably has not been two more vocal people on the floor in challenging our own leadership and in bucking the tide with our own leadership when we feel that they have gone astray. I think we have earned the right to question whether or not this administration is engaged in an illegal activity. I think you make a really good point. Not one Democrat has stood up and asked for justice to be sought or found in relationship to the alleged illegal fundraising and selling of secrets and possible espionage going on in this White House, not one Democrat has stood up. I challenge them. I will buy whichever one does a steak dinner if they will have the moral courage to stand up and ask that we at least get to the bottom of the truth.

Mr. SALMON. If the gentleman will continue to yield just a few seconds, this situation with Janet Reno is so disturbing: That she cannot get by the fact that she feels she has to protect her boss more than she has to represent Justice or the needs of the American people to get to the truth and to find justice in this matter. I think we should pass a bill on the floor, if she does not appoint a special counsel, to call her the Enabler General instead of the Attorney General. And frankly, just finally, the phrase, ``A day late and a dollar short,'' we are talking about several million dollars here, and, frankly, she has a responsibility, a constitutional responsibility, to get to the bottom of this and to find truth and to find justice.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I have a question about the funding in this for the IRS. Is it true or not true that the funding for the IRS increases by a half a billion?

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, so the overall figure is somewhere over a half a billion?

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. Sadly, we got a bit off track on what we are supposed to be discussing. I would concur with the gentleman from Florida's comments who said that we cannot talk about our men and women in the armed services and the wonderful contributions they make to this country. Mr. Speaker, as I go home each weekend, I meet with constituents, and I talk on talk shows, and I do town hall meetings. The one thing that clearly is communicated to me time and time again is the fact that this body is not very well respected. In fact, some might even say this body is hated and despised. I think it is because hypocrisy flows down the aisles of this body. I think time and time again there are those that speak out of both sides of their mouths. I am not saying there is a corner on that market with either party, but I have to say that the hypocrisy that I am hearing ring so loudly from the other side is very, very confusing and disheartening. In fact, what they do rings so loudly in my ears I cannot hear what they say. In the past there have been TV evangelists who stand up, bully thump on the podium and talk about the ravages and the wrongs associated with immorality and extramarital affairs, and then these same TV evangelists, they patrol the streets looking for ladies of the evening to satisfy their desires, and then they wonder aloud why people have lost confidence in them. And we see the exact same thing happening in this body when we see flagrant violation after violation after violation. And then we have folks on the other side that are trying to play the old bait and switch trick, trying to take the attention from the one nut with the pea under it so that they can pull the old trick on us. Well, let us get down to business and let us make sure that we honor the laws that we have on the books. I wish that the last speaker was just as passionate in calling for the Attorney General to call on a special counsel so that we can get to the bottom of whether or not existing laws have been violated. Again, what they do rings so loudly in my ears I cannot hear what they say. The New York Times editorial says Democrats skim $2 million to aid candidates, records show. Why is it that we are not getting that kind of information from the Justice Department? Why is it that we have to rely on the media? Why have we not got special counsel right now? The fact is the Democrats' call for bans on soft money are blatantly hypocritical. While the Democrats cry wolf, the President is soliciting soft contributions of $250,000 a pop from these fund-raisers that he is having. The Democrats' strategy is simple. Again, it is bait and switch. They are trying to change the subject from illegal fund-raising phone calls of a high ranking official in the White House; from that same official shaking down Buddhist monks. It is time to get with the program. It is time we should understand exactly how existing laws were violated before we cry out for a new law. We have to know all the facts before we move forward. Should we hold those responsible for violating current campaign finance laws and make them accountable for their actions? Otherwise, if we are going to pass a new law and implement that law with a wink and a nod, as we are doing with existing laws, if we do not have then an Attorney General who has the guts and the decency to investigate current laws, why do we want to add more laws to the books? It is irresponsible to blame the system for the mess that they are in. It was deliberate unlawful acts, not the system, that caused them to violate the campaign finance laws that existed in the last election. Their calls for new campaign laws are an attempt again to bait and switch. We want to get the truth out. We all do. Let us work hard to do it, and work hard in a bipartisan way, but let us stop the hypocrisy and walk the walk as well as talking the talk and knock off the hypocritical bait and switch routine that is going on over there.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to be here today. This year has been a very emotional roller coaster for me. I have had my highs and lows. I have been called irreverent. I have been called a rebel. I have been called an agitator. I had an epiphany along the way just a few days ago. As bad as things seem to get sometimes and as slow as things really change, it could have been worse. I could have been here when the other party was in charge. I could have been here when deficits were spiraling. I could have been here when tax cuts not only would never even make it out of committee, they would never even see the light of day. Today, we are passing a substantial tax cut, something that the Democrats have chided and fought against for years and years and years because they believe in government. We believe in people. Today, the American people are the true winners. In spite of the fact that change still does not come fast enough, here we are. And there is a major change in Washington. Government is shrinking and the American people are truly the victors.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, this has been a very tumultuous year, especially for our relations with China. As we go forward and have this debate yet one more time on whether or not we should extend most- favored-nation status with China, Members, look deep inside. I have to say that those who are opposing the most-favored-nation status, people like the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Chris Smith and the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Frank Wolf, to me are heroes by every stretch of the imagination. I have watched them before I came to Congress and since I have been here, and I have been amazed at their ability to articulate passionate beliefs which they care deeply about. There are some, however, not necessarily just within this body but without, as well, who would like to have us believe that this issue is simply cut and dried, that those who support most-favored-nation trading status are profiteers, that they are out there working for the interests of corporate America, and that those who are against it care deeply about human rights and that is the end of the story. In fact, I have heard slogans that say something like profit over substance, or profit over principle. The fact of the matter is, nothing could be further from the truth. When I served a mission for my church in that region of the world in the 1970's, I grew to love the Chinese people. I grew to love them deeply. When I saw the massacre at Tiananmen Square, part of me died that day, because people who cared deeply about freedom, people who cared deeply about their convictions, were wasted away. We want to do something. We want to thump China in the nose. We want to do the right thing. But the answer is not to walk away from this relationship, because if we do nobody will be at the table articulating the things we care about so deeply. It will not be France, Germany, Japan. They will not be there. There will be a big silent spot. Does that mean we have been 100 percent accurate and good in everything we have done in our dealings with China? No. We have not. We should speak up. We should do some things. We crafted a bill which will do that. But the answer is not to throw the baby out with the bath water. The answer is not to walk away from this relationship.

Mr. SALMON

Mr. SALMON. I yield to the gentleman from California.